Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/12/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB77 | |
| HB231 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 77
"An Act relating to big game hunting with children."
9:14:48 AM
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, presented SB 77. He related that
hunting was a large part Alaska's cultural heritage and
that it was most effectively passed on to the next
generation by encouraging that it be done responsibly. He
stated that the Board of Game currently possessed the
ability to establish special hunts in order to ensure the
responsible instruction and indoctrination of young
hunters; the bill gave the board more flexibility to
establish youth hunts. He stated that the idea was largely
brought to the sponsors by the Board of Game and that Ted
Spraker, who lived in his district, was an advocate of
youth hunts. He shared a personal story about how the Teens
on Target Program had taught his daughter how to shoot
firearms and be safe with them; the program had then taken
the female teens on a hunt and taught them responsible
hunting practices. He stated that the bill allowed for
youth hunts to happen more often; it also specified that
during hunts for Sitka Black-tailed Deer in areas where the
annual limit was one animal, only one tag would have to be
punched. He expounded that the adult's tag would not have
to be punched as a result of the bill. He furthered that
the legislation also removed the limitations that youth
hunts had to be scheduled during regular hunting season. He
thought that encouraging youth to responsibly participate
and carry on Alaska's great hunting tradition and outdoor
heritage was very important for youth development and
quality multi-generational outdoor experiences.
9:18:44 AM
AT EASE
9:20:13 AM
RECONVENED
AL BARRETTE, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
favor of SB 77; however, he wanted to make people aware of
the specific inclusion of Sitka Black-tailed Deer in the
legislation. He noted that the Sitka meeting had determined
that one deer was a fairly small animal and should not
count against an entire family's bag limit; he thought that
areas that had a black bear limit of one could qualify for
the same bag-limit exclusion as the Sitka Black-tailed
Deer. He recommended that an amendment be added to the
legislation that gave the Board of Game the ability to
waive both bag limits in order to give it flexibility in
addressing situations where a game animal should not count
against both of the bag limits; this would allow an adult
and child to each take a species. He thought that the bill
was well written, other than his suggested amendment.
9:22:13 AM
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired what the process would be regarding
the qualification for the youth hunts. Senator Micciche
responded that a representative from the Department of Fish
and Game (ADFG) was present to address questions about
youth hunts.
Co-Chair Kelly recalled that he had been the primary
sponsor of the original youth hunt bill when it had passed
in 1999 or 2000. He recalled that when he was a kid, school
did not start until a little later on in the hunting
season; in some cases, the startup of school had
deliberately corresponded with the hunting seasons. He
explained that over time, the school year had been
lengthened and that it had become more difficult to get
children hunting. He recalled that after the bill had
passed, he had wanted to take his kids hunting at the early
date; however, he found out that were there classes and
other complications that one needed to do months prior to
the hunt. He shared a personal story about how he and his
children were unable to shoot a bull moose that they saw
during the early youth hunting season.
Co-Chair Kelly inquired how complicated it would be this
time around to participate in the youth hunts. He further
inquired if the Board of Game would make so many barriers
that a family would be unable to go hunt in August before
school started.
BEN MULLIGAN, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, replied that it was already on the books that in some
game management units, youth had to take a hunter education
class; however, the Board of Game had the ability to waive
the requirement of having the youth take a hunter education
class if the hunting was in a safe area and they were
accompanied by an adult that had taken the class. He added
that the board had lately allowed the above exception. He
was unsure how the board would set up the requirements for
the youth hunt and deferred that portion of the question to
Mr. Spraker.
Co-Chair Kelly requested Mr. Mulligan to pass a message on
to the Board of Game that the class requirements were
nonsense; he thought that people should be able to get out
hunting.
9:26:08 AM
Senator Hoffman noted that by definition, a 17 year-old was
a child; however, in his district there were many 15, 16,
and 17 year-olds that went Ptarmigan hunting without an
adult. He inquired if these individuals would no longer be
able to go hunting without an adult if the bill passed.
Senator Micciche responded that they could still hunt as
normal and that the bill applied only to the special hunts.
Mr. Mulligan interjected that the bill did not change
anything pertaining to normal hunts, such as small game. He
stated that the way the bill was written currently, the
individuals that Senator Hoffman had mentioned would still
be able to hunt Ptarmigan in the same fashion.
Vice-Chair Fairclough recalled work on the bill in the
Senate Resource Committee prior to the new CS being
released. She noted that the bill had originally contained
the word "may" instead of "shall" on line 5. She referenced
a letter to Co-Chair Kelly from Mr. Spraker, who was the
chairman of the Board of Game, that indicated that the
board supported amended language to change "shall" back to
"may" and removing the season requirement. She requested
the sponsor to comment on the issue of "shall" versus "may"
in the legislation. She wanted the committee to fully
understand what had been originally proposed, as well as
what was in the current version.
LARRY SEMMENS, STAFF, SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, stated that
he had spoken to Mr. Spraker about the issue and that he
had agreed that "shall" worked just as well as "may" since
the season dates were amended. He concluded that Mr.
Spraker had expressed no problem with leaving the statute
as it currently was with the word "shall."
Senator Olson inquired how the bill would affect federal
lands and subsistence hunters who might have children that
were unable to attend classes as might be the case in rural
areas. Senator Micciche responded that the bill did not
affect normal hunting seasons and only applied to special
youth hunts.
Senator Olson queried how someone in a remote place like
Hollis or Klawock would be able to participate in special
hunts outside of the normal hunting season. Senator
Micciche deferred the question to Mr. Mulligan, but
clarified that Senator Olson was asking how someone in
remote areas would get the hunter education training.
Senator Olson replied that was what it came down to. He
noted that his real question was regarding the kind of
penalty that rural residents would incur if they were
stopped by a game warden and did not have the requirements.
He wondered how the prerequisites for the youth hunt would
be made available to some of the remote places in Alaska
like the Aleutians or Diomede Island. Mr. Mulligan believed
that the hunter education courses were offered online, but
added that he would double check with the department. He
noted that the courses being offered online did not address
the issue and added that he would look into the
availability of offering hunter education courses in other
ways besides in-person classes.
9:30:40 AM
Senator Olson inquired if the youth hunt program would be
eligible on federal lands. Mr. Mulligan replied that ADFG
did regulate wildlife on many federal lands. He thought
that in order to enact a youth hunt on federal lands, ADFG
would have to coordinate with the federal government to
ascertain if they wanted the state doing that.
Senator Micciche related that examples of prior youth hunts
would give a better illustration of how the system worked.
Mr. Mulligan stated that the Board of Game had instituted
six youth hunts. He reported that there were two Black-
tailed Deer hunts and that one hunt was on Kodiak Island
while the other was in Southeast Alaska. The board had also
instituted three youth-moose hunts and one youth-moose hunt
out of Delta Junction in the region's youth management
area. He related that with some of the hunts, such as the
ones for the Sitka Black-tailed Deer, there was simply a
harvest tag that a guardian or parent could get; in some
cases, the hunts required drawings that the youth entered
into in order to keep a tighter rein on the number of
harvested animals. He added for the record that ADFG's
director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation, Doug
Vincent-Lang, had committed that he would actively look for
additional youth hunts to bring forward to the board for
review and possible approval. He related the importance of
getting kids out hunting and noted that in some cases, the
specialty youth hunt was the best way to provide that. He
observed that with a specialty youth hunt, the department
knew that the youth were not trying to compete with
everyone else; furthermore, it provided the youth with an
advantage and got them interested and hooked on Alaska's
outdoors.
Vice-Chair Fairclough requested an explanation of the youth
hunts in a situation where there was a shortage of food in
a particular area; she inquired if a youth hunt in this
case would take precedent over those who engaging in
subsistence hunting. She believed that a former Board of
Game member had raised the issue of allocation during
testimony in the Senate Resources Committee; she thought
that the testimony had indicated the notion that the word
"shall" on line 5 of the bill would somehow mean that the
youth hunts could take priority over other hunting. She
acknowledged that she may be misunderstanding what was
said, but requested an explanation.
Senator Micciche replied that the former board member who
had testified had misunderstood the language to require
increasing hunts as though it was something that would
multiply over the years; however, nothing in the language
of the bill specified that. He stated that the bill stated
that annual seasons would be established in appropriate
areas of the state for big game other than bison and
muskox. He thought that it was a good question, but that
the language meant that a youth hunt would take place only
in the case of an abundance of a type of game and then only
in limited numbers. He stated that there had been very few
youth hunts to-date and that when a program like Teens on
Target applied for one, it involved a limited quantity of
animals in a very limited area.
9:34:45 AM
Mr. Mulligan added that subsistence took priority in the
allocation and that if the number of animals on a landscape
diminished, subsistence would get priority; in this case,
the youth hunts would be reduced as the abundance of
animals dictated.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that the Board of Game had included a
letter in members' packets (copy on file) that suggested
that the minimum age for the youth hunt be 10 years old; he
noted that the bill had the required age set at 8. He
inquired why 8 years old was arrived at as a minimum.
Senator Micciche replied that some believed that 8 was the
right age, but that Mr. Spraker thought that 8 was a little
young for most kids to fully grasp the level of
responsibility needed. He stated that the age requirement
was really a personal preference and that the sponsors had
wanted to make sure that families were able to take their
young kids hunting; he thought that the age at which a
child would be responsible enough could vary and that it
represented a decision that a family would have to make.
9:36:18 AM
Co-Chair Meyer related that the committee tended to focus
on the financial side of bills and that the legislation had
a zero fiscal note. He thought that the bill represented
good legislation.
Vice-Chair Fairclough MOVED to REPORT CSSB 77(RES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 77(RES) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a previously published zero fiscal
note: FN1(DFG).
9:37:06 AM
AT EASE
9:38:39 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DNR Email-Brand Books.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 231 |
| Research-Cattle Branding.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 231 |
| Sponsor Statement-HB 231.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 231 |
| CS SB 77 (RES) Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 77 |
| SB 77 Supp Letter TedSpraker 20140204.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 77 |
| SB 77 Spraker support 2.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 77 |