Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/05/1995 08:44 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 48 - KENAI PENINSULA SUBSISTENCE PROPOSAL Number 163 REPRESENTATIVE MIKE NAVARRE, PRIME SPONSOR, stated HJR 48 speaks specifically to the proposed subsistence hunt on the Kenai Peninsula and asks the Federal Subsistence Board (FSB) not to adopt the proposal because it is a very divisive issue. He said he has worked with interested groups to try and draft language which will accomplish their concerns. He pointed out on page 2, beginning on line 20, the Further Resolved asks the FSB not to adopt any future federal regulations which would grant subsistence preferences for fish and game until January 1, 1997, unless the regulations are concurred in by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE noted the reason that caveat was included was in recognition that Alaska is a large and diverse state and there are some areas which may have to be addressed or else some of the existing regulations may have to be modified. He told committee members it is the Administration's position to not add any more fuel to the fire and would probably not concur in regulations that would be divisive or further inflame the issue. The Administration is interested in trying to get a resolution to the issue. REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE stated the Further Resolved on page 2, line 24, asks that the FSB not change any of the customary and traditional use determinations specific to the Kenai Peninsula. He said there was a request to change that to Alaskan communities in federal regulations until 1997. He passed out a new proposed work draft committee substitute, version K, which broadens those areas from being specific to the Kenai Peninsula to addressing the concern with subsistence regulations on a statewide basis. The language asks for a cooling off period until January 1, 1997, with the hope that Alaska's Congressional Delegation, the legislature, Governor Knowles and his Administration, and all interested Alaskans can have an opportunity to seek a consensus and compromise in order to come to a resolution on the issue. REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE said some of his rural colleagues are not entirely comfortable with some of the language in the bill because they feel they may be better off under federal management. He stressed that feeling should be a legitimate and critical concern for the legislature. He pointed out there should be an attempt made to draft something which will allow both his colleagues and other Alaskans to be comfortable with state management. He felt that is what the goal should be. He stressed the issue should be decided in Alaska. Alaskan politicians should win or lose elections over issues determined in Alaska and decisions made by Alaskans, for Alaskans. REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE stated the subsistence issue will never go away as it is a very controversial issue. However, his hope is that the battle can be brought back to Alaska and fought amongst Alaskans rather than trying to leave it as it is now in the federal courts. There are many reasons why the Native and rural interests are currently desirous of leaving management in federal hands, including the fact that many of the definitions have not yet been decided in court. As seen in the last 15 years, every time a court issue is decided, the subsistence issue bounces back and forth and every time someone on either side feels they have some kind of advantage, they try to exploit it to the largest degree possible and extrapolate out the conclusion most favorable to them, ignoring the possibility that the pendulum will swing back. REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE hoped HJR 48 will serve to unite the legislature and Alaskans rather than divide them. Number 252 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHJR 48(RES), version F. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN OBJECTED. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN WITHDREW his OBJECTION. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the FSB has been creating additional conflicts with subsistence hunting and fishing and dividing the residents of the state since they assumed management of subsistence. He stated it appears the sponsor of HJR 48 is in favor of federal law only if it does not apply to his area. He wondered why the resolution puts so much emphasis on the Kenai Peninsula. REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE stated the resolution was originally addressed specifically to the Kenai Peninsula because at the current time, the Kenai Peninsula is a hot bed, it is divisive, and there is a lot of controversy, unrest, and misunderstanding. He noted that is also true statewide, which is why the committee substitute reflects a change in the title and on page 2, beginning on line 20. The FSB is asked not to adopt future regulations which would grant subsistence preferences until January 1, 1997, in recognition that while the big part of the focus currently is on the Kenai Peninsula because of the proposed regulations, there is a lot of concern and it is an issue which permeates every single square inch of the state. Therefore, the resolution was broadened to allow for the inclusion of the entire state. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN felt that was meritorious. He said no matter which side you may fall on, the concept of cooling down and trying to resolve the issue instead of continuing to inflame it by taking a position on one side or the other is going to be best for the state. REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS said as a co-sponsor of the resolution, he felt the proposal faced on the Kenai Peninsula was the vehicle for the resolution as an example of the divisiveness and the aggravation the subsistence issue is causing. He stated the resolution does not simply address the Kenai Peninsula as far as its request. Rather, the resolution is using the Kenai Peninsula as the vehicle and as the example. REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE added that the FSB is meeting on the Kenai Peninsula and it is hoped the resolution can be used in comments to the board with respect specifically to the Kenai issue as well as in the broader perspective statewide. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered why the first Resolved addresses moose on the Kenai Peninsula but moose are not mentioned in the second Resolved. REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE responded the first Resolved is an attempt to draft language specific to the proposal now on the Kenai Peninsula. He said the second Resolved broadens it and says any regulations that would grant subsistence preferences. The second Resolved is designed to try and provide an opportunity to seek a consensus and compromise on the issue statewide. He stated he is not sure that a consensus and compromise is possible but he is hopeful an attempt will be made. He hoped the end result would be a resolution that may not make everyone happy but will achieve the goal of bringing management of fish and game resources on all lands in Alaska back to Alaskans. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted the discussion on the resolution was taking much longer than expected. He felt the resolution would need to be taken up again at a later date. REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE said he would spend some time talking with Representative Ogan while other testimony is being taken, to determine whether or not his concerns can be addressed. He stated not a lot of time remains before adjournment and he would like to see the resolution passed if possible. Number 350 EDDIE GRASSER, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL (AOC), stated AOC is generally supportive of the resolution. However, AOC has some concerns. He stated he attended the FSB hearing in Anchorage a couple of weeks ago and there are other problems, in addition to the Kenai Peninsula, which have crept up because of the board's action. He noted the Kenai Peninsula is more volatile than other areas at this time. MR. GRASSER stated AOC suggests amending HJR 48 on page 2, line 26, deleting the words "Kenai Peninsula" and inserting "Alaskan". He said AOC would like to see the resolution as broad as possible. He added there is an understanding of the concerns regarding the Kenai Peninsula and other areas of the state where regulations were passed. He pointed out there are good examples of problems with federal management. He gave several examples. MR. GRASSER stated the true problem is the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA). The state can change its Constitution but it will not eliminate federal management. If the state had changed its Constitution several years ago, the state would still have federal management by the courts currently and would be doing the exact same thing on the Kenai Peninsula which the FSB just did. He noted these are problems AOC pointed out 15 years ago when ANILCA was being drafted. He stressed ANILCA needs to be changed. REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE commented the problem is partially with ANILCA but is also with a lack of understanding statewide of what the terms in ANILCA mean and what subsistence means. He said he does not oppose taking out the language suggested but he wonders if the caveat should be put in the resolution saying that unless the regulations are concurred in by the ADF&G. He asked if that would be acceptable. MR. GRASSER responded AOC does not have any problem with that caveat. He agreed the definitions in ANILCA are not clear. He noted he did not say ANILCA should be removed, but rather stated the problems inherited are in ANILCA. He stated preference is a problem with the state's Constitution and changing the state's Constitution to accommodate that level of preference is not going to remove federal management. Number 423 REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE clarified the best way to achieve both the changes in ANILCA and regain control is to try and seek some sort of compromise or consensus which will accomplish both of those. MR. GRASSER agreed. He noted no side is going to get what they want. He felt the opportunity for reaching a consensus or compromise has perhaps passed by because of the way the federal system is working and the alliance the subsistence community is forming with the federal bureaucracy. He did not think the state could offer any solutions which would draw the subsistence community to the table to discuss a compromise position on the issue. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the House Resources Committee would stand in recess until 9:00 a.m. Saturday, May 6.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|