Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/06/1995 09:07 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 REPRESENTATIVE MIKE NAVARRE, PRIME SPONSOR, told committee members a work draft committee substitute, version K, was drafted to incorporate changes discussed at the meeting the prior day. He stated on page 2, the second Resolved was changed to include that the customary and traditional use determinations not be changed on a statewide basis until January 1, 1997. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHJR 48(RES), version K. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. Number 080 EDDIE GRASSER, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL (AOC), stated the change addresses AOC's concerns about the customary and traditional use process the Federal Subsistence Board (FSB) adopted and the direction the board was taking at this time. AOC agrees there has to be a period of time for Alaskans to come to a resolution to the subsistence issue and the process the FSB is pursuing will be detrimental to that process. He said the key to the resolution is the Resolved clauses. ROB BOSWORTH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SUBSISTENCE, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (ADF&G), stated the department supports HJR 48. He said the resolution provides an opportunity for Alaskans to discuss the subsistence issue further. (Representatives KOTT and G. DAVIS joined the committee.) Number 122 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN made a MOTION to AMEND CSHJR 48(RES) on page 1, line 7, following the word "Peninsula", insert "and the State of Alaska". REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED for discussion purposes. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN felt if the resolution is good for the Kenai Peninsula, it is good for the entire state of Alaska. He stated he supports putting any action by the FSB on hold until Alaskans can work out a resolution to the subsistence issue. He said he takes offense in singling out the Kenai Peninsula in CSHJR 48(RES). He told committee members he cannot support the resolution without the amendments he is proposing. Number 206 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN felt the amendment makes the language a little awkward. He wondered if Representative Ogan would accept a friendly amendment to the amendment and remove the words "to several communities on the Kenai Peninsula" and insert "in the state of Alaska". REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the way he has it written is to just add the words "and the state of Alaska". CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the way the line reads is "to several communities on the Kenai Peninsula and the state of Alaska". He pointed out that is like saying "in my bedroom and in my whole house". REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES suggested the words "and elsewhere". REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN asked if the FSB proposed granting new subsistence preferences elsewhere in the state. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated there have been other communities having subsistence preferences granted but not recently. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN pointed out page 1, lines 6-8, say the FSB has proposed granting new subsistence preferences to several communities on the Kenai Peninsula. He asked if the FSB has granted new subsistence preferences elsewhere in the state. Otherwise, the amendment does not make any sense. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that is a point well taken. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN WITHDREW his MOTION. REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE stated he understands Representative Ogan's concerns. He said there are concerns in other areas of the state and that is why the resolution was expanded in the Resolved clause. He told committee members that currently, while not wholeheartedly endorsed, CSHJR 48(RES) is supported by the outdoor and recreation groups. Those groups feel the resolution may not quite go far enough. He noted in talking with the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), AFN does not like CSHJR 48(RES), as they would like it to be specific only to the Kenai Peninsula problem. He stressed the overriding goal now is to try to accomplish what is contained in the second Resolved clause, which is to take a step back from the subsistence issue and determine if Alaska can come up with a consensus in the next year. REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE said he does not necessarily oppose the amendments being proposed but is concerned that the changes may erode some of the support from people he has talked to among his rural colleagues who are willing to support the resolution. He felt if the resolution is made only a statewide resolution, AFN will not only oppose it but will actively oppose it and the resolution will become a divisive resolution rather than one with a goal of bringing Alaskans together. Number 307 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated there have been other areas of the state, such as the Copper River and the Katie John case, where pending actions could be taken. He felt the fact that HJR 33 did not pass, CSHJR 48(RES) is a good approach to get the federal government to back off. However, he stressed what is good for the Kenai Peninsula is good for the rest of the state. He thought it was hypocritical that the resolution is only focused on the Kenai Peninsula because it is a state issue. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he objects to the word hypocritical. He felt Representative Navarre had done everything other than be hypocritical. He thought Representative Navarre made a good point in that it is better to get something done in the hottest area, if possible, even though it is desired to get something done statewide ultimately. REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE suggested CSHJR 48(RES) be changed on page 1, lines 10 and 11, before the word "may" delete the word "hunting" on line 10 and delete the words "the Kenai Peninsula and" on line 11. He stated the resolution would then contain statewide language. He noted when any minor change is made, additional controversy occurs. He noted the suggested change does not accomplish all of the changes Representative Ogan desires, but it does address the issue more on a statewide basis. REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE stated CSHJR 48(RES) is attempting to be both specific to the Kenai Peninsula with respect to comments before the FSB on the proposed subsistence hunt there and trying to approach it from a statewide perspective. He said the resolution originally was specific to the Kenai Peninsula and a number of people told him that it was a resolution to get him out of hot water. Initially, that was part of the driving force behind the resolution. He recognized that, but also recognized his credibility with respect to the issue was going to make it difficult to try and find any consensus. He noted with the help of a number of other people on both sides of the issue, he tried to draft language that will drive Alaskans to the middle ground and avoid the divisiveness seen with HJR 33. REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE said unless there is broad support and an ability to step back away from the subsistence issue, it will not be possible to accomplish anything with CSHJR 48(RES) or any other resolution brought before the legislature. He expressed concern if nothing is done, the subsistence issue will go further out of control and the legislature will not have the opportunity to address the issue. He felt the time may have already passed to try and resolve the subsistence issue and he is not sure everyone will want to come to the table. However, in talking with Lieutenant Governor Ulmer, he discovered that all sides have agreed to sit down and talk about the issue. Number 390 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated subsistence is a war and it is a war going on throughout Alaska. He said what is going on in the Kenai Peninsula is a battle specific to a particular area. He expressed surprise at Representative Ogan's way of trying to turn CSHJR 48(RES) into a statewide resolution, when the resolution was originally specific to the Kenai Peninsula or a Kenai Peninsula battle. He felt if the subsistence war is going to be fought, it is better to win as many battles as possible. He pointed out if the battle on the Kenai Peninsula can be won, it is a step in the right direction. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES thought this was more of a truce and an attempt to declare a cease fire for a year. He stated he reviewed the rest of Representative Ogan's language changes and found similar kinds of problems as found in the first one. The way the language is constructed, the changes do not make sense. He expressed support for the language change suggested by Representative Navarre and felt the language goes an appropriate distance in addressing Representative Ogan's concerns without doing some sniping in the process. REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS stated the amendments proposed by Representative Ogan puts the entire subsistence issue back before the legislature, similar to HJR 33, and makes the resolution more contentious. He felt in regard to the entire subsistence issue, there is a need to find little niches of agreement. He pointed out if CSHJR 48(RES) can remain as it is, it would be a little plus for everyone which is what is needed. He thought the fact that the AFN is lukewarm on the resolution is a positive step and that is the way the entire subsistence issue is going to get moving. REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS felt in a resolution, there is need for something like what has happened on the Kenai Peninsula to create the focus. He stated there is a need to slow up and use that as a focus to generate some discussion. He said if the amendments are approved, the legislature will be back in the same war like HJR 33, instead of a battle. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN concurred. He thought one of the driving forces was the skirmish in the Upper Cook Inlet region which will adversely affect the Kenai area. He observed that is probably why Representative Ogan was desiring to expand the resolution. He felt there had been convincing testimony indicating that even Representative Navarre's suggested language change will be contentious to some degree. He stated the emotions are as intense as if the state was in a war and felt if it is possible to cool down, that is the way to go. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated it is obvious there is not a lot of support for his proposed amendments. REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE stated the AFN will not oppose a resolution that is specific to the Kenai Peninsula and includes no statewide language. He said he is hopeful the resolution will be supported with the proposed change in it. He pointed out if the AFN will not endorse the resolution, he is hopeful he can get the AFN to not take an official position against CSHJR 48(RES) but just allow the resolution to go through the body, allowing members to vote the way they want, with the AFN asking rural members to vote for or against it. REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS said the key word is strategy. The strategy is to try and get a niche of people in agreement, even if it is on page 1 instead of the entire book. Perhaps next time it will be a chapter. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN WITHDREW his MOTION. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a MOTION to AMEND CSHJR 48(RES) on page 1, lines 12-14, delete all material. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES OBJECTED. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated this amendment is proposed because this is not the first time communities will have been given new subsistence preferences since the federal management took over the management of subsistence hunting on federal lands. He stressed it is an incorrect statement. Number 538 MR. BOSWORTH stated it is correct to say that this is not the first time. He noted he does not speak on behalf of the FSB but as an observer of their process. He said the FSB has two approaches to customary and traditional findings. The first is a broad scale approach which is what is being seen on the Kenai Peninsula where the FSB takes a comprehensive look at customary and traditional uses. He added that the Kenai Peninsula is the first of the comprehensive approaches the FSB has scheduled. He noted there are several more coming down the road. MR. BOSWORTH told committee members prior to this comprehensive look at customary and traditional uses, the FSB has made interim findings. The most recent example is a finding specifically having to do with musk ox on the Seward Peninsula. In that sense, with an interim finding for a specific community, for a specific species, the FSB has made those determinations. He stated as far as taking a comprehensive look at an area like the Kenai Peninsula, this is the first time for that. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN clarified that new subsistence preferences have been given to Glennallen, Kodiak, Sitka, Cantwell, Nenana, Bethel, Nome, Tok, and other communities. He said this Whereas states this is the first time that communities have been given new subsistence preferences and that statement is not entirely correct. He thought Mr. Bosworth's answer was somewhat nebulous depending on which type of subsistence was being looked at. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES suggested putting the word "comprehensive" before the word "new" on page 1, line 12. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN felt if this is a new form of management it needs to be more accurately described. MR. BOSWORTH stated the words "comprehensive new subsistence preferences" as Representative Davies suggested is an accurate statement. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES proposed to make a FRIENDLY AMENDMENT to the AMENDMENT leaving the language on page 1, lines 12-14 as is and insert the word "comprehensive" before the word "new" on line 12. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he would support that friendly amendment. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN made a MOTION to AMEND CSHJR 48(RES) on page 1, line 14, delete the word "of". CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN made a MOTION to AMEND CSHJR 48(RES) on page 1, line 10, before the word "may", delete the word "hunting", and on line 11, delete the words "the Kenai Peninsula and". CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN made a MOTION to MOVE CSHJR 48(RES), as amended, with attached fiscal note, out of committee with individual recommendations. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|