Legislature(2017 - 2018)CAPITOL 106
03/31/2017 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 | |
Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board|| Alaska Board of Game | |
HB134 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+= | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+= | HB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 134-BOARD OF GAME MEMBERSHIP 5:33:02 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL 134, "An Act relating to the composition of the Board of Game." CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 134, Version 30-LS0473\J, Bullard, 3/28/17, as the working document. 5:33:18 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON explained that the original bill proposed there be two members other than the general category of members on the Board of Game - one a dedicated tourism seat and one a dedicated nonconsumptive seat. He said Version J reduces the number of dedicated seats from two to one, removes the language that there shall be a tourism seat, and adds the language, "One member shall be appointed whose predominant use of game resources is nonconsumptive and who is actively engaged in wildlife conservation." REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER recalled that a public hearing was held on the original bill and surmised that a public hearing would not be held on Version J [if adopted as the working document]. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied correct. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether the aforementioned explanation of Version J is the only difference. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON responded correct. 5:35:31 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON removed his objection. There being no further objection, Version J was before the committee. 5:35:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE PARISH offered [Conceptual Amendment 1] as follows: Page 1, Section 1, line 13, delete "shall", and insert "should". 5:36:03 PM CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes. CO-CHAIR TARR stated that either "shall" or "may" is the typical language that is used, rather than "should", when wanting a provision to be either prescriptive or permissive. Therefore, she would leave it up to the drafters at Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, to determine whether the word should be changed from "shall" to "may". REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed with Co-Chair Tarr and pointed out that page 1, line 7, states the governor "shall". He said "shall" and "may" constitute the standard language that is used throughout the state's statutes. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said the committee needs to know whether "shall" or "may" agrees with the sponsor of the bill because, in her opinion, "should" sounds permissive. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER requested the sponsor to give an example of someone who would fit the description in the bill. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied that this person shall reflect all the uses of game in the state by residents. In further response to Representative Rauscher he clarified that he reads the language to mean the appointee should reflect these user groups, not necessarily that the appointee must be a sport and subsistence hunter, trapper, and tourist all at the same time. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER requested the sponsor to give an example of a person who can fill this, such as whether this person would be someone like a wildlife photographer or someone involved in conservation who has been involved in all these different types of situations. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON noted that two different sentences are added in Version J and he thought that Representative Rauscher was addressing the second, but it seems the first one is now being addressed. He maintained that the current language on diversity on page 1, line 9, is not reflected in the makeup of the current board. He recalled Mr. Spraker, chairman of the board, and who has been on the board since 2002, definitively stating earlier that a nonconsumptive user is needed on the board. He further recalled Mr. Spraker stating that someone like Ben Grussendorf was the kind of person who is needed because nonconsumptive users thought that Mr. Grussendorf heard them. 5:40:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE PARISH spoke further on Conceptual Amendment 1. He said the current language in Version J is strictly permissive and the proposed language change is aspirational rather than prescriptive or permissive. The proposed language would say this is the goal rather than something that shall be done and that failing to do so would be a violation of statute. He said he thinks it is best to have the language speaking to the [legislature's] purpose and he thinks it is best to leave a degree of flexibility in it. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked whether it is Representative Parish's preference to persist with the proposed language of "should". REPRESENTATIVE PARISH responded yes, subject to review by Legislative Legal Services. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated he is not speaking in favor of the bill, but is speaking in favor of the amendment because he understands what the maker of the amendment is trying to say. He said the amendment looks like the question he had previously asked because he is unsure this provision could really happen and then when it didn't it would be a violation of statute. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his understanding that the maker of the amendment believes "should" would be permissive rather than mandatory. He asked whether the bill sponsor's intention is that it be mandatory. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON answered that, as stated by Co-Chair Tarr and Representative Tuck, "may" or "shall" are consistent with what he has read. There is no doubt, he continued, that there is a distinction between these two words. 5:44:02 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rauscher and Parish voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1. Representatives Talerico, Tuck (alternate), Drummond, Johnson, Josephson, and Tarr voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-6. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said she received a suggestion which is that a definition of nonconsumptive should be included into the bill. She requested the sponsor's thoughts on this suggestion. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied that thought was given to that very thing, which is why [Version J] describes it as someone who is actively engaged in wildlife conservation. For purposes of making a record for posterity, he said it would be someone who generally speaking, isn't necessarily going to be inclined to not vote for hunting that is not what is intended. It is someone who has some belief that wildlife is also for watching and viewing, particularly when there are contentious issues involving methods and means. For example, he continued, Dr. Van Daele talked about his preference that bears not be trapped or snared, which is a minority opinion on the board, and that is the sort of diversity that a nonconsumptive user could bring. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK (alternate) offered his appreciation for Representative Johnson's question. He pointed out that what is not being said by Version J is someone who just goes out and shoots game and doesn't eat it. What the bill says is "predominant use of game resources is nonconsumptive", so he would read this as excluding professional hunters. He noted the language goes on to state, "who is actively engaged in wildlife conservation." Many professional hunters are also into wildlife conservation, he continued, so the CS puts a balance in there to demonstrate that these are not necessarily nonhunters, but that they are not predominantly for consumptive use as would be had in a profession. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH related that consumptive is defined in Dictionary.com as pertaining to consumption by use, when something is consumed it is used up. Therefore, he concluded, when a person takes pictures of wildlife, wildlife is not necessarily damaged in the process, thereby making it a nonconsumptive use. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND commented she has heard a nonconsumptive user described as someone who only takes a photo from the field, the animal is not taken. 5:48:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER posited that nonconsumptive could mean conservation, and that could be management but not utilizing any of it for a refrigerator. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON ascertained no one else wished to offer additional amendments and announced the committee is now under discussion of the proposed CS. REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO stated he is not in favor of the proposed CS as written, nor the amendment. After reciting the proposed new language, he said Representative Tuck brought up a good point. He stated he considers himself to be a wildlife conservationist because he invests financially every year in the conservation of game via the purchase of a hunting license, which goes towards game conservation. He said he also regularly goes out to view animals with a spotting scope and does more viewing than actual taking of game. Therefore, he posited, his predominant use could very well be described as nonconsumptive. He noted that current statute states, "with a view to providing diversity of interest and points of view in the membership." He further noted that it is the governor at the time that makes the appointments to the Board of Game and because of the wording in current statute it is really the choice of the state's administrator at that particular time. He predicted a bumpy road ahead [if the bill is passed] that could result in coming to a point of having to determine what every seat will be and what the requirements will be for each seat, such as wildlife biologist or guide, along with a definition of consumer. 5:52:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON addressed Representative Talerico's point by posing a scenario in which someone is a nonconsumptive user by virtue of snapping pictures and watching grouse but who also goes hunting occasionally. She asked whether this person would be excluded from appointment to the nonconsumptive seat. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied that a lot of thought went into how to craft something like this and the history of the bill will reflect, starting with the invited testimony, what was trying to be achieved. He said a court would look at this and say, "They're trying to do something different in this sentence, this is different - this is different than the other six spots." The court would have to make that determination, he maintained. 5:53:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said it is his understanding that whatever is talked about in this committee on this side when it goes to court will be used as the intent of what was intended here. So, when it does go to court committee members will need to define in their conversation the intent of what the sponsor is trying to get across here. He requested the sponsor to state his intent. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON remarked: This seat would be held by someone who does not oppose hunting, but who opposes the methods and means that I've seen employed in the last 15 years that are very unusual. And these include things like gassing of wolf pups and bear snaring and bear trapping and same- day airborne, and land and shoot at wolves, and intensive game management which didn't exist before, or at least wasn't implemented prior to 2002. ? They would have to follow the law. I'm not saying they wouldn't follow the law. So, if there was a proposal for intensive game management they'd have to follow that law. But they would give a voice to the 85 percent of the people who don't have hunting and trapping licenses. That's who they'd give a voice to. That's the plan. That's the goal. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH recited the current statute, which states, "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." Referring to today's testimony by the Board of Game appointees, he noted that Mr. Spraker has a great deal of reason to know, that Dr. Van Daele recognized the importance of nonconsumptive use, and that Ms. Linnell referenced the importance of having resources available for all the user groups including the nonconsumptive. However, he continued, his impression is that the status quo isn't, and hasn't been, working quite right in that [the Board of Game] does not have the diversity of interest and points of view that are really representative of the Alaska population as a whole, and that failure is what this bill aims to address. The word nonconsumptive is someone whose primary use is nonconsumptive, although this person can still certainly be a hunter so long as his or her primary use is elsewhere. He offered his support for the bill, but said he cannot promise he won't ask Legislative Legal Services about the difference between "should" and "shall". 5:57:36 PM CO-CHAIR TARR pointed out that the Board of Game and Board of Fisheries statutes were written at the time of statehood. Since then the state has grown quite a bit, she continued, and there are now many more stakeholder groups. She said she sees this process as being a maturing and evolving of the state and that considering the viewpoints of a variety of interest groups is what is bringing things to this point, and which is why she is supporting the bill. 5:58:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated that naming a definition of one particular seat is inconsistent with the other six seats. For this reason alone, although he doesn't think a nonconsumptive seat should not be on the board, he offered his belief that the bill seeks to dictate the definition of one of the directors on this board but not the other six. This is not in the best interest, he posited, because it could lead toward naming the definition and dictating belief systems when the way it has been done to date has been fair. Therefore, he said, he would be voting no on the bill. 5:59:37 PM CO-CHAIR TARR moved to report the proposed CS for HB 134, Version 30-LS0473\J, Bullard, 3/28/17, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected. 6:00:04 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tuck (alternate), Drummond, Parish, Tarr, and Josephson voted in favor of the bill. Representatives Johnson, Rauscher, and Talerico voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 134(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5-3.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
Henry Tiffany IV_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board |
Adam Trombley 2015_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board |
James Atkins 2016_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board |
Thomas Sullivan Jr._Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board |
Karen Linnell_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Game |
Thomas Lamal_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Game |
Ted Spraker 2016_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Game |
Lawrence Van Daele_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Game |
Tom Lamal -BOG- Letters of Support 3.28.17.pdf.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Game |
HB 134 vers J.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
Linnell Support 3.31.17.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Game |
HB 134 vers J.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
HB 134 Opposition Document - Note in Opposition Harpster 3.31.17.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
HB134 Fiscal Note DFG-BBS 3.17.17.pdf |
HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |