Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/06/1996 08:08 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 296 - STATE AUTHORITY OVER FISH AND GAME Number 1907 JOE RYAN, Legislative Staff to Representative Al Vezey, testified on HB 296 reading the sponsor statement into the record: "House Bill 296, an Act relating to the authority of the state of Alaska over fish and game, would codify the primacy of the state of Alaska over the federal government on matters concerning the management of fish and game resources. It is a state's right enjoyed by 49 other states. MR. RYAN proceeded, "The power to manage fish and game was given to the state of Alaska as a condition of our becoming a state and as a condition of entry into the union. This power cannot be abridged or altered, except by mutual agreement of the people of the state of Alaska and the federal government. MR. RYAN continued, "This bill will give the state of Alaska a tool with which it can enforce the right of the state to manage it's fish and game resources. This bill also provides that state funds cannot be used to implement or enforce federal fish and game regulations. MR. RYAN concluded, "This bill will send a message to the Congress and people of the United States that the state of Alaska or an agency created by the state, will be the only one permitted to manage fish and game within the borders of the state of Alaska." Number 2046 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Department of Fish and Game, testified that the ADF&G, and the Department of Law, had expressed concern with HB 296, in the House Special Committee on Fisheries, last year. He referred to a work draft of the original bill and asked if that committee substitute had ever been adopted. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the committee version was "K." MR. BRUCE said there is a difference between the two versions. He related that the Department of Law testified that the bill is a bit of a "catch 22," because if a state law says you do not have to follow federal law, what weight does it really have? The United States Constitution clearly states that federal law is supreme when there is a conflict between state and federal law. MR. BRUCE said that puts the staff from the Department of Fish and Game in a difficult position. If this law were to pass, the people in the field could be placed in a situation where they are being given conflicting messages. How does a wildlife biologist III, in the field, sort out whether he is supposed to follow a state law that says he cannot assist or cooperate with the federal wildlife agencies that he works with in some matter where the federal agency has jurisdiction or has regulations in place? MR. BRUCE informed that the bill seems to speak exclusively to the situation that exists with subsistence. He said it was the only situation where the federal government could and does exercise management authority over fish and wildlife separate from the state system. MR. BRUCE said another concern with this legislation pertains to the message -- we do cooperate, to a large extent, in a lot of areas to the state's advantage with the federal government in the management of fish and wildlife. The ADF&G receives approximately $30,000,000 a year from the federal government to assist in the management of fish and wildlife in the state. There are a number of areas where we work with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council to secure the state's ability to manage groundfish resources in state waters within the three mile limit so that we can establish some near shore small boat fisheries that will extend the operation of our shore based plants and allow Alaska-based small boat fisherman opportunity. MR. BRUCE further stated that these issues require cooperation between the state and the federal entities to bring about and there is a balance between firmly asserting the state's right to manage its own fish and wildlife and being willing to cooperate with the federal agency where you have crossing jurisdictions and other reasons to cooperate. MR. BRUCE related that the department certainly has occasions where it differs from federal polices and federal managers and take those issues up on a case-by-case basis, but there are situations in which cooperation is mutually beneficial. MR. BRUCE emphasized the concern with HB 296 of the position it would place field staff. They are trying to do their job and a state law says they cannot work with the federal government on a subsistence issue and a federal regulation says something else. Number 2451 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT recalled that last year the House Resources Committee had referred this bill to a subcommittee. He asked if the subcommittee had reported it out. REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA remembered that the subcommittee was composed of Representatives Austerman, Davies and Ogan...(end tape). TAPE 96-27, SIDE A Number 000 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that there are a number of unanswered questions. MR. RYAN asked that committee substitute version "K" be introduced for the purposes of discussion. He said paragraph (d) on page 2 addresses last year's concerns about international agreements and the Magnuson Treaty, and now pertains to enforcing federal law that is the same as applied in all other states. He explained, "If the law does not apply equally among the states, and we feel it is being applied only, specifically, in Alaska then, perhaps, we should not cooperate if it is to our detriment." The bill gives the Department of Fish and Game employees the opportunity to cooperate with the federal government on all things that are applied equally among the states. It does not preclude enactment, adoption or enforcement of state laws which are substantially similar to federal law, or a law that preempts state management of fish and game. Number 187 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the sponsor felt that subparagraph (d), in the proposed committee substitute, alleviates some of the ADF&G concerns. Number 237 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES recommended that the chair place the proposed committee substitute version "K" before the subcommittee. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN apprised the panel of three witnesses on the teleconference network waiting to testify on HB 296. He wondered about having the proposed committee substitute on the table as the working document. Number 267 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved for the adoption of committee substitute for HB 296 version "K." REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA objected. C0-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified that HB 296 is in subcommittee. REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said, yes it is. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES reiterated that the appropriate course of action would be for the committee substitute to be presented to the subcommittee and the subcommittee would report out its recommendation. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed that would be the appropriate course of action. He indicated to Representative Ogan the point of order regarding his motion to adopt the committee substitute. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT interjected that a motion was not needed and that the subcommittee should work with the prime sponsor and the subcommittee should report back to the full committee. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN withdrew his motion. Number 400 DALE BONDURANT testified in support of HB 296 expressing his view that the state should maintain its authority to manage common property fish and game resources. Number 623 MICHAEL WALLERI, General Counsel, Tanana Chiefs Conference, testified in opposition to HB 296 and the committee substitute version "K." He said the bill boldly denies the obvious fact that the federal government has control over substantial aspects of fish and game management in Alaska. Of particular importance, the bill would suggest that no person, government agency or municipality may exercise authority over the management of fish and game unless authorized by state law, and it would direct state agencies to not cooperate or enforce federal law which preempts or supersedes state management of fish and game. MR. WALLERI emphasized concern that the bill would draw the state from participation in co-management agreements under Section 809 of ANILCA. Under that section, federal agencies managing fish and wildlife in Alaska may enter into cooperative management agreements with Native groups and other entities. There are currently three such agreements in the state involving Tanana Chiefs Conference and the Association of Village Council Presidents and the Copper River Native Association. MR. WALLERI stated that the purpose of these agreements is to coordinate research and management with user groups. Co-management agreements have also been used to facilitate management of moose populations in the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta with tremendous success. He related that a recent Tanana Chiefs Conference study on Chum salmon in the Koyukuk River demonstrated and revealed important information about salmon runs in the area. It also challenged basic assumptions about state salmon counting methodology to estimate the run size for the Koyukuk River. These efforts led to a reassessment of the very serious problem in fish and game management in the Interior relating to Chum management. Number 800 MR. WALLERI cited Article 12, Section 2 of the state constitution authorizing state government to cooperate with the federal government in various endeavors including fish and wildlife management. He indicated that HB 296 may overstep the role of the legislature in such agreements. This section of the constitution limits this body to the involvement in considering appropriations in support of state and federal cooperative agreements. A blanket legislative veto of such agreements suggested by this bill may in fact violate the Alaska State Constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. Number 844 MR. WALLERI concluded stating that the Council encourages that there be state and federal cooperation involving user groups and co-management and, by this, we hope to improve fish and game management in the state as a whole. Number 880 DICK BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, testified in support of HB 296 and the proposed committee substitute stating that he sees nothing in the bill that prohibits cooperation between the state and federal government either with respect to the Department of Fish and Game or with other entities. What it does do is make it very clear that the premise that fish and game management should be undertaken in the state should be consistent with the responsibilities and authorities of the state. He felt the one liner, "good fences make good neighbors" applies here. MR. BISHOP further stated that unless it is clear what the laws are, it is very difficult for people to work effectively within them. It is extremely important for the legislature to have taken this initiative in asserting state management authority for a number of reasons. The federal government will assume authority unless challenged. He said, "I think they need to be challenged and this is an important strategy in doing that. If they do not like it, let them take it to court." Number 1060 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN assigned HB 296 and the committee substitute to the subcommittee. He requested that Representative Con Bunde come forward and introduce HB 329.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|