Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/14/2017 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 | |
| HB177 | |
| Presentation: Ak Gasline Development Corporation Status Update | |
| HB211 | |
| HB201 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 201 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 217 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 211 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 201-MUNICIPAL REGULATION OF TRAPPING
2:56:16 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 201, "An Act relating to municipal
regulation of trapping; and providing for an effective date."
Before the committee was CSHB 201 (CRA).
2:56:45 PM
MEGAN ROWE, staff to Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, informed the committee the purpose of HB
201 is to allow municipalities to regulate trapping for the
specific purpose of preventing injury to persons or property,
including domestic animals. In the process of committee
deliberations on HB 40 - which proposed a state-wide ban on
trapping within two hundred feet of certain public areas -
public testimony and testimony from members of the House
Resources Standing Committee was heard that this is a local
issue better met by "more narrowly tailored ordinances at the
municipal level." Thus, the bill would specifically authorize
municipalities to enact ordinances, and "clear up any kind of
legal confusion over whether they are able to under state law."
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed his understanding that
communities such as the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough and
the Municipality of Anchorage are establishing laws, and
questioned whether there was any confusion, or a need for more
legislation.
MS. ROWE explained the confusion stems from arguments that the
state has plenary control over the management of game, which is
a principle derived from the state constitution and in Title 29,
which specifies municipalities can only indirectly regulate
game. In fact, testimony before the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee (CRA) presented by the
Department of Law advised municipalities should not regulate
trapping. The bill would prevent the state from challenging
municipalities' regulations related to trapping. For example,
the Municipality of Skagway has disallowed trapping within its
boundaries; however, the Board of Game (BOG), Alaska Department
of Fish & Game, allows trapping there, which has created a
conflict between the municipality and BOG. She restated if a
municipality seeks to regulate trapping for the health and
safety of its residents, and to prevent damage to animals, the
bill would allow it to do so, without a challenge to its
regulations by the state. Ms. Rowe said about 15 municipalities
already have related regulations that require clarifying
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH restated his understanding that regulations
in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the Municipality of
Anchorage are serving their purpose.
MS. ROWE referred to documents included in the committee packet
[a memorandum addressed to the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su)
Borough mayor and assembly members from the Mat-Su Borough
Attorney's Office, dated 12/17/13, and a document addressed to
Lynn Mitchell CPA, from the Law Office of Kneeland Taylor, dated
2/3/17] and said the documents outline two different sides of
the issue. She also directed attention to a document included
in the committee packet [addressed to the Alaska boards of
fisheries and game, ADFG, from the Office of the Attorney
General, File No. 166-486-82, dated 11/19/82] which stated
municipalities cannot regulate game and trapping directly, but
can do so with a merely incidental effect. She concluded the
question remains undefined. The bill would ensure that when
municipalities are regulating for the purposes of health and
safety, and protecting property, the regulations would be
constitutional under state law.
3:02:36 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON clarified that eight or nine local
governments have attempted to regulate trapping, and the bill
limits authority to "within the borders that ... represent that
municipality, trapping could be regulated." He posited that a
pro-trapping stance may be: Banning trapping in a borough over
the size of some states is "unthinkable." However, in the case
of public safety and competing interests, there may be a local
desire to regulate trapping in some way.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH opined the bill would prevent eventual
litigation between the state and municipalities in this regard.
MS. ROWE agreed, although she questioned whether the state would
have reason to challenge ordinances unless a greater conflict
occurs.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON advised the bill is very flexible in that
local governments can exempt trappers as well. He recalled CRA
added subsection (d) to the bill [on page 2, lines 13-15,] which
read:
(d) A municipality may not enact an ordinance
under this section that eliminates reasonable
opportunities for subsistence trapping of game within
its boundaries.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO expressed his belief that the Division
of Wildlife Troopers, DPS, does not enforce municipal
regulations.
3:06:51 PM
BERNARD CHASTAIN, Major, Deputy Director, Headquarters, Division
of Alaska Wildlife Troopers, DPS, responded the Alaska Wildlife
Troopers do not enforce municipal or borough code, therefore
enforcement of any regulations created by municipalities under
the proposed bill would have to be done by police agencies,
borough code enforcement officers, or those given authority to
do so by the municipality or borough.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON concluded an ordinance or regulation would be
enforced as strongly as determined by the funding and the desire
of the local government.
MAJOR CHASTAIN said, "That would be our interpretation of it,
because we do not enforce that regulation. It would be up to
the municipality or the borough to decide what level of
enforcement they want to put on that regulation."
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked for Major Chastain's opinion about
whether BOG tries to honor and comply with ordinances on this
topic.
MAJOR CHASTAIN advised there are regulations put in place by BOG
that specifically restrict trapping in certain trail areas in
response to proposals brought before BOG.
3:09:51 PM
BRUCE DALE, director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, ADFG,
added BOG looks at every local situation on a case-by-case
basis. [BOG] has "mimicked" or "mirrored" local ordinances, for
example, Anchorage had a certain restriction in place, and BOG
subsequently banned all trapping in the Municipality of
Anchorage. In other areas, BOG has created areas closed to
trapping in the absence of a local ordinance.
[HB 201 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AGDC House Resources Committee Presentation 4.14.17.pdf |
HRES 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
AGDC |
| HB201 Supporting Document - Legal Memos re MatSu Trapping 2013.pdf |
HRES 4/14/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 201 |