Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/05/2000 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
HOUSE BILL NO. 349
"An Act relating to powers of the Board of Game, means
of access for hunting, trapping, and fishing, the
definition of 'means' and 'methods,' and hunting safety
education and game conservation education programs;
relating to the purposes of game refuges, fish and game
critical habitat areas, and public use areas."
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with proposed committee
substitute, work draft 1-LS1405\ Utermohle, 4/4/00 (copy on
file).
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT observed that
a proposed committee substitute was created to address
concerns expressed during the 3/29/00 House Finance
Committee meeting. He reviewed the committee substitute.
Sections 1 and 2 deleted "enhancement" and inserted "and
maintenance" in a number of places. The change addressed
concern that the department may be expected to increase new
populations whether than maintain healthy populations.
Page 3, section 4 addressed concerns by the Department of
Fish and Game that the definition of means and methods did
not cover all current practices. Language was modified to
add "substances" and the "use of" to allow the use of a tool
or substance. The sponsor and the Board of Game's attorney
worked on the amendment.
Representative J. Davies questioned if it could be read to
be redundant. He questioned if the language would address
the manner in which the tools are used.
Mr. Tibbles stressed that the intention is to include means,
tools, implements, devices and the use of substances. He
observed that the use of a substance would include poison to
trap or bait.
Language was added in line 31, page 3: "consistent with (1)
of this section". The addition addresses the concern that
the protection of traditional use of fish and game not be
elevated to the same level protection, enhancement and
preservation of the fish and game habitat. Subsection (1)
would be the ultimate goal or the purpose of a state
wildlife refuge. Subsection (2) would remain a purpose, but
it must remain consistent with subsection (1).
Subsection (3): "perpetuate and enhance general public
recreation in a quality environment" was deleted.
Sections 7, 8, and 9 address the ability of the department
to work with municipalities and private non-profits to
develop hunting safety education and wildlife conservation
education programs. Currently, private non-profits are
required to establish programs for the primary purpose of
preserving hunting, fishing and trapping. The department
testified that they would read the wildlife conservation
education programs broadly. The Potters Marsh viewing center
was referenced. He observed that organizations engaged in
wildlife conservation education programs might not be
created for the primary purpose of preserving hunting,
fishing and trapping. The intent is to not exclude these
organizations.
Sections 10 through 15 deal with public use areas. The word
"preserve" was deleted and replaced with "maintain" in each
of the sections. The change addressed the concern that
public use areas would be more like refuges.
EDDIE GRASSER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MASEK provided
information on the committee substitute. He explained that
legal counsel for the Board of Game stated that the language
would cover most of the contingencies that the Board would
have to address under section 4. He stressed that the intent
is that the use of tools would also be included.
Representative J. Davies questioned if Mr. Grasser would
object to the insertion of "manner of" in front of "use".
Mr. Grasser stated that he would not object to the change.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned why is the section of means and
methods needed in the definition. Mr. Grasser stated that
the section was inserted as the result of a regulation by
the Board of Game requiring bones to be packed out of the
field. He stressed that statutes clearly state that bones
are not part of the edible portion of an animal that would
need to be packed out.
Co-Chair Mulder observed that they are working hard at a
definition that may work and questioned if it would not be
better to address the particular concern. Mr. Grasser noted
that there is no definition of the terms and expressed
concern that the Board of Game has used this as a loophole.
Representative J. Davies agreed that it would be simpler to
state that bones were not included in items that would be
packed out.
Mr. Grasser referred to deletion of section 6, subsection
(3). The language was removed to avoid confusion.
Mr. Tibbles noted that the department would not be able to
preclude kayaks from nesting grounds if the language were
included.
Representative J. Davies pointed out that the problem was
addressed with the inclusion of "consistent with", which
modified subsection (3).
Mr. Grasser stated that they would not object to its
insertion.
WAYNE REGELIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME provided information on the
committee substitute. He noted that the proposed committee
substitute resolved concerns with one exception. Section 3
gives local advisory committees veto authority over actions
of the Board of Game. He pointed out that they are advisory
committees. There are over 80 advisory committees. They
sometimes share jurisdiction. He noted that the Board of
Game has a though process and rarely closes down access.
Representative J. Davies stated that he also had concerns on
the issue.
Vice Chair Bunde questioned how the change from "enhance" to
"maintain" relates to sustained yield. Mr. Regelin did not
think the change would have an effect.
Vice Chair Bunde asked for more information on the language
on page 3, line 26. Mr. Regelin explained that the language
would not cause problems for the Board or department.
Vice Chair Bunde referred to page 4, line 18 "with other
organizations". Mr. Regelin stressed that the department
attempts to cooperate with all private groups to have joint
programs, but didn't want to have a mandate. Mr. Grasser
explained that 4H organizations would be able to participate
if the legislature chose to do a pass through grant and the
department chose to assist them. The language is permissive,
not mandatory. The grants are subject to legislative
appropriation. Municipalities and private non-profits that
are setup to preserve hunting, fishing and trapping would
only be allowed to participate in wildlife conservation
education programs; they would not be allowed to participate
in hunter training programs.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 103, SIDE 1)
Mr. Grasser expressed trust that the legislature would not
allow money to be funneled to anti-hunting groups to attack
hunting and conservation education programs. The legislature
can appropriate to individual pass through grants. Mr.
Regelin stated that the language would provide that the
primary purpose must be to preserve hunting, fishing and
trapping. Vice Chair Bunde emphasized that there are no
"side boards" on other organizations.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the legislation states:
hunting safety education not hunting, safety, education.
Vice Chair Bunde pointed out that education could be in
favor of or against hunting.
Representative J. Davies noted that there are wildlife
conservation programs that would not be pro or anti-hunting.
Mr. Regelin observed that 4H doesn't have as its primary
purpose hunting, trapping or fishing, but that they have a
strong program that the department would like to support.
Mr. Grasser did not think that the legislature had
appropriated funding for any of the programs in the recent
years. The legislation provides a mechanism to work with
organizations, but the organizations would need to work with
the department and the legislature.
NANCY WELCH, LAND MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
expressed concerns with language being deleted on page 5,
line 31. She felt that the reordering would tip the multiple
use scales toward the Department of Fish and Game. She noted
that the Susitna Area Plan is deleted from the provision.
The Susitna Area Plan is the basis the department uses for
decision making. She stressed that the Susitna Area Plan
contains provisions for its modification.
Representative J. Davies MOVED Amendment 1: delete language
on page 3, lines 7 - 9; insert "specifically authorized by a
regulation adopted by the Board of Fisheries of the Board of
Game, provided that the local fish and game advisory
committee with jurisdiction over the area where the
regulation would apply has been notified in writing of the
proposed regulation". The amendment would address concerns
of the advisory committee. This would remove the absolute
veto power of the advisory committee.
Mr. Grasser observed that there would not be a need for the
subsection as amended. The advisory committees are already
notified. He maintained that subsection 2 only places a
higher standard on the Board for actions reducing public
access. He gave examples of previous Board actions.
Co-Chair Mulder asked about circumstances where a local
advisory committee tends to be dominated by commercial
fishermen. He observed that such a Board could attempt to
maintain their level of take at the expense of non-resident
sport fishermen. He asked how the regulation would apply to
such a situation. Mr. Grasser replied that the Board could
act regardless of subsection (2). He noted that the
recommendations of one advisory committee would not be
enacted if there were a conflict with another advisory
committee.
Representative Grussendorf observed that Board of Fish
members are under a lot of scrutiny and pressure to make the
best decisions. He pointed out that people in local areas
(advisory committees) have a lot of self-interests in mind.
That interest may not be in the best idea of management and
cause problems with sustained yield. He stressed that the
Advisory Committees cannot be allowed to make the final
decisions.
Co-Chair Therriault stated that subsections 3, 4, 5 & 6
would stand by themselves. He did not think that subsection
2 would provide veto over actions that the Board (of Fish)
has taken under the other provisions. Representative J.
Davies disagreed. Vice Chair Bunde asked how many advisory
committees are in the state. Mr. Grasser replied that there
are 84 advisory committees. Vice Chair Bunde suggested that
the subsection would give power to the advisory committees
and in affect create multiple game boards in the State. He
expressed concern that the local advisory committees would
not have a statewide perspective.
Mr. Tibbles noted that he spoke with the drafter of the
bill. He explained that subsection 2 would only apply in
the absence of any of the other provisions. The subsection
would encourage the Board to use the other provisions and
justify why they are restricting access.
Representative Phillips felt uncomfortable with the
inclusion of subsection 2. She pointed out that the advisory
committees do not have legislative oversight.
Mr. Grasser argued that allowing advisory committees to have
veto power is not a new concept. He maintained that each
advisory committee would have an opportunity to object to
provisions of the Board of Game affecting their unit.
Representative J. Davies pointed out that there are many
people that hunt and fish outside of their own areas. Mr.
Grasser explained how the process works. The Board of Fish
or Game would have to create a special use area with access
restrictions. Regulations are promulgated and they are
published for public review before the meeting takes place.
Then the Board makes the decision. Then the Advisory
Committee can take action.
Representative J. Davies stressed that then the advisory
committee would have a veto. Co-Chair Mulder stated that
the access would not be restricted.
Representative Grussendorf could not imagine the Board of
Fish and Game making a decision without a rational reason
for the decision. He maintained that action of the Board of
Game would be supported with data and biological studies.
He argued it would not be a good idea to give veto power to
the advisory committees.
Vice Chair Bunde observed that the Board of Game could
decide to eliminate a controlled use area and let more
people in; the local advisory committee could decide to
retain restrictions. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that
the traditional means of access may not be restricted. Vice
Chair Bunde clarified that once an area has been restricted
that the provision would not apply.
Mr. Regelin agreed with Vice Chair Bunde's conclusion. He
stated that he has not seen a board of game close an area
without a good reason. He spoke against providing veto
power to advisory committees.
Representative J. Davies asked how many advisory committees
have jurisdiction in an area. Mr. Regelin replied usually
one, in some areas it is five or six and is determined
through the regulatory process.
Representative Grussendorf reiterated that a Board would not
make a decision without supporting documentation. He pointed
out that advisory committees would overlap in regards to the
Board of Fish.
Mr. Grasser acknowledged concerns. He referred to issues in
Noatak. He pointed out that there are some access
restrictions that were not implemented for public safety or
conservation issues. He maintained that there are very few
places left where people can use different forms of access.
The intent is to protect areas like the Nelchina Basin.
Vice Chair Bunde noted that he served on an advisory
committee and observed that they can be politicized.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
1.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Phillips, Bunde
OPPOSED: Davis, Therriault, Mulder
Representatives Foster, Moses, Williams, Austerman were
absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-3).
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2:
delete section 2. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3: insert
"manner of" before "use" on page 3 line 25. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4: delete
subsection (f) beginning on page 5, line 31, [PERPETUATE AND
ENHANCE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC USES DESCRIBED IN THE SUSITNA AREA
PLAN].
Mr. Grasser argued against the amendment.
Representative G. Davis observed that the area plans are
required under the designation of the land use in the area.
He expressed concern with the deletion of the Susitna Area
Plan.
Mr. Grasser pointed out that the Susitna Area Plan also has
within its confines suggestions of uses such as parks. He
maintained that the Recreation River Plan reduced any need
for the Susitna Area Plan.
Representative J. Davies spoke in support of the amendment.
CAROL CARROLL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SUPPORT SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES observed that deletion of
the Susitna Area Plan would take away something that the
department uses to settle contradictory uses.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 103, SIDE 2)
Ms. Carroll explained that the nature of the public use area
is not changed. The guidance is removed.
Representative Phillips pointed out that the plan would
remain and that the department can still go to it for
guidance.
Representative J. Davies stressed that the language provides
a link.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
4.
IN FAVOR: Davis, Grussendorf, Phillips, Davies
OPPOSED: Foster, Bunde, Mulder, Therriault
Representatives Moses, Austerman and Davis were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-4).
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5 delete
sections 15 - 19. These sections address the Goldstream
Public Use Area. The deletion would leave the existing
statutory language in place. He stressed that the multi-use
trail has been protected by the existing plan. He added that
the first purpose is to enhance recreation. There is a large
area that encompasses mining. He noted that fish and
wildlife protection is the second priority. He expressed
concern that the legislation would impact existing mining.
He emphasized that there is not a problem.
Co-Chair Mulder agreed with comments by Representative J.
Davies. He stressed that the change does not include or
exclude anything. He concluded that the Goldstream Public
Use Area was only included for consistency with other public
use areas.
Co-Chair Therriault stated that without a compelling reason
to maintain the language that he would support the
amendment.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 5 was adopted.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that there is a zero fiscal note.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 349 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 349 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with a zero fiscal note by the
Department of Natural Resources.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|