Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/27/1998 01:50 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 250
"An Act relating to management of game and to the
duties of the commissioner of fish and game."
Representative Kelly MOVED that work draft #0-LS1352\L,
Utermohle, 4/23/98, be the version before the Committee.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the only change was on Page
3, adding the definition of "sustained yield". There being
NO OBJECTION, the work draft was adopted.
SENATOR BERT SHARP spoke to the proposed legislation. He
noted that in 1994, the Legislature passed SB 77,
implementing intensive game management. Since that time,
the Department of Fish and Game and the Board of Game have
had difficulty interpreting and implementing the
legislation.
He pointed out that SB 250 narrows down and defines
legislative findings that provide for high levels of
harvest for human consumption, consistent with the
sustained yield principle. It further states that big game
prey populations should be managed biologically. That
would be accomplished by amending AS 16.05.255(g) and
adding a new definition for sustained yield.
The Board of Game is further instructed to establish
harvest goal and seasons for managing big game prey
populations in order to achieve a high level of human
harvest. To further assist the Board and the Department,
the bill contains definitions of harvestable surplus and
high levels of human harvest. These terms exist in law and
need clearer definition.
Senator Sharp advised that the Board of Game had
definitions proposed for the categories on their agenda at
the January meeting in Bethel and then again at the March
meeting in Fairbanks without coming to a conclusion. The
Department as well as the Board agrees that there is a need
for definitions in this area.
Senator Sharp noted that the committee substitute is a
product of working closely with the game users and the
Department. He urged the Committee's support.
KEVIN SAXBY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE,
acknowledged that most of the Department of Law's concerns
had been addressed in version before the Committee.
KEVIN BROOKS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, noted that Senator
Sharp had worked with the Department in addressing the
legislation. He spoke to Section #3, which addresses the
way in which the Division budgets and accounts for federal
aid dollars. That section stipulates that those funds are
made only to the Division of Sport Fish and Wildlife
Conservation. He discussed that in the Department's
budget, there are approximately $4 million dollars, funds
which other divisions use. From these funds and those from
the Division of Administrative Services, compensation and
administration is paid.
Mr. Brooks pointed out that the legislation would require a
series of amendments to the current budget, moving all the
fish and game funds and federal receipts out of
administration and habitat, and then increasing the inter-
agency receipts. An action which would increase the
overall budget. Mr. Brooks reiterated that the Department
has specific concerns in regards to Section #3 and asked
Committee members to reconsider if portion of the bill was
necessary.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if Section 3 would prohibit or
track the use of funds. Mr. Brooks replied that it was the
Department's impression that all those funds would be
placed into these two divisions, allowing for documentation
for the Reimbursable Services Agreement (RSA) used by other
divisions and requiring inclusion in both places in the
budget. He advised that this is the current situation. He
believed that the proposed action would increase the
Department's budget request by $4 million dollars.
DICK BISHOP, VICE PRESIDENT, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL (AOC),
JUNEAU, noted that AOC strongly supports the bill before
the Committee. He pointed out that 60% of Alaska is
controlled by federal agencies and they generally are not
willing to enhance habitats or populations on their lands.
Thus, management to provide for abundant populations fall
to the State on State and private lands.
Mr. Bishop pointed out that SB 250 would bolster
legislative policy regarding the importance of managing
Alaska's big game populations to provide for their
continuing well being and would benefit people under the
sustained yield principle.
Mr. Bishop added that it is necessary to ensure that the
dollars contributed by hunters and trappers are spent to
benefit the management and uses intended. Section #3 of
the bill would provide a safeguard against that. He added
that the definitions contained within the bill are
consistent with sound game management practices and would
provide benefit to all Alaskans.
Mr. Bishop pointed out that it is mistakenly claimed that
there is an inherent conflict between hunting management
for hunting versus non-consumptive uses. Mr. Bishop
stressed that this is false. It is clear that with sound
management, prey populations can be enhanced, which in turn
makes the ecosystem strong and enhances the survival of
prey, predators and scavengers of all kinds.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if Mr. Bishop could provide
examples of past misuse of the federal funds. Mr. Bishop
replied that there had been transfers in the past to other
divisions within the Department which did not require a
(RSA) at the discretion of the commissioner.
Senator Sharp commented on the Department's trouble with
Section #3 and noted that he had never heard of funds
transferred within the Department as being double counted.
He noted that RSA's leave an audit trail which is good
business practice when transferring money that is highly
restricted, indicating how funds are being used. He noted
that Section #3 would mandate that the funds flow through
the Division of Sport Fish or the Division of Wildlife
Conservation. It places no restriction on legitimate uses.
Representative J. Davies noted that he did not see the
Division of Wildlife Conservation indicated in Section #3.
WAYNE REGELIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, advised that the Division of
Game was changed in 1987 by Governor Cowper to the Division
of Wildlife Conservation. He recommended that language be
corrected in Section #3.
In response to Representative Grussendorf, Senator Sharp
noted that he had had problems when trying to move money
around in the Department of Fish and Games budget. He
reiterated that an audit trail would be helpful in tracking
that budget.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned how this system would work
since RSA's were not reflected in the budget. Senator
Sharp recommended that by adding an effective date of July
1, 1999, would dovetail with next year's budget.
Representative Mulder asked if the Department supported the
bill. Mr. Regelin replied that the Department did not
support Section #3 of the bill, however, had reached
agreement with the remaining portions.
Representative J. Davies advised that he had a problem with
the definition of "sustained yield" in the bill. He
referenced Page 3, Line 5, language "high level of". He
believed that referred to intensive management of game.
Intensive management is defined on Page 2, Lines 18-19, "to
enhance, extend, and develop the population to maintain
high levels". He recommended omitting the words "a high
level of" on Page 3, so that "sustained yield" would refer
only to the ability to maintain. Representative J. Davies
suggested that the definition "intensive management"
consistent with "sustained yield".
Mr. Regelin replied that the intensive management law was
written in 1994, and that the legislation does not include
all of that law, only the new changes. He believed that
the Department could work with the definition of "sustained
yield".
Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Amendment #1 to Page
2, Line 6 and Line 9, deleting "game" and inserting
"wildlife conservation". There being NO OBJECTION, it was
adopted.
Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Amendment #2, which
would add an effective date to Section #3 of July 1, 1999.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to adopt Amendment #3, Page
2, Line 19, deleting "for" and inserting "consistent with"
and Page 3, Line 3, to delete "a high level of".
Representative Kelly OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion.
Representative J. Davies explained that the two sections
worked together more fluidly if the language were amended
without changing the intent of the bill. Senator Sharp
responded that Amendment #3, when analyzed in context of
intensive management legislation would break the linkage
with the board of game. The board still has the ability to
determine which gaming populations will be identified and
subject to intensive management. He believed that that the
bill should keep the language "a high level of" because it
would continue to be a selection, identified by the board,
for high-level yield harvest.
(Tape Change HFC 98- 127, Side 2).
Representative J. Davies referenced the findings language
which indicates that high use would be provided for, by
implying to always be "mindful, of the need, not to
diminish the resource". He believed that the deletion of
language on Page 3 would not change the intent, but rather
would inter-relate the terms in a more consistent way.
Representative Mulder MOVED to divide Amendment #3.
Representative J. Davies stated that the amendment on Page
2 would be mute without the amendment on Page 3.
Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Amendment #3a. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Kelly maintained his OBJECTION to Amendment
Representative J. Davies asked if the proposed change was
made to Page 3, would the definition of "sustained yield"
be more consistent with the traditional definition.
Mr. Saxby replied that the framers of the Article 8
principle intended a much broader definition of "sustained
yield" then any of the "then" current definitions applied
by the U.S. Forest Service. They intended to have the
Legislature enact laws that preserved a great deal of
freedom for future application of sustained yield
management. He noted that he was reluctant to say that
there was any traditional definition of sustained yield
mandated by the Constitution. The Legislature is permitted
to "set the bar" where they want too.
Mr. Regelin added that in the wildlife management
textbooks, there is no definition of "sustained yield",
although, there is written language addressing the
principle. Definition #4 defines the "high level of human
harvest" which is based on the biological capabilities of
the population considering hunter demand. He believed that
this is a matter which the Department and the board of game
could work with. Representative J. Davies understood that
"sustained yield" meant a non-diminishment with a periodic
yield.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
IN FAVOR: J. Davies, Grussendorf
OPPOSED: Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, G. Davis,
Foster, Therriault
Representatives Moses and Hanley were not present for the
vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-7).
JOHN SCOEN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF AUDORBON SOCIETY, ANCHORAGE, testified in
opposition to the proposed legislation. He pointed out
that the bill defines "high harvest levels" as the highest
and best use of big game. He noted concern that the bill
would require the Department to manage every big game
population in the State to meet the high harvest level
whether or not there is a demand for that harvest. He
believed that the bill would not serve broad public
interest in management of resources and that hunting is an
important activity, and there must be management
conservation when dealing with these resources.
Representative Grussendorf asked which problems in the
legislation had not yet been addressed. Mr. Saxby
responded that a primary problem would exist by adopting
any statutory definition of "sustained yield", which would
invite the Alaska Supreme Court to refine it for us. In
Title 38 and 41, there are statutory definitions of
"sustained yield" which relate to forest management. In
the one instance that the Alaska Supreme Court has had to
examine that definition, it was narrowed from what the
Legislature had adopted. As soon as a definition of a term
used in the Constitution is created, then the Legislature
comes before the Supreme Court's turf. He stressed that
definition of these terms should be largely left to the day
to day managers. He emphasized that the current version
before the Committee has addressed a number of concerns
which would have caused the Department of Law to recommend
the Governor veto the sustained yield issue.
Representative Kelly MOVED to report HCS CS SB 250 (FIN)
out of Committee with individual recommendations and with
the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was adopted.
HCS CS SB 250 (FIN) out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Department of
Fish and Game.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|