Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/20/2017 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB105 | |
| HB134 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 134-BOARD OF GAME MEMBERSHIP
2:39:09 PM
VICE CHAIR WESTLAKE announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 134, "An Act relating to the composition
of the Board of Game."
2:39:28 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON, sponsor, introduced HB 134. He noted that
he has some concerns with the way the Board of Game (BOG)
operates and explained that the bill provides for a tourism seat
and a non-consumptive seat on the seven-member board. There
would be no impact on board members who are currently appointed
and unconfirmed, or appointed and confirmed, he continued. The
bill clearly states that these seats would be filled in the
future. The bill is very important, he said, because about 85
percent of Alaskans do not hunt or trap. However, he added, he
would be surprised if that number also applied to the fishing
predilections because he assumes that most people fish. He said
he has received 20 or 30 e-mails from the public expressing
concern with the board not hearing from non-consumptive users.
In the 1990s, he recalled, the Board of Game had members like
Joel Bennett, Victor VanBellenberghe, and Thomas Meacham who
were willing to hear, entertain, and take seriously the
interests of non-consumptive users. Former Senator Johnny Ellis
filed, or considered filing, a bill that created a Board of
Wildlife. As to the question raised in HB 105 on whether Denali
Park's wolves need further protection, Co-Chair Josephson said,
"You see a Board of Game that has become so politicized that if
a person where, ... for example..."
2:42:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON interjected that since no members of the
Board of Game are present, care should be taken when talking
about the board's makeup.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON allowed that that is a fair statement. He
shared his experience that if during an appointee's confirmation
hearing the appointee indicated in the slightest way that he/she
cared about the wildlife watcher, that appointee's confirmation
would most likely be sunk. It didn't used to be this way, he
continued. In the 1990s there was a culture on the Board of
Game that was more accepting of wildlife viewing. He posited
that there would be more dialog and diversity before the board
if HB 134 was passed, and there would be an avenue for people
who share different values to be heard. He pointed out that
CSHB 105(RES), the bill the committee moved out earlier today,
will help protect Denali wolves. However, he related, last
month the Board of Game defeated a comparable proposal by seven
votes to zero, while CSHB 105(RES) passed by five votes to four.
He read from the current statute, AS 16.05.221(b), which
identifies who may serve on the Board of Game and states:
For purposes of the conservation and development of
the game resources of the state, there is created a
Board of Game composed of seven members appointed by
the governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of
the members of the legislature in joint session. The
governor shall appoint each member on the basis of
interest in public affairs, good judgment, knowledge,
and ability in the field of action of the board, and
with a view to providing diversity of interest and
points of view in the membership.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said he is not suggesting that there is not a
diversity of views on the board. For example, there is a
difference of opinion between "residential hunters" and those
supporting interests that may come from out of state. So, it is
not like the hunting or trapping communities are monolithic.
However, he continued, there is a huge swath of Alaska
residents, 85 percent, who have essentially no voice on the
Board of Game. Therefore, HB 134 says, "What would be wrong
with those who are concerned with watchable wildlife, frankly in
the end losing most proposals 5-2?" For the non-consumptive or
tourism seat it could be a difficult experience, he said,
because they are often going to have a hard time convincing the
other five of something, such as that predator control is not
needed in a certain unit because there is some important bear
viewing going on there. So, while they will generally lose
those struggles by five votes to two, at least they will have a
voice, and that is very important to the people of Alaska. Co-
Chair Josephson pointed out that many times people will not
attend the Board of Game meetings because they view it as an
exercise that is, from their vantage point, hopeless. He
therefore urged that Title 16 as written be infused with more
delineation and more description so there can be real diversity.
2:47:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered his understanding that under HB
134, these two seats would be the only defined seats on the
board.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied that is correct. He posited, "That's
what this has come to; the ... other five will surely represent
the consumptive users." He said he does not have a particular
problem with that, but that one could argue that there should be
a little more parity, a "four to three kind of thing." He
agreed there should be a strong voice for consumptive users
because they know a lot about allocation and many know a lot
about biology and what it takes to harvest wildlife. They
reflect Alaska in all its abundance, but this other cohort is
absolutely cut out of the process.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he understands and agrees, but that
it seems like it would be creating two seats of equal value as
opposed to the others.
2:50:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON argued that this is inserting government
to determine what decisions the board should make and the
outcomes of the votes. The governor gets to appoint and the
legislature gets to confirm, she said, and every time that the
legislature does not like the makeup of the board it has the
option of voting that down and having the governor appoint
someone else. The legislature already has the option of saying
it wants a certain makeup on the board. It is not set in
statute that there will be this one and that one, she added. It
allows for everyone being represented when everyone in the state
gets to have a voice through the representatives when they vote
on the makeup of the board. As the makeup of Alaska changes,
she posited, there may be changes on the way the Board of Game's
seats are being applied. As far as needing to define seat-by-
seat, the bill would bind the hands of the governor as well as
those of legislators to really represent their constituents.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON responded that he is saying it is a policy
call and is in the interest of the legislature and the people of
Alaska to be bound by this. There is nothing atypical about
saying there will be X number of pedicurists and Y number of
hairdressers on a board, it is typical. This would give an
audience to some ideas that nine times out of ten will fail, but
members of the public will say, "I had a voice and I couldn't
attend that meeting, but someone who sees the world
approximately the way I do did [attend] and they tried . . . and
they raised some sensitivities and concerns that never would
have been raised otherwise."
2:52:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER related that as a photographer and
wildlife viewer, he appreciates wildlife and being able to
photograph and also appreciates the sponsor's interest in being
able to view and take photos. There should be a voice out there
of some sort, he said, and he commends the sponsor's idea
somewhat. He inquired as to how HB 134 and the provision in the
constitution that wildlife be managed for maximum benefit of the
state's people on the sustained yield principle would work
together.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON answered that the committee's vote today on
[HB 105] said there is an economic interest in living animals
and that reflected the maximum benefit. Requiring a tourism
seat and a non-consumptive seat does not, in his view, run
counter to that constitutional mandate.
2:55:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that fish and game are renewable
resources that have been managed effectively one way or another
since statehood. He said he is concerned about having folks on
the Board of Game who do not have some interest in the
sustainable use and consumption of that resource. He inquired
whether there would be an analogous situation with the Board of
Fisheries (BOF) if someone who objects to fishing were to be on
that board. For example, he continued, it would be like the
board of regents for a university having somebody that doesn't
think kids should go to a university.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied no, people do not see fish the way
they do wildlife and that is the main difference. It is an
interesting question, he allowed. For example, the new director
of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) isn't as concerned
with environmental protection and so why is he working for that
department. The idea that Board of Game members should be about
consumptive use only, and so why would it be appropriate to have
someone who is non-consumptive, is something he thinks about.
He said his concern and experience from the Board of Game
meetings that he has attended is that any proposal to conserve
rather than take is generally defeated. While the Board of Game
does have concerns about sustainability generally, it is his
opinion that board members react viscerally when somebody has a
proposal that board members red flag and identify as being just
in the interest of wildlife watching. But, he maintained, it
should receive a voice and another reason is the economic
interest in tourism.
2:58:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH drew analogy with proponents of alternative
energy not being a good fit to serve on the Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission (AOGCC). While alternative energy
proponents are well intentioned, he continued, the AOGCC is
trying to reasonably manage and produce Alaska's oil and gas
resources. He said he does not see how someone opposed to
hunting or trapping would be a good fit on a board that is
primarily constructed to efficiently manage and maintain a game
resource that is collectively owned.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON responded that if HB 134 were to become law,
it would likely be found that the non-consumptive seat holder,
and surely the tourism seat holder, is not bound to looking at
an issue from one perspective. For example, he said, the Yukon-
Charley National Wild and Scenic River Area probably does not
have scads of tourist, so the person in the dedicated tourism
seat might say that there is not much interest in the tourism
industry there and would cast a vote for a proposal to take X
number more wolverines in a sustainable way in that area.
3:00:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO asked whether the assumption is that the
85 percent of the state's population who don't hunt are anti-
hunting.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON answered no and said the cohort he is talking
about may view some of the practices that are allowed in state
law as abhorrent, not part of the North American model, not fair
chase, and not sporting. They want some concern for intact
ecosystems, he continued, and they want an Alaska that remains
wild rather than a place that is all about abundance and nothing
else. There is nothing in the aforementioned that would
preclude some responsible and sustainable hunting.
3:02:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO posited that he and the sponsor probably
have different understandings of the Board of Game. He related
that he has been involved in a board meeting that had 213
proposals. He has seen the board take data and allocation
considerations from ADF&G and structure seasons, closures, or
openings [accordingly]. For example, a big thing for his area
was when the board took numbers and allocations and set antler
restrictions so that there would be a maximum yield of that
particular resource to continue. Because he is a reasonably
aggressive consumptive user of that resource, those restrictions
meant a lot to him, he said. The governor can choose people of
any background and diversity. The Board of Game has, in his
opinion, made decisions based on the allocation and data that is
presented to it and has acted to manage the resource correctly
for the advantage of Alaska's people.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON agreed the board has done the aforementioned
and allowed his comments to have been unfair to the Board of
Game in that respect. The board has followed the
recommendations of the department and its biologists and has
made some good decisions about methods and means, he said.
However, 95 percent of the time the board is truly dismissive
about any non-consumptive view of the world. Generally, those
dismissals have not been for areas way off the beaten path, but
in places where the other interests of Alaskans should be
considered.
3:05:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that she is having a hard time
wrapping her mind around this because growing up she did her
fair share of consuming. It was up to the game managers to
ensure that the game was not over or under hunted and remained a
useable resource for food. Now it is being said that it could
be a useable resource for wildlife viewing. But, she continued,
wildlife viewing does not reduce the number of animals, so why
would the Board of Game have to worry about how many pictures
were taken of something? Viewing, not hunting, is why national
parks were set aside. This does not make sense, she said,
because wildlife viewing is a whole other way of approaching
game policy.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON responded by citing HB 105 and noting that 5
percent of the people are seeing wolves now. In his opinion, he
continued, this is because the state is complicit in the demise
of wolves that leave Denali National Park and Preserve ("Denali
Park"); it is part of a policy. Now, under the new [federal]
administration, there is going to be less federal control and
oversight in the preserves and refuges and that is going to be
put back on the State of Alaska at some cost to the state. For
example, on the Kenai Peninsula top federal biologists have said
that no more brown bears can be taken because it is
unsustainable; however, the state's position is that things are
fine. His observation, he said, is that the state generally
sides with "the take" and rarely "the non-take."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON commented, "You can disagree with the
policy of how the allocations are made ... and you can disagree
with game policy, but that's not the same as establishing a seat
on the board." Anybody who doesn't get a moose might think that
the game in his/her management area could be managed better.
Disagreeing with the board's policy is not the same as saying
someone needs to be put on the board that is not into game
management for a sustainable use, she said.
[HB 134 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 134 Supporting Doc - BoG statute.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| HB134 Sponsor Statement 2.23.17.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| CSHB105 vers O.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Summary of Changes.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| Map of Area in CS.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 105 Supporting Docs - BoG prop. 142 letters.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB0134A.PDF |
HRES 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |