Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
02/15/2017 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 | |
HB40 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | HB 40 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 40-TRAPPING NEAR PUBLIC TRAILS 2:03:18 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 40, "An Act prohibiting and providing penalties and civil remedies for trapping within 200 feet of certain public facilities, areas, and trails; and providing for an effective date." [Public testimony on HB 40 was opened at the hearing on 2/8/17.] 2:03:56 PM JOHN JOHNSON said he traps with his family and HB 40 restricts the use of trails by trappers who are disabled, elderly, and overweight. Limiting trapping to 200 feet from a trail would create another trail, or paths of least resistance, that would become points of curiosity for canines and might lead them right to a trap. He described various types of traps that are outlawed in the bill which could not possibly trap a dog, such as beaver, weasel, and squirrel traps. Mr. Johnson said the bill prevents those trappers who cannot get 200 feet from a public use trail, from using trails on which they have a right to travel. In the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) valley, trappers work with dog mushers as trappers do not want to trap a dog. He stated his opposition to the bill. CO-CHAIR TARR, in regard to Mr. Johnson's concerns about the 200-foot distance, asked whether he could offer a reasonable compromise. MR. JOHNSON explained trap placement allows a trapper to be species specific. However, if a dog is loose the likelihood is high that the dog will be caught as winter is breeding season for canines, and if a fox travels off the main trail, a dog's natural instinct is to follow the fox. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON noted the number of concerns throughout the state about this issue. He inquired whether Mr. Johnson held the opinion that it should be the policy of the state, relative to dogs getting into traps, to do nothing. MR. JOHNSON answered absolutely not. He said trappers must choose an area in which to trap and dog owners should never let their dogs off leash when in trapping areas. He suggested people should be notified of set traps in an area, and in urban environments during certain times of the year dogs may be loose, but not in the bush. 2:08:20 PM TEMPLE DILLARD said he is a lifelong resident and Native Alaskan. Mr. Dillard opined HB 40 is a solution to an urban problem that inflicts a 200-foot setback onto the rest of the state. The bill is so vague and openly written that a trapper thousands of miles from a road would have to set a trap line 200 feet from a trail, which would then establish another trail, and the same individual would have to set traps another 200 feet from the newly-formed trail. In regard to trapped dogs, he noted that there is a leash law in the Fairbanks North Star Borough that is almost universally ignored. He shared that he frequently traps within 100 miles of Fairbanks and he has yet to trap a loose dog. Mr. Dillard provided comments that were not on topic with the published agenda for the hearing of HB 40. 2:12:01 PM MARK LUTRELL testified in support of HB 40. He said the bill will help protect dogs from traps set on popular trails by careless and clueless trappers, such as the trap that killed a neighborhood dog in West Anchorage recently. Mr. Lutrell said in Seward there is support for protecting family pets and there are many trails in Seward heavily used by mushers, skiers, and hikers. Dogs and traps are allowed on the trails; however, he opined that traps should not be allowed on the trails because traps kill and maim. He stated that trappers will not be significantly inconvenienced by placing their traps farther into the woods, and have a responsibility to protect other users. Mr. Lutrell acknowledged that trappers are self-policing, and don't intend to trap dogs, but trappers need to be accountable for careless cruelty. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked whether Mr. Lutrell was aware that the trap set in West Anchorage was an illegal trap, and questioned if Seward has any constraints against trapping within city limits. MR. LUTRELL said he was aware the trap in West Anchorage was set illegally. He said traps are not allowed within Seward city limits. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON related the Matanuska-Susitna Borough attorney believes the borough has very limited ability to control this issue. 2:15:35 PM JOSHUA ROSS spoke in support of HB 40. He shared a personal story of his family dog caught in a trap along a main trail system his relatives have used for over 30 years. Mr. Ross said Alaska's laws are not sufficient to protect all user groups. He pointed out that 4 percent of public land users are registered trappers, and others' use of the trails is restricted, which is not appropriate management. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked what type of trail Mr. Ross was traveling when his dog was trapped. MR. ROSS answered it is a public use trail that is maintained full-time by one of the snow machine associations on the Kenai Peninsula. 2:17:36 PM PAULINE STRONG spoke in support of HB 40. She opined that a general statewide regulation is reasonable, as is the footage setback. She said she was unsure of all the rules on trails regarding dogs that are off-leash. 2:19:03 PM WAYNE HALL spoke in support of HB 40. He said he is a long-time Alaska resident and he doesn't like trapping for a number of reasons. He shared his belief that trapping is prevalent in Alaska because it is largely out of sight. Mr. Hall said making compromises is in trappers' long-term interest. Referring to a previous suggestion that dog owners avoid areas where there are traps, he added that without required notice or marking of trap lines, there is no way to know where traps are located. 2:20:49 PM JASON HOKE, Executive Director, Copper Valley Development Association, Alaska Regional Development Organizations, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development, said he was speaking on his own behalf and for many others in his region. He stated his opposition to HB 40 because it usurps existing leash laws throughout the state. He reminded the committee that his region is an unorganized borough and the legislature is its borough assembly. Illegal trapping and incidents with dogs happen within other boroughs, and should be dealt with by borough regulations. Speaking on behalf of his Alaska Regional Development Organization, he advised in his region many live a subsistence or supplemental lifestyle and trapping in the winter helps support their families; he questioned whether there was information on the beneficial economics of the furbearer industry to the state. Furthermore, putting a ban on trapping within 200 feet of a trail would hamper trappers' abilities to trap. Mr. Hoke related trapping is part of Alaska's history and of its cultural history throughout the state. MR. HOKE continued testifying on his own behalf and told a personal story of trapping with his family, and of learning to trap on a traditional Native trap line that is now a state trail. He suggested the sponsor work with the boroughs on this issue, including appropriations to cover the enforcement of trapping violations, within legislation that does not include unorganized boroughs. 2:25:13 PM SYLVIA PANZARELLA said she has lived in Alaska for almost 18 years. She testified in support of HB 40, noting that public trails are made for the public. Although adults need to control pets and children, she opined that a hurt child or a dead or maimed dog is too much of a price to pay for veering off of a public trail. Ms. Panzarella restated that trails belong to everyone and expressed her belief that a 200-foot setback would not prevent trappers from trapping. 2:26:41 PM MARGARET RUNSER said she has lived in the Anchorage and Palmer areas for over 54 years and she has seen a great increase in trapping in heavily-used public use areas over the past ten years, especially in the Lazy Mountain/Knik River Public Use Area, of which the nearby population is over 3,000 residents. She said there are traps placed near private property and on trails used by hundreds of pedestrians, bicyclists, horseback riders, and skiers with dogs. Ms. Runser said she hikes with her trained trail dog who stays with her and alerts her of any potential threats from wildlife. 2:30:47 PM KNEELAND TAYLOR said he has provided the committee written testimony related to local control, in particular to that of second class boroughs. He expressed his support for HB 40 and urged for clarity in the legislation so all parties and municipal governments will know the parameters of their authority. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON informed the committee Mr. Taylor is an attorney who has experience working on wildlife management issues. He asked Mr. Taylor whether he believed the Board of Game (BOG), Alaska Department of Fish & Game, could allow trapping in Kincaid Park in Anchorage over the objection of the Anchorage Assembly. 2:32:54 PM MR. TAYLOR offered his understanding that there currently is no municipal ordinance in Anchorage that forbids trapping in Kincaid Park. However, BOG enacted a regulation many years ago that prohibited trapping in the Anchorage Management Area, ADF&G, that includes the City of Anchorage from "the top of the mountains you can see when you're in Anchorage all the way to the sea." Therefore, there is no trapping in Kincaid Park by state regulation, but BOG could authorize trapping if it wished, and then the city could pass an ordinance prohibiting trapping. Mr. Taylor further explained Anchorage is a home rule municipality which, in his opinion, has the authority to prohibit trapping in developed areas. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked for clarification that home rule municipalities can [prohibit trapping] and governments without home rule status cannot [prohibit trapping]. MR. TAYLOR answered that it was more complicated than that, and expressed his hope legislation would bring some clarity to the issue, particularly for the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough. He restated that some municipalities have the power to restrict trapping and some have limited authority. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND urged for changes to the bill in order to address problems in urban areas without affecting rural Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON encouraged the committee to direct its focus on a local solution. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said he was researching case law on special class legislation and exceptions to special class legislation; in fact, there is an argument that the bill should not be applied statewide. REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE told of a trapper from Utqiaguik who runs a trap line 200 miles long with 60 traps, and pointed out that is one of the "things that we do" in his district. Whether restricting the placement of traps is a good idea or not, municipalities and boroughs already enforce ordinances, and he cautioned that state interference is overreach. 2:38:02 PM JODY LOFGREN testified in support of HB 40. She has been an avid hiker since 1982 and was shocked to find out there is active trapping on public use trails. Ms. Lofgren expressed her concern about kids and dogs in areas of increased population. She is not against trapping, but said the proposed bill is common sense regulation and 200 feet on either side of a public trail is a small buffer to help protect children and pets. In addition, she spoke in support of identification requirements for traps in a manner similar to those for vehicles, boats, and snowmobiles. Although most trappers are responsible, it is important that irresponsible trappers are held accountable. Lastly, she said the bill may save the state money by preventing a possible lawsuit. 2:41:22 PM MICHAEL STOLTZ said he owns lodging in Talkeetna that allows dogs, and his guests come from Anchorage, Eagle River, and Palmer. He expressed his support for HB 40 although he suggested the bill focus on second class boroughs. He spoke of the effects of rapid growth and tourism on Mat-Su that has impacted all parts of life in addition to the use of trails. In response to Co-Chair Josephson, he clarified trails in areas, including Glennallen, are heavily used in winter. Due to increasing populations, he suggested unincorporated areas should incorporate and govern themselves, as does the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 2:43:48 PM BILL MOHWRINKEL testified in support of HB 40. He said his dog was trapped this winter on a trail close to his house in Palmer. He stated he is not anti-trapping, and has friends who are ethical trappers. Mr. Mohwrinkel is a hunter and fisher, and pointed out there are few regulations for trapping except for guidelines for ethical trapping, which are insufficient. The bill applies to high-use recreational areas, which ethical trappers should support because they do not intend to trap dogs. He reported finding a trap two feet off a high-use trail nearby a school and playground, and said there was nothing to be done; however, HB 40 would allow a response to traps found close to trails. He restated his support for the bill. In response to Co-Chair Josephson, he said he could not remember the name of the school. 2:48:16 PM BARBARA BREASE said she has lived year-around in the Denali Borough for almost 35 years. She said HB 40 is a sensible bill; in fact, one of the pleasures of living in Alaska is the opportunity to enjoy the wilderness with her dogs, and she feels shut out of the woods and trails because of traps concealed near trails. She noted that trappers refuse to tell where the traps are, although signs may warn of traps on trails. She related two incidents of family dogs caught in traps. Ms. Brease suggested that the proposed bill could be a "default over the state," subject to local ordinances, and said she been unable to "make it happen in my borough." 2:51:32 PM JOEL BENNETT previously disclosed he served on BOG and was legislative counsel for seven years. He said he was on BOG when a rather extensive and comprehensive system [related to trapping] was devised for Juneau, and supports HB 40 because it seeks to impose a statewide standard. If clearly defined, he opined HB 40 is a limited and conservative standard on a contentious issue that most residents can support; in fact, regulations in some areas of the state, such as Juneau, are more strict. The system in Juneau was established over 20 years ago and is undisputed. The system imposes a one-quarter mile distance requirement all along the coastline, lakes, and on a list of commonly-used trails. At that time, BOG recognized a compromise in this regard was necessary for specific urban areas of the state, and Mr. Bennett said this idea is good public policy. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON observed BOG disallowed a Southeast rule that traps need to be tagged, and overruled the "local option." He referred to the restrictions in the City and Borough of Juneau and asked whether BOG intervened, or has the ability to do so. MR. BENNETT said the Juneau restrictions are a BOG regulation that applied to Juneau, and which was devised after extensive public testimony as part of an effort to raise public support for trapping. Gustavus and Yakutat have specific BOG limitations on trapping related to snare size and trap check requirements. He opined that there is room for progress on the issue and HB 40 is a step in the right direction. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted BOG has avoided this issue for several years, yet established limits for Juneau. She inquired whether the regulations were at the request of Juneau. MR. BENNETT answered that it was a very different BOG; at that time, BOG was a blend of interests working for solutions to contentious issues. Furthermore, there was widespread local testimony due to the fact there were regulations for the city of Juneau that did not affect the borough. The board responded to a public request to develop reasonable trapping restrictions, and he added that one-quarter mile is a commonly-used distance by enforcement authorities. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON noted a document supporting a 500-foot buffer on federal land was included in the committee packet. 2:58:20 PM NICK STEEN testified in opposition to HB 40. He said the distances in the bill are unenforceable and, as written, the bill would potentially close trapping along all waterways throughout the state. He questioned whether under HB 40 a trail that was put in by a trapper, after another person walks on it, would become a public trail. He restated the regulations are unenforceable and should be left up to BOG. 2:59:33 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced HB 40 was held over with public testimony open.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
CSHB105 vers J.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
HB105 Letters in Support.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
HB040 Letters of Support.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 40 |
HB040 ver j.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 40 |
HB105 Letters in Support 2.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
HB040 Letters in support 2.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 40 |
HB040 letters of opposition.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 40 |
HB105 Letters in Support 3.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
HB040 Letters of Opposition 2.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 40 |
HB040 Letters of Support 3.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 40 |
HB105 Letters of Support.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |