Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/26/1996 08:10 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 262 - MANAGEMENT OF FISH/GAME POPULATION & AREA Number 875 MARY GORE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Mike Miller, testified on behalf of the sponsor, "The quick and dirty explanation of this bill, as Senator Miller likes to say, is to put more moose on the table of Alaskans. This bill guarantees that game populations in the state will be managed for maximum sustained yield to allow for hunting for consumptive use. The bill requires that any land closed to hunting for consumptive use for subsistence or sport use with the exception of a biological emergency, a new area three times the size of the originally closed area will be opened to allow for consumptive use harvest." MS. GORE continued, "The bill also acknowledges that there is a public trust created between the state and the sportsmen of Alaska. The revenue generated from taxes, licenses and other fees paid by sportsmen would be breached if public access was restricted on state game refuges except when restriction on access is to protect habitat from damage due to the method of access. This trust would also be breached if, by restricting hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities in a manner inconsistent with maximum sustained yield. MS. GORE read, "Further, revenue generated by sportsmen through taxes and fees cannot be used in an area where consumptive use of fish and game is not prohibited or for management of nongame species. If the state breaches this trust, three times the acreage will be opened and a civil suit can be brought against the state or public official to compel compliance. MS. GORE said, "Included in your packet was a sponsor statement, as well as a sectional analysis of the bill. I would like to draw attention to the sectional. It was created for the original version of the bill and was then modified by the Senate Resources Committee. There are no substantial changes to the sectional with the exception of the state being required to open three times the amount of land instead of five times the amount of land in the original bill. Also, the word `sport' before fishing was deleted from the original bill to the Senate Resources bill. Number 1026 MS. GORE stated, "In the bill offered in the Senate Resources Committee, Senator Hoffman offered an amendment that would exempt Board of Game members from being held liable and being sued. That was not cleaned up in the second section of the bill. So, we have an amendment today that we would like to offer that would exempt the Board of Game members in the second section of the bill, to clean it up and make it consistent all the way through. Number 1038 MS. GORE addressed the amendment: Page 3, line 23, after "official" insert: "other than a member of the Board of Game" Page 3, line 25, after "official" insert: "other than a member of the Board of Game" REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES commented that he had the wrong version. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN remarked that the committee had the wrong draft, it does not match. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES verified version CS SB 262(RES) (ct rule fld). MS. GORE said that would be it. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN replied that something does not mesh with the amendment. MS. GORE said, "If you look on page 2 of the bill, subsection (c), line 10, it says other than a member of the Board of Game." REPRESENTATIVE KOTT corrected the witness, "page 2, line 9." MS. GORE stated, "It would be on line 9 then. That needs to be inserted on page 3, line 19, after the word `official' then on line 21, also. MS. GORE said, "The (Senate) Resources Committee decided that if a member of the Board of Game was liable for suit, they would never get anyone to be a member of the Board of Game. So, it was probably a good thing to change." Number 1174 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were questions about the verbal addition on page 3, lines 19 and 21. Number 1183 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS moved that the House Resources Committee substitute for CS SB 262 (RES) (ct rule fld), version K, be adopted as the working document. Number 1199 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN restated the motion to adopt CS SB 262 (RES) (ct rule fld) as the working document. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was a motion to move the amendment. Number 1222 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS so moved. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "There has been a motion to move the amendment as presented and, also, amended the amendment to add the same language on ... well, this one actually does not work. It is the verbal amendment now on lines 19 and 21 that the words other than a member of the Board of Game, after the word `official' on both lines. Is there objection to that amendment?" Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. Number 1254 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated to Ms. Gore that she has used the word "trust." "That conjures up the potential for litigation with, perhaps, some bad vibes as what the consequences might be. Is there a reason that we established this trust and then the punitive damage to the state would be three times the amount of area that is blocked off? Is that assuming that there might be some development that the state might want to do, or make a park, or do something?" Number 1288 MS. GORE replied, "The bottom line is that they want to make sure that the money the sportsmen are paying into the Department of Fish and Game is used strictly for consumptive use, to manage for consumptive use. If the department does not manage for consumptive use, they will be required to open an area three times the size, and that the public trust of the people paying into the Department of Fish and Game's budget would be breached if the money was not use to manage for consumptive use." Number 1326 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "There was some indication that if an area were no longer available, there would also be that... Number 1339 MS. GORE noted that there were exceptions, "On pages 2 and 3, numbers (1) and (2). Senator Halford wanted to make sure and added an amendment, actually, that was line 28 and 29, on page 2, that would sure that if access was inconsistent, it would still allow ... that area could be closed if the land would be damaged or if they needed to use the land for something else." Number 1386 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "Okay, and that other land would be available." MS. GORE answered, "No, that would be an exemption to this." CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated, "It says the public trust would be breached by restrictions." MS. GORE, "Except, when the restriction on access is necessary solely for the purpose of protecting habitat from damage due to method of access, or if it is inconsistent with maximum sustained yield. These are the exceptions." Number 1415 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that his concern with the trust is, "If there was a restriction other than habitat that we have breached this trust, what are the consequences of that?" Number 1428 MS. GORE replied, "They will bring suit." CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN queried, "What will they sue for? What would be the consequences that they would say, `Okay,' we can't have access to this 40 acres; what am I suing for?" MS. GORE answered, "I am suing for 120 acres in a different area of the state." CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN theorized, "And, if I do that, and this is right next to this area that was a really good area ...so, there is three times as much area of goat pasture, would this open the state to litigation and damages, perhaps, because of the trust nature of this?" MS. GORE responded, "That, I can't answer." CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "I am not trying to manufacture a problem but trust always incurs the fear of something nasty. That is the concern that I have. Like for like, and you know that there is never two people who can agree to that." MS. GORE agreed. Number 1497 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed concern about allowing people to bring suit against public officials, "even if we exclude people on the fish and game boards. I mean, isn't it the same argument about finding people to serve on the fish and game board would apply to people who want to work as public officials when they are in a capacity where they could be sued for making professional management decisions, personally. Among a long list of other things that I have concerns with, that is one of them." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "By setting up this trust and inviting people to sue us, as state agencies, and as public officials, that we are creating a situation where there will be a lot of law suits. Sort of like a lawyers employment bill." CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS commented, "By public officials, meaning us, right?" CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered who the bill drafter is and whether it would be possible to get that person here to review some of these. Number 1627 JULIE PENN representing the Alaska Environmental Lobby testified, "SB 262 indicates that `game populations shall be managed solely on a biological basis' and that `consumptive use of game is the highest and best use of game.' But, `managing on a biological basis' and `managing for maximum sustained yield for human consumption are mutually inconsistent terms. In fact, all of the terms used in this bill that sound biological, such as maximum sustained yield and harvestable surplus, are not biological terms at all. You will not find them defined in any biology textbook the way they are defined in this bill. This bill is social engineering with no foundation in biological science and no relationship to the sound management of resources expected of the Department of Fish and Game. MS. PENN continued, "If we are managing Alaska's game populations entirely on a biological basis, then why does SB 262 attempt to manage our game by acreage rather than by the health of the ecosystem? Mandating that the Board of Game open three acres for every acre closed is management by map and ruler rather than by biological principles. It does not exemplify biologically sound management. MS. PENN proceeded, "Alaska Department of Fish and Game studies show that nonconsumptive users of Alaska's wildlife spend 30 percent more on its wildlife than consumptive users. Placing into law the assumption that human consumption is the highest and best use of wildlife could cause the state to lose money as well as its worldwide reputation as a haven for wild nature at its best. MS. PENN concluded, "Alaska and Alaska's wild resources deserve better management than SB 262 provides. MS. PENN further stated that the bill had not been amended to protect the members of the Board of Fisheries as well as other public officials. "It is, also, not clear in the bill whether commercial fishing is included or excluded among fish. So, closures of commercial areas could require areas three times larger opened to commercial fishing which is a whole new way of managing commercial fishing." Number 1805 WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Fish and Game testified that this legislation will change quite a few existing statutes. "It would mandate that game populations, in most areas of the state, would be managed solely for maximum sustained yield. Then it goes on and defines what that means ... It comes back to one third of all the animals born in a year. The department does its best, most places, to manage for high harvest levels. We also take other things into consideration besides just maximum sustained yield. The board has areas where they manage areas slightly different because that is what the hunting public primarily has desired. You have to also remember that wildlife is a public resource owned by all residents of the state ... and to say that only one use is the highest and best, I am not sure that is very appropriate. I think that hunting is one of the most legitimate uses ... very legitimate uses of wildlife resources and we do our very best to provide that opportunity. But, there are other uses that are also legitimate." Number 1898 MR. REGELIN continued, "The section that mandates that the Board of Game, if it closes an area or restricts an area ... hunting in an area, that you open one three times larger or remove the restrictions of an area three times as large causes us some concerns. I think that the Board of Game would have real difficulty closing any season under the provisions of the bill. Most of the time you are not going to find an area that the state has any jurisdiction over to open that is three times larger. There are very few areas in the state that are closed to hunting that have been done by the Board of Game. Most of the closed areas are federal areas that are national parks. In the 14 years that I have worked for the department, the board has only closed hunting in one area. That was for one species and that was in the McNeil River area which was highly controversial decision but it was ... and that maybe what this is referring to. But, I certainly do not think that is a very big problem and what I think you would end of having is a lot of ... the board not being able to close areas or reduce seasons or make restrictions when it is necessary because they would not have an area to open up." Number 2000 MR. REGELIN proceeded, "I think that there is another section of the bill then that would forbid the restrictions of public access on any refuge or sanctuary or critical habitat area. That is the part that says that they can sue me if that happens. I do not like that much. It also gets then into the restrictions on how we can spend our money which is the same language that was in SB 77, and the identical language that is in SB 247." MR. REGELIN said, "To reduce our ability to restrict public access could really threaten some of our refuges, in my mind, and some of our sanctuaries. But, it could also really take away a tool that the Board of Game uses to manage its wildlife in control use areas. They have a lot of these areas where they control the method of access to provide certain advantages to some people, like our trophy sheep areas in Tok, and in Delta, where access is restricted and we have really some trophy areas. We would not be allowed to do that anymore, we would not be allowed to have controlled use areas like the Koyukuk Control Use Area, out by Galena, which is one of the premier moose hunting areas in the state, and it is managed for access by boat. And, that gives ... for lots of reasons the board has done that for years and I think it has worked out extremely well. Those things, I think, would be prohibited under this law. I think that the department has worked hard for a very long time, since the ANILCA was passed in 1980, to identify 17B easements so we can have access across federal lands and (indisc.) for navigable waters, and other ways. I think we are trying to preserve our access rights to these areas. But, I think there is a real difference between trying to work preserving our rights for access and guaranteeing rights to access in legislation." Number 2130 MR. REGELIN continued, "When you guarantee rights of access for hunting to all of our refuges, critical habitat areas, and things like that, which is the areas that it guarantees them for, it really raises some serious questions in my mind how we would do that. Would we be allowed to restrict the one area that was closed that would be reopened under this would be McNeil River. When that was opened, we limited it to six permits every other year. Under this legislation, that would be reopened and we would not be able to limit it by permits. The way I read this legislation, our whole permit system on these types of areas would be illegal because we would be limiting access to hunts that is guaranteed in this legislation. I think that there is just some really poor wildlife policy in this bill. I think it has some real problems technically and some specifically. But, also, the whole idea of it, I think, is flawed policy that you are going to try to remove all of the balance that the Division of Wildlife has, and our responsibility to try to manage wildlife for all residents of the state. So, we are opposed." Number 2277 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Regelin to address the way the shifting of funds would go to cover costs in the current programs that have been funded in fish and game federal aid funds and shift to the general fund. MR. REGELIN replied that the only source of funds that the Division of Wildlife gets is federal aid and license fees. "It would prohibit us to expend those funds on any programs that are not directly related to consumptive use. Right now, we spend about a little less than five percent of our budget, each year, on programs for wildlife viewing and wildlife education. In the broad sense, I think they do benefit hunters and hunting in a large sense, very significantly but, in a narrower sense, people say that everyone is benefitting so the hunter should not have to pay. That is what this is trying to say. We are working very hard to find alternative sources of funding to pay for these programs of viewing and wildlife education and we have some things going on in Congress and, also, working on some ideas on how to match that federal money when it comes. But, that is a couple of years down the line. Our feeling was that we have always had general funds until last year to pay for these programs. We lost all of our general funds last year after ... the big reason was we have a $5.5 million surplus in our dedicated fish and game fund. So, it was hard to get general funds and what I have done is to ask people to have some patience while we find alternative sources. I think that most hunters readily agree that wildlife education and teaching about hunting in the schools is very important and most of them enjoy watching wildlife .....(END TAPE) TAPE 96-70, SIDE A Number 000 MR. REGELIN is saying ..."dollars from the federal government and that is a tax on arms and ammunition and archery equipment, and a whole lot of people buy guns and ammunition besides just hunters. I do not want to argue against the dedicated fund, but, I think they are taking a very narrow view of this issue." Number 037 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Regelin if he could appear before the committee on Monday, April 29, for further discussion on SB 262. MR. REGELIN indicated he would be in attendance. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested that the sponsor of SB 262 also request the presence of the bill drafter to address legal consequences.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|