Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/03/1996 08:05 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSSB 247(RLS) am(efd fld)(ct rule fld) - USE OF FISH & GAME FUND/COMM'R'S POWERS Number 420 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would address CSSB 247(RLS) am(efd fld)(ct rule fld), "An Act restricting the use of certain funds deposited in the fish and game fund; and relating to the powers and duties of the commissioner of fish and game," sponsored by Senator Robin Taylor. Number 440 TERRY OTNESS, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. He explained Senator Taylor has reviewed the proposed amendments and finds them acceptable. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there is Amendment 1. MR. OTNESS asked if Mr. Grasser could review the amendment as he prepared it. Number 483 ED GRASSER, Alaska Outdoor Council, came before the committee. He said, "The ten of these amendments that the Alaska Outdoor Council proposed was to delete some of the language that we thought was a bit, I guess, controversial and to try and make the bill workable from the department's standpoint, is to give them the discretion to do some of the things that they seem to think they wouldn't be able to do under the original bill. Anyway, the first amendment takes out the requirement that the legislature would have to go through and do appropriations basically on a -- what we viewed as a line item deal. It still keeps in the language that says they have to follow the intent of the legislature as to why the money -- or to the programs the was appropriated for in the first part of that section, in section (a) in Section 2. So the first amendment just deletes the language that says the legislature shall make a separate appropriation, which is -- probably end up being a rather lengthy affair for the Finance Committee or the subcommittee." CO-CHAIRMAN questioned whether the committee should review all the amendments. Number 548 REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN said he thinks there are several things that are all tied together in the amendment. MR. GRASSER continued describing the proposed amendments. "Then in the expenditure section of the bill starting on page 2, there was considerable concern expressed by some of our member organizations that are involved in sport fishing so we suggested taking out `sport fish stocks' on page 2, line 2, so that they wouldn't necessarily fall under the intensive management regime. On page 2, line 8, we suggested deleting the word `increase' and inserting `may enhance' in there so that there would be some discretionary ability at the department level on whether or not they could accomplish those goals. The original language that increased sport fish stocks would basically tie the department's hand, in our view, but by changing that to `may enhance' means that they may or may not be able to accomplish that goal. And then line 9 or 8 to 9 deleting `increase' and inserting `for purposes of increasing' that's basically the same purpose is to give the department some discretionary leeway in making the decision there on enhancing fish stocks or game populations. Page 2, lines 9 through 12, we just suggested that that be deleted because we didn't want to get into, I guess, the wolf control issue in this bill. I think from the Outdoor Council's point of view, we were looking at this more as an attempt to streamline or make more tight the requirements of the department to utilize monies raised from the sale of fishing and hunting licenses and big game tags. And that's kind of a controversial thing and we thought that could be dealt with elsewhere so we decided - suggested that be deleted. On page 2, line 20, following `allowed' and this is I think a fairly significant change, insert `except in cases where educational efforts are evident that support sport fishing, hunting, trapping, and related management'." CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned what that means. MR. GRASSER said, "That might be something that the committee might have to work on. That was our suggested language. The department might have some problems with that, but the intent of that language was to allow for programs to be funded, like Potters Marsh, through the fish and game fund as long as there was things like interpretative signs put up on the boardwalk saying where the money came from for the management of the marsh, in other words fish and game fund, and maybe some other information that denoted what kind of contribution the PR fund and fish and game fund and hunters have made, and in this case specifically Ducks Unlimited, as a group, have made to the existence and management of places like Potters Marsh or Kraemers Field or McNeil River or whatever. That's the intent. I don't know if this language accomplishes that or not." Number 701 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Would this -- am I - am I on the -- if you put `for the benefit of the public' instead of `where there is benefit to the public' or `where benefits to the public are evident' something like that. Is that what your talking about or am I misunderstanding what you mean?" MR. GRASSER said that might help delineate what they are trying to do. He said it is just a suggestion and the council is not tied to this specific language. He said their intent was to allow for some level of funding from the fish and game fund. Most sportsmen are not opposed to funding these types of programs and they are wildlife viewers also. One of the big arguments they have had in the debate with the department is that when it comes to the support of legitimate hunting, trapping and related management issues, they have been rather quieter or neutral on the issue. He said the council would feel much more comfortable with the department's position if there were some guidelines in those areas like Potters Marsh or Kraemers Field that demonstrated where the money was coming from and what role related hunting, trapping and management has played in restoration of wildlife and overall management schemes for wildlife. He explained that is the intent of the amendment and noted they would be willing to look at the wording further. Number 774 MR. GRASSER said, "From page 3, line 2, following `occur' this is basically the same type of amendment as the previous one. The intent there is to do the same thing - to allow the department discretion to utilize some level of fish and game funds for programs in nongame areas. And, again, if that doesn't accomplish that goal, we'd be willing to work with the committee or... I guess that we'd urge that, you know, the committee to come up with language and pass this bill out today since time is short, but that was our intent with this language. Then in line 3 (page 3), beginning on line 26 you're gonna go through a series of amendments that are basically the same as the ones we just went through because there's two sections in the bill. One deals with fish and game fund monies and one deals with PR monies. And so the amendments are basically the same as what we've just went through for those expenditure sections that deal with PR monies. And then the other substantive amendment we have is on page 5, lines 9 through 25. Those are the definition -- that's the definition section. We proposed an amendment to delete all the definition section. And there again, it was our feeling that those definitions, in our opinion, don't add to what we would like to see happen with this bill, mainly a better view of how these funds should be expended by the department as directed by the legislature. And we didn't feel these definitions were necessary to accomplish that and we thought they raised some red flags. And besides I think some of these definitions were already put into law to some degree or another with the previous intensive management bill that was passed a couple of years ago. And I guess that's it for the amendments." Number 914 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said the only amendment he would like to work on is the educational programs. He said he isn't sure exactly what he would propose. He asked if the committee could exclude that amendment and have an at ease to review the amendment. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated there are three. The first is toward the bottom of the first page, line 16. The second is at the top of page 2, line 3 and the third is at the bottom of page 2, line 22. He said, "What you're suggesting is maybe we work on something there, but accept the rest of them." Number 951 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that is correct. He moved to divide the question. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said that seems reasonable to him. He asked if there was an objection to dividing. Hearing none, he said they will divide the question on that basis - those three areas where educational efforts are included. He asked Representative Davies if his amendment is to move everything excluding those three areas. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES indicated that is correct. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, it was so ordered. He said the committee would address the three areas where they are trying to come up with educational programs or educational efforts. He noted all the committee members were present with the exception of Representative Barnes. He asked Mr. Grasser to review what the council is looking for. Number 1000 MR. GRASSER said what they're trying to do with those three amendments is to provide a level of discretion for the department to be able to solicit and use fish and game fund monies for programs in traditional nongame areas like Potters Marsh as long as there was also an effort by the department with an agreement or as directed by the legislature that any of those fish and game funds expended for the management of those nongame areas would include and educational program that supported hunting and trapping and related management by some means. He noted that might need to be defined. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Grasser if he is familiar with what is sort of a hunters day that is carried out at Kraemers Field each year. He asked if that is the kind of thing he is talking about. There must be 3,000 people that come by to talk about how this supports management of game. There is a lot of discussion of hunting and the safe use of weapons, etc. Number 1053 MR. GRASSER said that is exactly what they are looking for. In some cases, such as Potters Marsh, an interpretative sign put on the boardwalk would accomplish this goal to some degree. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said it sounds like there are two things going. There is an annual activity and then there is something at Potters Marsh which is a viewing area for six months of the year. MR. GRASSER said it might be helpful to define `educational efforts' for the purpose of this language to include things like interpretative signs that support related management to hunting, trapping, etc. The department would know that they have the ability solicit these funds and use them in these areas for nongame as long as those types of other activities were included in the program. Number 1095 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES indicated Wayne Regelin was in attendance and asked if he might have some comments or suggestions. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Regelin to come forward. Number 1172 WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation Department of Fish and Game, informed the committee he has seen the proposed amendments. He said he believes the amendments really improves the bill and takes away some of the department's concerns such as removing the requirement for 360 separate budget appropriations. Mr. Regelin noted he doesn't think that was the intent, but that was the way it was worded. Section (C) adds some flexibility so that the department can use other management schemes other than maximum sustained yield. There are some concerns with the bill and he thinks the amendments were an attempt to provide the flexibility for the department in doing broader programs that they think are beneficial to hunting, hunters and other people that enjoy wildlife. Mr. Regelin said, "I didn't put amendments together but I - or suggested amendments, but I don't know the way it's written right now I don't think we could use the funds for public service which is -- all the big program we have, all the people that call the office and want to know where to go hunting and walk in and do that, you know, cause it -- the way, you know, I don't think that's -- again, it's not what was meant, but it's very restrictive the way it's written still even though there is more flexibility. It would allow us to do no work in hunter ed - or I mean endangered species work or nongame conservation. And law enforcement I think is a question. It might be - you could interpret it as helping under that part (C), but I think that could be debatable. The one thing that -- and all of those I think are kind of open to question whether or not we could or couldn't and I don't think it was the intent to stop those things and we can probably fix that with wording. There is one big concern and that's that right now on the federal aid dollars that we get, 6 percent of em go for indirect costs back to the Division of Administration. Between us and Sport Fish, that gives them about a million dollars a year. That has been done by the Finance Committees, it started about three years ago in order to replace general funds that as they got tighter and this bill would prohibit that. And that's why there is such a (indisc.) would be a substantial fiscal note because general -- you still have to pay the vendors and that type of thing. So that would be, you know, one and that's not addressed in any of the amendments. Number 1299 MR. GRASSER pointed out there is wording that says, "the administration of fish and game license function and payment of license vendor compensation." MR. REGELIN explained, "In the Division of Administration there is a licensing section and there is -- and that's taken care of. We brought that up before, but there also use the funds to -- and it's appropriated based on the number of employees we have and the size of the budgets. Some -- this federal aid funding and the rest of it is general fund and it depends on whether it's commercial fisheries and subsistence and habitat versus sport fish and wildlife, so that it's a proportion there to keep us from getting into problems with diversion of funds, but that's you know -- there is more than licensing in the Division of Administration. It's the payment - it's the personnel section -- the, you know, payment of all the bills and that kind of thing - engineering." Number 1350 MR. GRASSER said he doesn't necessarily disagree with Mr. Regelin. He suggested asking counsel. He said, "It seems to me that the expansion of - expenditure of funds for those types of programs like -- I mean obviously you have to administer programs and have some top level management in any type of organization, including Department of Fish and Game, would in some way be tied to the on- the-ground programs that field biologists or area biologists may be carrying out. I guess what I'm hearing is that the department is doing that section of the bill that has to do with expenditure of funds for personnel or administration, a much more narrow aspect than perhaps, and I'd have to defer to Terry on this, whether or not that's what their intent was, but I don't think the intent of the bill is to preclude them from administering programs." Number 1499 MR. OTNESS indicated frustration as he hasn't heard anything about this concern. He said every committee the bill has been in there is another "but" added. Mr. Otness said his concern is that we're running short of time. He said if there is an issue, it could be brought up in the Finance Committee as it is a fiscal issue. MR. REGELIN agreed and said Kevin Brooks, director of Administration has been in attendance each time the bill was heard and has brought it up. Number 1459 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if the portion of the bill that causes concern is on page 2, lines 23, 24 and 25, "(C) expended for costs of personnel or administration, other than costs of personnel or administration directly incurred in conjunction with projects allowed under this subsection, except under a general indirect recovery provision;" MR. REGELIN said, "Mr. Chairman, that part allows for -- it says it my not be used for personnel or administration, other than the costs for personnel or administration directly incurred in conjunction with projects under this section and we call it indirect costs, that's -- I mean that's the title of how we...." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained he wants to be sure that is the part of the bill that is being addressed. He said he would suggest for consideration is that after the word "subsection," insert "except under a general indirect recovery provision." In other words, this would allow for the normal kinds of indirect recovery but it wouldn't allow for direct expenditures for personnel who weren't involved in this. MR. REGELIN said he thinks that would take care of the problem. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Otness if he is agreeable to the wording. Number 1597 MR. OTNESS indicated he would have to speak to Senator Taylor. Number 1622 CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS said this is a financial area and he is sure it would be addressed in the Finance Committee. He asked if the Resources Committee can take care of the amendments that deal with the resource issues. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated the amendment seems to cover the issue. If the Finance Committee doesn't like it, they will change it. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he doesn't want the bill to get bogged down. MR. OTNESS said Senator Taylor could state his objection in the Finance Committee if he has a problem with the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he would offer the wording as an amendment. Number 1689 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Amendment 2 would insert the wording "except under a general indirect recovery provision" between the words "subsection" and "or" on page 2, line 25. He asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, it was so ordered. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the committee would address the education section of the bill. He asked if Mr. Grasser or Mr. Regelin had any suggestions. He asked Mr. Regelin if he knows what they are looking for with educational programs or educational efforts. Number 1743 MR. REGELIN said the department could do educational projects. CO-CHAIRMAN said, "There are three places that we're trying to find a word or some words that would explain what they're after and -- because it look to me like I misread it. When I read the amendments, I looked at that completely different than what Mr. Grasser has told us so..." MR. GRASSER explained the intent of that language was to allow for funding, through the fish and game fund. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN pointed out the language was on page 2, line 23. MR. GRASSER said it would allow for the use of fish and funds in nongame areas as long as there was some effort such as an interpretative sign on the boardwalk at Potters Marsh, etc., to show that the dollars that were help supporting the management of that nongame area came from fish and game fund money or PR money and that there was some effort to demonstrate that hunting, trapping, sport fishing and related management had benefits to wildlife. He said that was the intent. He noted if any members of the committee had alternative language they would like to suggest to make that more evident, it would be fine with him. Number 1854 MR. REGELIN explained the part that would probably be left out which is very important in their educational program is called "project wild." He explained that project wild is where they train teachers throughout the state to teach wildlife curriculum that the department develops about hunting, fishing and wildlife management. Unless that project is included somewhere else, they wouldn't be able to do that under the bill. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Mr. Regelin had indicated hunter's education, so it is hunters as well as teachers. MR. REGELIN explained they are separate programs. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that both of the programs are funded, in part, from revenues that are brought in from licenses. MR. REGELIN indicated they are. Number 1906 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked how much money is expended on project wild and where has it been taking place. MR. REGELIN explained it is about $150,000 a year and they have trained approximately 4,000 teachers all over Alaska. On weekends the teachers come in and donate their time. He said they also have a national curriculum put together for all the western states and one specific to Alaska which is more oriented towards hunting. Number 1972 MR. GRASSER informed the committee it wasn't the Alaska Outdoor Council's intent to exclude funding of project wild. He said he does see in the original bill the language does tie the expenditure. He said they wrote their amendments based on that to a specific areas. Project wild obviously isn't an area, it is a program. He said if that could be fixed, it would be fine with him. Number 2003 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES suggested the change would be needed on page 4, after line 8, and on page 2, after line 17. He indicated there is a wording, "shall be used for only projects that provide for," and then there is a list (A) through (F). On another page there is (A) through (E). He suggested inserting another section (F) on page 4 that says, "Educational programs in schools that support..." Then use the same language "support sport fishing, hunting, trapping and related management." MR. GRASSER suggest that might be simplified by looking at page 2, subsection (B) where it says "shall be used only for projects that provide for..." He said subsection (B) adds a whole list of things including hunter education. There might be a possibility of putting "other educational efforts" or similar language. He said there is an increment where money is allowed for hunter education. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated the wording should be "wildlife education." REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA questioned if the word "hunter" would be deleted and add "wildlife." CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned if the wording would be put in after "hunter education." MR. GRASSER indicated that is correct. Number 1514 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved the amendment be adopted. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated a motion has been made to insert "wildlife education" between the words "education" and "public" on line 5, page 2. He asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, the amendment was adopted. Number 2218 MR. OTNESS suggested the committee might want to look at Section 4 of page 3 and add that wording to line 29 as well. Number 2223 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved the amendment be adopted. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said it has been moved that those same two words would be added between "education" and "public" on page 3, line 29. He asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, the amendment was adopted. Number 2243 MR. OTNESS said the last issue is defining "educational efforts." He said a section might be added to define educational efforts as interpretative signs, public service, public service events and educational programs. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if this would be in all three places. MR. OTNESS indicated that is correct. He suggested the drafter of the bill could come up with a definition for educational efforts. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what wording Mr. Otness is suggesting for page 1. MR OTNESS said, "Educational efforts defined as interpretative signs, public service, public service events and educational programs." Number 2360 MR. GRASSER said all the language in (h) on page 5 starting on line 9 was deleted. He suggested inserting a definition section and define "educational efforts" there so it wouldn't have to be done in three places. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted in two places the wording "educational programs" was used and in another place the wording "educational efforts" was used. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said they would be defining "educational." TAPE 96-77, SIDE A Number 001 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "...and I want to specify where, but what. Representative Davies." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said has he understands, the committee is talking about using these funds to support specific areas like Potters Marsh and Kraemers Field. We're saying it's okay to use these funds for those things so long as there is an interpretative sign or there are public service events that support hunting, etc. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Grasser if that is what he had in mind. He said notification or some sort of sign is not necessarily the project the itself. Number 083 MR. GRASSER said it could be just an interpretative sign at Potters Marsh or it could be more than that. In the case of McNeil River it could be that the biologist that conducts the activity there could have a portion of his presentation to the tourists that visit that area would include information about hunting and the benefit to wildlife and related management, etc. He said it will be different in some areas, just as long there is some evidence that we're making an effort to let the public know what benefits wildlife is getting from hunting. Number 136 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he would move a conceptual amendment which would be to add a definition section that defines the word "educational" in the context of "educational efforts and educational programs to include interpretative signs, public service events, and wildlife educational events and things like hunting days." Number 278 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection to the conceptual amendment. Hearing none, the conceptual amendment was adopted. Number 324 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Now that brings us back to perhaps the other half or the divided portion of this Amendment Number 1 where we had those three places called educational. With this definition now, is there a motion to accept those..." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES so moved. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Alright. Three places then in the Amendment 1 where we referred to education that we left out is now amendment to accept those as the completion of the amendment. Is there objection? This amendment then, Number 1 as well as an Amendment Number 2 that Representative Davies had are accepted into this act. Is there any other amendment or any other comment about this bill." Number 393 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved on page 5, lines 5 through 8... CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN interrupted and stated that has been stricken. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved to strike subsection (g). He explained the amendment the committee just adopted deleted a (indisc.) definition, but above that is (g) and that is the subject of his current amendment. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN apologized to Representative Davies and asked what he was saying. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained his motion is to delete subsection "(g)." REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS questioned Mr. Otness what his feeling is about the amendment. MR. OTNESS said he doesn't think the sponsor would be in agreement to that amendment. Number 491 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said if the statute law says one thing the department is required to do and if they go and do something totally the opposite, doesn't the citizen already have the ability to take them to court. He said he believes they do. Number 530 MR. OTNESS said he doesn't know the answer to that question. MR. REGELIN said the department gets taken to court all the time. He said the answer is yes, they have the right. He said he guesses this just reiterates it. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he remembers a bill that went through the House Resources Committee and then it was modified in the House Judiciary Committee where there was immunity granted for some and not others. That was deleted from the bill. Co-Chairman Green asked Mr. Otness if he knows what Senator Taylor had in mind by specifying that public officials are not immune from a lawsuit. MR. OTNESS said, "I'm hoping that I might delay a little bit so he might answer that himself. I'm not sure I care to speculate." Number 609 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there is a motion to strike lines 5 through 8. He asked if there was an objection. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS objected. Number 628 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked for a five minute recess. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recessed the meeting. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN called the meeting back to order and said the motion has been made to remove lines 5 through 8. He asked if there was objection. Hearing none, it was so ordered. Number 761 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said three amendments have been introduced and adopted. He asked if there was any other discussion. Number 806 SARA HANNAN, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby, came forward to give her testimony on the proposed committee substitute for SB 247. She said she applauds the committee for their diligence to detail in modifying the bill. Ms. Hannan said the amendments are vast improvements, but she doesn't think the bill can be amended to be a good piece of legislation. She referred to when the sponsor testified on the bill the previous week, he spoke about paying the fiddler and asserted that he had hired the fiddler by paying a small fee. Ms. Hannan said, "But I'm gonna say that the state of Alaska is hosting a big wedding and you've been invited to the wedding and you're fee to come to the wedding. What is expected out of you by that invitation is that when you come you bring a small gift or offering and the right of a hunter to hunt in Alaska and the small fee that a Alaska hunter pays does not cover the cost that the right to hunt bears along the rest of us. Most the cost the Department of Fish and Game have in managing game are cost for hunters and there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in those costs, but to be a sport hunter in Alaska you pay your small fee and you get to go hunt and to turn around and say, `That gives me the right to tell them what they're gonna serve me at dinner and what music the fiddler plays,' is an erroneous thought. There are very very very few programs that institute taxes or fees that cover and are a direct corollary between the user. The thing that comes the closest is probably the federal gasoline tax where you are actually are paying for how much you're driving or how big your car is. But if you drive an electric car, you still get to drive on federally funded highways and you don't get to go say, just because you've got biggest gas guzzler out there, I get to determine the speed limit because I pay more in gasoline taxes than you and your neighbors driving those little cost efficient car do. Everyone abides by the same laws and the cost of the highway patrol to patrol those laws is not proportioned out. Our licensure of hunters and fishers in this state is something we do because we think that you need to regulate them and they need to be responsible for it. They need to know the bag limits. They don't get to come say when they get to hunt and where they get to hunt through statute. They get to make those decisions by participating in the Board of Game and the Board of Fish process. Those are significant processes that are undermined by forcing the department into a position where they don't get to make fair recommendations and they don't get to distribute fees that they receive from the federal government in a disproportionate share. If we were truly gonna proportionalize this, the people who would most directly benefit and who get to decide what we do with this are German hunters who are coming on a guided hunt in Alaska and pay real money to be hunting here. They would get to say what songs the fiddler plays at the wedding we're hosting. That's not what we want. That's not what we should do." Number 989 MS. HANNAN continued, "I want to draw your attention to one other section of the bill, Section 1 that puts into statute a directive. And I don't have any problem with a directive for the Department of Game - the Department of Fish and Game to cooperate with sportsmen association, but the final phrase on that section, lines 7 and 8, is that the department should work to introduce new populations into suitable habitat. Siberian tigers into the Interior, elk on to islands in Southeast, sturgeon into our rivers, work to introduce new species. We don't have adequate money to manage the resources we do and provide the baseline science to do accelerate management, let alone to tell our department we want them working on new species. That's something they can do at the directive of the Board of Game and something we may want them to do. The reason Sweden has a huge moose population is that area of the country - of the planet has been inhabited for centuries in dense habitation. And to quickly equalize the habitat parallel in Alaska, if we let the entire Kenai Peninsula burn today, we'd have great moose habitat there. Lets torch it. Should burn every 100 years by nature, but we've controlled what it burns and as a result, the moose population and the moose habitat has changed. Those are socioeconomic decisions, not strictly biology and I don't think that putting into statute a misbalance of it corrects some of those very complex decisions. I think the bill stinks. I don't think it can be improved to the point that it should be enacted into statute. If you didn't take the time to read - I did distribute last week a really eloquent description of how those federal monies come to play and the thing to remember is our hunters and fishers aren't paying for what we're using. We're getting a lot of money out Manhattanites who are buying forty-fours and letting us get $9 out of every tax - nine to one ratio for what we're paying out in federal taxes on ammo. I don't want Manhattan to get our money and I don't think that we want German foreign hunters deciding our game policies. I don't think that this bill does anything to serve the hunters of Alaska. Thanks for your time." Number 1194 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Ms. Hannan brought up an interesting point in Section 1 about the introduction of new species. MR. OTNESS indicated that it is populations and not species. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Regelin, "Do you see, while even the way this is written, that you would cooperate with? Does that mandate to you any concern that the division - the Department of Fish and Game would have if some sportsmen comes in and wants Bangle tigers that this would -- and I don't -- I know that was a facetious thing..." MS. HANNAN clarified it is Siberian tigers as Bengals wouldn't survive our winters, but Siberians would. Number 1235 MR. REGELIN noted that when he first reviewed the bill, he had the same concern Ms. Hannan had because he thought exotic species. He noted it doesn't say "species," it says "populations" and because of that he felt if we can take a population and move it within Alaska, because if it's not biologically feasible he doesn't think they would have to do it. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if there is a word they could use that would modify populations. MS. HANNAN suggested using the word "indigenous." Number 1276 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved to insert the word "indigenous." MS. HANNAN suggested the wording, "To expand indigenous populations into suitable habitat." CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Regelin what he would suggest. Number 1297 MR. REGELIN suggested, "To expand indigenous populations into suitable habitat." Number 1328 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked if they should use the word "relocate." She asked if it doesn't say "introduce" and introducing would be relocating a species. MR. REGELIN said he didn't write it down. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that what he has is "introduced new" would be changed to "expand indigenous population." MR. REGELIN suggested using "relocate" or "trans locate" or something similar rather than "expand" might be better. Number 1362 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA referred to caribou in the Interior and said if you wanted to move some of them to the Anchorage area, and asked if that is what the bill means. MR. REGELIN said that is the way he reads the bill. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested using the wording, "introduce indigenous populations into suitable new habitat." CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there are any other comments before he offers the new amendment which would change the words "introduce new" and insert "expand indigenous." He asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, the amendment was adopted. Number 1438 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to move CSSB 247 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Austerman, Kott, Long, Ogan, Williams and Green voted in favor of the motion. Representatives Davies and Nicholia voted against the motion. So HCSCSSB 247(RES) passed out of the House Resources Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|