Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 124
03/23/2005 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB192 | |
| HB174 | |
| HB37 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 192 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 37-PUBLIC ACCESS TO FISHING STREAMS 9:32:21 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 37, "An Act relating to public access to fishing streams." 9:32:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 37 as bill sponsor. He explained that the bill is an attempt to ensure public access to stream bank lands. There are a number of streams in Alaska where people hike and fish with the assumption that the land is public, but it's actually privately owned, he pointed out. He stated, "There's a fear among some in the fishing community that while today things are fine, [in the future] as these lands get developed, people won't have access to their trout streams and steelhead streams and salmon streams any more." He opined that the state has generally done a very good job at maintaining public access to fishing streams; since the 1980s the state has been required to maintain public access to and along fishing streams when it gives away land. However, prior to this requirement, there were a number of federal land transfers to private parties where no public access was reserved. He explained that under HB 37, ADF&G would identify certain areas where the public would benefit from public access to fishing streams, and the resulting list would "create public discussion about whether or not we should ever negotiate to try and get some of these lands back into public ownership, or get public easements back." 9:35:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARA emphasized: The land trades or land purchases could only occur with a willing, voluntary landowner who wanted to engage in a land trade or land sale. ... There's nothing about this bill that gives the state the power to take anything from anybody; it's just a voluntary program, and really the list is created in a way to create public discussion so we can get some of these stream bank lands back into public ownership before they're developed. REPRESENTATIVE GARA presented a few examples of streams and rivers where the public fish on private lands. He pointed out that the Anchor River on the Kenai River is a highly valued steelhead and salmon stream, and much of it is privately owned but hasn't been developed yet. There are many privately owned fishing streams along the Parks Highway as well. He stated that the streams haven't been developed much yet, but "one of these days [they] will be and the public will lose access to them." Therefore, he said: That's the motivation behind the bill: it's to keep this quality of life we have here where we're able to access the outdoors, and use the outdoors, and enjoy the outdoors in a way where, in other states, many of the prized fishing streams you have to pay for access, sometimes thousands of dollars a week to a rancher or to a lodge owner to access a fishing stream. We just want to make sure that doesn't become the case here. 9:37:26 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked, regarding the specific pieces of land that had been mentioned in the presentation, what was the reaction of the owners of these properties. REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that the landowners have not been contacted; "if they decide they don't want to trade or they don't want to sell, they just won't." He mentioned that a property owner on Deep Creek has expressed an interest in selling her property to the state. 9:38:28 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if there was a fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded that there was a zero fiscal note from ADF&G because it can do this as part of its current duties. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would have to do appraisals and land surveys, and therefore they have a $40,000 fiscal note. 9:39:17 AM CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if the bill would be continuous, with no sunset date. REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that ADF&G would put together a list of streams and the state would decide if and when to trade or buy the land on the list. The ADF&G could add to the list, but "if at some point the state decides [that it is] not going to buy or trade for anymore land, the list probably won't change anymore and it will just remain there. 9:39:58 AM CO-CHAIR THOMAS turned to page 3, line 24, and voiced concern about the need to allow for an appeal. REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that an appeal process was left out of the bill because "we'd like [ADF&G] to come up with a list of sort of high value areas that we'd like to get public access back on. We can do that in a very easy way and say, 'Look you have the expertise within your agencies and within DNR to know what those areas are now' take public testimony, get some public comment, and that's provided for in the bill, and then just come up with a list. Or we could impose very specific standards on which lands they would have to pick, and if we did that and had an appeals process that required more formal studies to determine which lands would end up on the list, I think it would just become very expensive and so I tried to avoid any sort of formal process that would impose the expense of appeal, that would impose the expense of studies, that ... ok the expense of staff. The bill as it is written right now is pretty informal 9:41:38 AM CO-CHAIR THOMAS turned to page 4, line 12 and voiced concern that the state would take over the private property for a very low price. REPRESENTATIVE GARA answered that the intention of the bill was "to do the exact opposite," and give the state the ability to offer more than the fair market value for property. He mentioned that he would be willing to take this part out of the bill if the committee so wished. He also noted, "There can never be a land purchase under this bill unless the private property owner wants to sell it." 9:43:09 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER commented that the Bethel region is all federal land and native allotments, and she stated, "I'm worried about the regions of the state where the rivers abut state land or private land, and then the access of subsistence users." REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked that there is already public access to federal lands and so this bill would have no impact on those. He continued: The intent is to allow public access for all Alaskans, whether it's subsistence users, sport fish users, other recreational users, [or] commercial users; it's to maintain public access so all Alaskans can enjoy the public resource. ... This bill actually doesn't change the law anywhere or have any impact except that it allows the state to try and engage in voluntary land trades and purchases to get some more public access with a willing property owner. 9:44:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to Representative Kapsner, reiterated that the state would only buy land from landowners who wish to sell. 9:45:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how the state would deal with the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land near Wrangell. REPRESENTATIVE GARA replied that when the state retained easements and public access to streams when it transferred lands to the Mental Health Trust. 9:46:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated concern about the list because local residents may not want others to know the locations of the nearby fishing streams. REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded, "It's the conflict between trying to protect an area and not wanting to talk about it." He noted that the areas Representative Wilson referred to are probably already publicly accessible and therefore wouldn't end up on the list. He continued: We're trying to keep the list very small, [naming only] the highest priority lands ... where the public doesn't have access, and so we said roughly ... two miles' worth of land should be on the list, so they probably wouldn't get into an area like [Representative Wilson is] talking about anyway. ... But I don't know how to get public access to a stream without mentioning it. ... The list isn't a list of places that are great places to fish; it's a list of places where there's no public access. 9:48:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE SALMON remarked that this bill would be bad for his district. He expressed concern that if "[the state wants] that land they'll get it, no matter how.... If they want to get it, they'll get it. ... Privately dealing with [the state] is not good for the public to begin with." He opined that the state should have allowed for public access to begin with. He commented that he viewed the bill as an attempt to expand Anchorage, because "Anchorage is in kind of a little fishbowl area and now [Anchorage residents] want more room to play, and if they should play, then they should pay." 9:51:12 AM BOB CHURCHILL, President, Alaska Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers (FFF), testified in favor of HB 37. He commented that he understood the concern regarding the possible influx of people to areas, but he stated that he didn't think this would happen because travel is very expensive in Alaska. He did express concern that if land passes into private ownership and then "gets locked up," then average Alaskans can no longer use those streams. He said: There may be a belief that you're going to get inundated in areas outside of the population centers; [however] I think [that HB 37] is far more advantageous to those that live in those areas now, that they can continue to have access. I see the land being bought by folks from out of state, and those of us that live here and pay our taxes and raise our children are going to be the very ones excluded if we don't start moving to ensure we continue to have public access to these waterways. MR. CHURCHILL noted that there was an effort on the Kenai Peninsula about 4-5 years ago where the landowners voluntarily [sold stream access to the state]. 9:53:50 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony. [HB 37 was held over].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|