Legislature(2013 - 2014)BUTROVICH 205
04/02/2014 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB161 | |
| HB268 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 161 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 268 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 161-AUCTIONS FOR BIG GAME HARVEST PERMITS
CHAIR GIESSEL announced HB 161 to be up for consideration [CSHB
161(RES) was before the committee].
SENATOR MCGUIRE moved to adopt SCS CSHB 161(RES), version 28-
LS0530\I. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
3:32:58 PM
SENATOR DYSON joined the committee.
LINDSAY WILLIAMS, staff to Senator Giessel and the Senate
Resources Committee, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
explained the committee substitute (CS) makes three changes. The
first is on page 1, line 8, where the words "one Dall sheep"
were removed from section 1 and inserted into section 2. Page 2,
line 2, now reads "three harvest permits each year for Dall
sheep". It previously read two harvest permits.
The second change is on page 2, line 23, where "notwithstanding
any other provision of law "a" was removed and "A" was
reinserted.
The final change is on page 2, line 30. The phrase "conditions
set by the commissioner" was removed and "applicable law" was
inserted.
3:34:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS, sponsor of HB 161, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said her staff, Reid Harris, would
explain the reasons for the CS and she would follow up.
3:35:12 PM
REID HARRIS, staff to Representative Gattis, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that the sheep permit was
moved from section 1 to section 2 mainly because now it is
eligible for Pitman Robertson matching funds, which would
hopefully provide more money to the department to use for
conservation, protection, and education needs.
The second change on page 2, line 23, where "notwithstanding any
other provision of law, a" is legal language that says this bill
will supersede any other provisions that were in statute
regarding this issue. Removing that language means the other
statutes would apply before this bill. There was concern that
this would create an environment of special hunts, closed hunts,
out-of-season hunts or possibly the use of helicopters. The same
thing with conditions set by the commissioner being removed and
applicable law being reinserted. It has been said by the
department that both Resource Committees said they had no
intention of doing that.
SENATOR DYSON said he heard some discussion about how much of
the money raised should go to the nonprofits and maybe a portion
should go to ADF&G or their efforts.
MR. HARRIS said section 1 of the bill where 100 percent of the
tag proceed goes to nonprofits has two different theories. The
nonprofits that are able to use these tags can do a lot with it.
They can't keep any of it; it has to be spent. Section 2 that
raised the percentage from 10 to 30 percent does the same thing.
In current statute, the nonprofit can keep 10 percent and use it
for anything they want as long as it isn't for political gain,
lobbying and things like that. In the CS they retain 30 percent
but they all have to be spent on projects within the state,
according to the department. They can keep a nominal fee for
conducting the auction.
SENATOR DYSON said he heard that some have raised over $100,000
and asked how much money gets raised typically.
MR. HARRIS said an ADF&G financial breakdown indicated an
average of $50,000 to $60,000. A 2013 figure jumps out where the
Wild Sheep Foundation sold a Dall sheep permit for $180,000.
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony.
3:40:10 PM
WAYNE HEIMER, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, said he
opposed passing HB 161 out of committee unless it gets a
Judiciary Committee referral. He said that he had 25 years in
with the ADF&G primarily in Dall sheep and had been working with
Dall sheep special permits through the Wild Sheep Foundation. He
said that HB 161 proposes to significantly increase the longer
term future of the Wildlife Conservation budget by turning pre-
hunters into dedicated hunter conservationists. The assumption
that this will work over the long haul and correlated assumption
that the decline in hunting license sales can be fixed by
spending money on education seems to be based more on hope
rather than actual data.
He was gratified that the Dall sheep that was formerly in
section 1 was moved to where it will be matched by Pitman
Robertson funds, but he was still concerned about adding a third
Dall sheep permit because it may dilute the market, which is
extremely volatile and based almost entirely on the presumption
of an advantage that the purchaser might gain. If there is no
advantage the permits don't sell well. He had seen the bid price
for the most desirable of Dall sheep permits vary from $200,000
to $20,000. Right now the Chugach permit is doing very well, but
he did not anticipate being able to maintain that value because
of the biology that seems to be happening there.
3:42:34 PM
Additionally, there seem to be questions about statutory and
constitutional acceptability of HB 161. The bill's backers say
these questions could not have arisen because they were careful
during drafting. Nevertheless, since the bill has been written
they have arisen and they should be addressed, perhaps through a
Judiciary Committee review.
Finally, Mr. Heimer said, he was a little uncomfortable with the
ADF&G determining how NGOs spend the money generated from the
permits. NGOs are inherently special interests and he preferred
a separation of funding to preserve the sometimes adversarial
but helpful relationship between NGOs and their managing agency.
While confrontation may be unpleasant, service bureaucracies
like ADF&G need the challenge to see beyond their status quo.
NGOs have always served this role and he wanted that to be
preserved.
3:43:53 PM
SENATOR DYSON appreciated his weighing in and said he had
received comments from a lot of Alaskans who were concerned
about less game being available for Alaskans.
MR. HEIMER responded that the addition of one more Dall sheep
permit will not materially affect anyone's opportunity, however
a permit without a home isn't worth very much. Anybody who might
buy this permit can currently go almost anywhere in Alaska to
hunt sheep and the only thing to give the sheep permit value is
the impression that there is a spectacular advantage associated
with it.
3:45:00 PM
KAREN GORDON, representing herself, Fairbanks, Alaska, suggested
that HB 161 be killed or sent to the Finance Committee for due
diligent consideration because of its impossible zero dollar
fiscal note. She said that she lives in Fairbanks and recently
retired from the state as an administrative officer after almost
30 years with the ADF&G and DNR where she often dealt with
contracts and MOUs.
She said that HB 161 is rife with problems that make the bill
indefensible. Number one, it's not even necessary because
nothing is actually broken. The state has made over $4 million
via permit sales through the Wild Sheep Foundation alone. Dall
sheep are the big money ticket and three permits could dilute
the exclusivity of the market and that would drive down the
price.
Number two, it violates state procurement laws by funneling
money earned from common use resources to a singular NGO via a
sole source contract which yields a smaller return to the
department than is now realized through a competitive process.
And three, the zero dollar fiscal note is unrealistic. Writing
one or more MOUs allocating 42 permits which are presumed in
this bill, assessing and approving the involved NGOs intended
operating plan, accounting for funding splits, auditing the
backup documentation for the expenditures necessary for each of
the 42 permits, completing follow-up evaluations on 42 permits,
etc. isn't going to be without costs. From her experience, just
one can be very time consuming, but 42 of them cannot be managed
for nothing.
MS. GORDON said she preferred that this bill were killed,
because nothing is broken and benefits to Alaskans are ambiguous
at best and the amount returned to the department is reduced
significantly. If it must survive, it really needs to go to
Senate Finance, because the zero fiscal note is unrealistic.
3:47:51 PM
RON SOMERVILLE, lobbyist, Territorial Sportsmen, Juneau, Alaska,
said he was director of the Division of Wildlife when this issue
came up originally; the purpose was to generate money for
Wildlife Safeguard Program. It then morphed into getting money
for the Fish and Game Fund to match with federal dollars. Now
it's going to more support for the NGOs. While they didn't
oppose the many programs, the question is the oversight of the
legislature. If you give 100 percent of something to an
organization, you're saying that money will be controlled by a
memorandum of agreement (MOA). He wanted the legislature to have
some oversight in this process; plus having as much going to the
Fish and Game Fund as possible is important, because of the
matching 3:1 ratio with federal dollars.
MR. SOMERVILLE said that the division needs to increase license
fees. He explained that this program generates about $100,000 a
year, a pittance in terms of what is needed to match the federal
money, and this is not a solution.
MR. SOMERVILLE stated, "You gotta look at the whole picture."
The board had to essentially stop non-resident hunting in
Mulchatna because no caribou were left there. There are
conflicts between the subsistence and non-subsistence users in
Nelchina; non-residents are being pushed out. But residents are
being affected similarly, too.
MR. SOMERVILLE said resident hunting opportunities in the state
are diminishing every year and nothing in HB 161 requires these
permits to come from the non-resident pool, yet 47 percent of
the permits are sold outside of the state. Even though it's a
small percentage, they add up.
He summarized that they appreciated the sponsor moving the sheep
permit into section 2, but they prefer that the bison go into
section 2, as well. The existing agreements have very little
control over what happens to the money going to non-profits.
3:53:01 PM
AL BARRETTE, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, said that
mainly the NGOs testified at the last meeting and the one thing
that stood out in his mind is that none of them were asking for
money or more opportunity to raise money. They were just touting
how good their programs were working with the monies they have.
Second, he pointed out that the department has been trying to
keep this bill alive to raise this money, yet when he was at the
last Board of Game meeting on March 14, they didn't "bat an
eyelid when they lost approximately $180,000 to musk ox tags
when the board reduced the bull musk ox tag from $500 to $25."
He had also spent a lot of time today trying to find some
statistics that would show that educating hunters increased the
sale of licenses or interest in the sport of hunting, and he
couldn't find anything. There is no correlation between
educating hunters and making them long-time hunters or getting
them active in the shooting sports. If this bill doesn't fail
here, he wanted it sent to Senate Finance so the fiscal note
could be looked at.
3:54:45 PM
DAVE LYON, representing himself, Homer, Alaska, opposed HB 161.
He is a long-time Alaska hunter and member of the Alaska
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers as well as chair of the Homer
Fish and Game Advisory Board. Despite a whirlwind of last minute
revisions, this bill is at its heart an affront to Alaskan
hunters and in direct conflict with the common use provisions of
the Constitution. There is not a problem that this bill fixes;
the tag program has been a success in its current form and has
provided ample funding for many organizations to further their
goals.
The much lauded "Becoming an Outdoors Woman Program" is an
ongoing program that is neither in jeopardy of being defunded
nor exclusively funded by the Governor's tag program, he said.
In fact, the Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers has funded
scholarships for the program in the past with no income from any
governmental handout.
He said this legislation is not a response to an ongoing issue;
it is simply an example of an organization wanting more tags,
ostensibly for the ultimate good of Alaskans and the ADF&G.
Everyone wants more tags, but for an increase in auction tags
there obviously needs to be a reduction in tags available to
regular hunters, some who can't afford a high-dollar auction for
a tag they may, if lucky, get one as a drawing permit.
MR. LYON said he didn't know of any Alaskans who feel that
giving a tag to a corporate entity of any kind is worth the
reduction in their odds for drawing one of them. To raise more
money for the department, hunting and fishing fees must increase
and there must be nominal fee for big game tags. With the Pitman
Robertson funds available to the state, each dollar is met three
to one, and at the moment, despite record funds available, the
state has had to leave some of this money on the table, because
it isn't raising enough to match it.
MR. LYON stated that there is no reason to believe this
legislation will generate any more money for ADF&G, especially
with an added percentage of the auction proceeds being funneled
away from the department and flooding the market with tags. In
closing, he said that the simple fact that the proceeds of the
sale of these tags profit the NGOs obviously violates the common
use clause of our Constitution, which is wherever occurring in
their natural state, fish, wildlife and waters are reserved to
the people for common use.
3:57:23 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said it doesn't sound like he has a problem
with the existing tag statute, and asked why he thought the new
plan does have a problem.
MR. LYON replied that the additional increase in the revenue
that the auctioning organizations get to keep from the proceeds
has gone up from 10 to 30 percent. In the past when the 10
percent is mentioned, it has been considered administrative
costs for the auction. This has been such a long-standing issue
that probably it might actually fail the common clause
challenge, but nobody is bothering about it right now. But
generating all this attention may create a bigger problem.
3:58:47 PM
GEORGE MATZ, representing himself, Fritz Creek, Alaska, said he
is a member of the Homer Advisory Committee and opposed HB 161.
It makes as much sense as the legislature being decided by
auction instead of votes. Basically HB 161 privatizes Alaska's
common use resources. Continuing the trend toward privatizing
resources goes down the slippery slope of adding more hunts and
more proceeds for private interests. Although non-profits
benefit by this, they are private organizations not public
organizations. Privatization puts more emphasis on making money
and less on conservation. The result usually turns out to be
non-sustainable harvesting of fish and game resources, less
biodiversity, and less opportunity for the average hunter.
Furthermore, HB 161 deletes language that prohibits money from
being used for political purposes, which may not be in
accordance with ADF&G and other wildlife user groups.
He agreed that ADF&G needs more funding if it is to have
science-based, sustainable management of Alaska's fish and
wildlife resources. Unfortunately, he said, historically, ADF&G
has been underfunded by the state in terms of its general funds,
but fish and game resources are important to the general public
and it should be paying more for it. So, they should be looking
for other options for increasing its funding.
MR. MATZ recalled that about 20 years ago there was the concept
of a watchable wildlife equipment excise tax, which could be
part of the match for the Fish and Game Fund. It was a national
program that failed ultimately because Congress didn't want to
add another tax, but it had general support of the user groups
and mixed support from the industry.
4:01:48 PM
TOM YOUNG, representing himself, Homer, Alaska, opposed HB 161.
It bothers him to be "selling game," which is not legal to start
with.
4:02:49 PM
BRIAN LYNCH, founding member and trustee, Devils Thumb Archer's
Archery Club, Petersburg, Alaska, said their concerns are to
maintain the four Ellen Island elk permits and the ability to
keep 100 percent of the proceeds that go to the non-profits for
the auction of these permits. He explained that the Archery Club
is a small 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with fewer than 100
members, most of whom are family members with kids. They have
been raffling off an Ellen Island elk permit for nearly 15 years
and generally they receive $500-1,000, typically.
He said that even though the total dollars are small their
impact to their organization is substantial, because they use
the money to maintain their archery range, purchase 3-D archery
targets, which are very expensive, and put on tournaments, open
houses, provide archery instruction and free use of ski
equipment by members with an emphasis on encouraging
participation by kids. The local schools have even occasionally
used the archery range for physical education classes.
MR. LYNCH asked that the Ellen Island elk provisions in section
1(c) of HB 161 remain as currently written in the statute.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if he supported the bill.
MR. LYNCH responded that they just want to make sure that their
ability to raffle off these permits and be able to keep 100
percent of the proceeds remains in the statute or however form
it comes out.
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that the CS has the same outcome as
the root bill.
4:05:50 PM
RICHARD ROHRER, representing himself, Kodiak, Alaska, said he
didn't want to testify at this time.
4:06:23 PM
STEVEN FLORY, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed
HB 161. He is a past chairman of the Anchorage Fish and Game
Advisory Committee and past president of the Wild Sheep
Foundation, Alaska Chapter. He said there is no reason to add
another sheep tag, especially when no more money will go to the
ADF&G. The sheep tags have always been used as a draw and that
is why Alaska has gotten so much money from them. This will
continue if the application is not changed. If they add another
sheep tag that will add a fiscal note and the bill needs to go
to Finance. The department would be losing money, because three
tags are worth less money than two. This is a bill to fix
something that isn't broken, so that it will help one particular
group and one particular lobbyist.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if he was one of the non-profits that had a
tag to raffle off.
MR. FLORY replied no.
4:09:04 PM
GARY STEVENS, representing himself, Chugiak, Alaska, said he is
a board member of the Alaska Outdoor Council, and opposed HB 161
for all the same reasons they have heard: it fixes a problem
that is not broken. He didn't understand why section 1 that
describes the qualification for a non-profit corporation that is
established to promote these wonderful things specifically in
partnership with the ADF&G is a different qualification than in
section 3. He has been assured that the new language doesn't
limit it to any one group, but he thought it did. Although any
other group that wants to form at this point and create a new
non-profit will be able to be awarded this permit if the ADF&G
agreed with that. The biggest issue he had was he didn't
understand why that is different than the description for a
qualifying non-profit in section 3.
He also stated that this bill is 100 percent about money and if
it passes out of Resources it should go to Finance.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked what type of organization would qualify
under section 1.
MR. STEVENS answered that it specifically says "a non-profit
corporation established to promote education in outdoor
traditions and conservation and wildlife protection programs in
partnership with the department," and the only non-profit
corporation that was created to work in partnership with the
ADF&G is the Outdoor Heritage Foundation of Alaska.
4:12:37 PM
ZACHARY DUNLAP, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, opposed
HB 161 for all the reason already mentioned. He is a younger
Alaskan who uses every tag he gets, most of it for meat, and
adding more tags to the non-profits takes them away from
hunters.
4:14:50 PM
YOLANDA DELACRUZ, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska,
opposed HB 161, because the natural resources in Alaska belong
to all Alaskans, not just the politicians and trophy hunters.
She is against sport hunting, but not against hunting for food.
4:18:34 PM
GARY GEARHART, President, Safari Club International, Alaska
Chapter, Palmer, Alaska, supported HB 161. He said a couple of
things are important: it requires the non-profits to work with
the department to reach an agreement where the funds raised
should be spent and that would increase the effort toward ADF&G
totally. Increasing the share to the non-profits will increase
their opportunity to raise money for their specific projects; it
is not just restricted to the one.
4:20:04 PM
BETHANY MARCUM, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, said
she is a graduate of ADF&G's Becoming an Outdoors Woman Program
(BOW) supported HB 161. She learned to hunt and fish as well as
other outdoor skills as a result of the program, and she now
donates much of her time to support conservation efforts in
Alaska. She also buys a hunting, fishing and trapping license
every year and fills her freezer with wild game and fish. Many
others have gained skills through this program and volunteer to
support conservation.
She supported HB 161, because she thought the change in ratio
from 90/10 to 70/30 will create more incentive for the non-
profits to engage in the process and it is important to require
them to engage with ADF&G, so funds are spent appropriately.
MS. MARCUM said she knows state funds are tight and this bill
provides a way for the non-profits to raise money for their
projects instead of coming the legislature and asking for a
handout.
4:22:23 PM
KEN TAYLOR, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, said he is
a board member of the Outdoor Heritage Foundation of Alaska and
supported HB 161. He explained that they had primarily been
raising their funding for running this non-profit through a
charity shoot that is held every summer. So, they are not
looking at this bill as a funding mechanism for just their
organization that supports a lot of programs in partnership with
the ADF&G. He didn't believe this language is that restrictive.
If the provision in section (a) that says "a non-profit
organization established to promote education and outdoor
traditions and conservation" limits the pool of non-profits to
just the Outdoor Heritage Foundation, that needs to be changed.
But he didn't think it did.
MR. TAYLOR said he understood the Wild Sheep Foundation's
concerns about diluting the number of permits, and they could be
right, but there have been some discussions about the common use
clause in Article 8 of the Constitution and how the state's
fish, wildlife and waters are reserved for leaves out beneficial
uses. Educate children and others about what conservation means.
4:25:56 PM
GEORGE PIERCE, representing himself, Kasilof, Alaska, opposed HB
161. He said it will double the number of big game permits
donated to organizations to auction off, most often, to non-
residents and there isn't even enough game for Alaskans.
Residents hunt for food and non-residents hunt for horns, he
said, and they rarely take the meat home with them. Residents
are required to take it home. Alaska's resources are supposed to
be managed for the benefit of all Alaskans and Article 8 of the
Constitution says so. Where in the Constitution does it say to
even fund these folks, at all?
4:28:50 PM
EDDIE GRASSER, lobbyist, Vice President, Safari Club
International and, President, Outdoor Heritage Foundation,
Palmer, Alaska, supported HB 161. He knew of several non-profits
that have worked with the department on education projects; any
organizations who go to the department and agree to conditions
in an MOA and terms of the language in the first part of this
bill can do so. Nothing stops them.
He said the current system may not be broken, but the ADF&G and
several of the NGOs that support this bill were looking for a
mechanism to help the department's education programs. The
current governor's permits only allows for conservation and law
enforcement programs. Education is a vital part of what the
department needs to do. America is becoming more urbanized as a
culture and a survey has indicated that education programs
increase purchase of hunting and fishing licenses.
SENATOR MICCICHE said the only thing the money can be used for
is to support outdoor and traditional education projects and
conservation and wildlife protection programs approved by the
department, and asked what those might look like as opposed to
things that folks might fear that direct someone politically to
oppose some kind of a ballot proposition.
MR. GRASSER answered that it would be very unlikely that a
department person working on an MOA with a non-profit for one of
these permits on the 30 percent would ever consider approving it
to be spent on political purposes. Secondly, some testimony has
been incorrect: 501 (c)(3)s are not private enterprises; they
are public corporations whose books are open to the public (
under IRS regulations). The IRS also prohibits 501(c)(3) non-
profits from doing politics.
SENATOR MICCICHE said all have witnessed 501(c)(3) improperly
engaging in illegal activities and he understood the fear. It's
worth pointing out and ensuring that doesn't occur.
SENATOR DYSON asked of the list of people who are groups in
favor of this bill, if are any liable to get any of the funds
through this program.
MR. GRASSER answered probably all of them are. A lot of the
groups that aren't in favor of this would have the same
opportunity; they would just have to apply.
SENATOR DYSON remarked that some 30 groups might qualify.
MR. GRASSER said that was true.
4:36:25 PM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, Wasilla,
Alaska, opposed HB 161. He said they are an organization of
about 48 clubs and they just met a couple of weeks ago and chose
to oppose HB 161 as written. The most important thing to the
council is that it doesn't want to diminish the integrity of the
Fish and Game Fund and the matching Pitman Robertson funds.
Concerns at the time were if this would infringe on Article 8,
Section 3 on common use and at the time the argument was that it
was only one bison and that was alright because it was a small
number. At that time the money was to go to the Wildlife
Safeguard Program. Since then AOC supported the legislation that
increased the big game tags to include elk tags.
He said they were concerned with accountability and
transparency, which they still don't see. The Legislature has
oversight in AS 16.05.130(d) that says the ADF&G has to report
each year on the expenditures out of the Fish and Game Fund. He
tracked those expenditures and found hunter services, but they
don't account for the donations that have gone to the NGOs, and
that is another major concern. The AOC has gotten the permit and
has shared it with the department, but there is no accounting of
that money going back to the Department of Public Safety,
because they chose to put money back into the Safeguard Program
for Delta bison.
4:39:40 PM
But the biggest concern they have is that it will jeopardize the
current process. It's not getting challenged, because it's a
small number and a small percentage goes to the NGOs. Increasing
that percentage from 10 to 30 percent, specifically because the
harvestable sheep surplus is way down (about half of the
historical harvest), and the public is aware of the demand and
all of a sudden it means a lot more.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked for list of 48 clubs he represents and if
they support this program at all along with an accounting for
past funds.
MR. ARNO said they see the value of the auction permit process
and hoped for an audit of it.
4:41:55 PM
SENATOR DYSON asked if the NRA is part of the AOC.
MR. ARNO answered yes.
SENATOR DYSON asked if Eddie's group is part of the AOC.
MR. ARNO answered no.
SENATOR DYSON asked him to name some members of the AOC.
MR. ARNO replied the Territorial Sportsmen, the Tanana Valley
Sportsmen, the Alaska Outdoor Access Alliance, and the Ruffed
Grouse Society.
SENATOR DYSON thanked him for his candid assessment that the
oversight of the money the AOC has gotten hasn't been very well
done, and asked what process they go through to get members to
weigh in.
MR. ARNO explained that at their annual meeting, each club gets
one delegate with one vote and there are three votes from
individual memberships in the three areas. The legislation is
presented and discussed. Then the delegates vote.
SENATOR DYSON said that implies that the delegates that come
have the authority to speak for their group.
MR. ARNO said that was correct.
CHAIR GIESSEL found no further questions and closed public
testimony.
CHAIR GIESSEL wanted Mr. Bullard to respond to the
constitutionality question of common use.
4:45:09 PM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Division, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that this
legislation implicates it, but he didn't know if it is a
violation. There is a spectrum: at some point given the number
of permits and the condition somewhere there will be a line.
4:46:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS said the accountability question could be
addressed by Mr. Lang.
She said this bill was started last year and went through
committee after committee; she worked with folks on line and
some of today's things had not come up before, like having to go
to Finance and accountability.
In regards to the political gain, another committee wanted to
put in the following language: "Not to be used to make a
contribution to any candidate for political office or for any
organizations supporting or opposing ballot propositions or to
pay expenses associated with lobbying the legislature or the
administration." She then heard that didn't have to be in the
bill and the permits may be used only to support outdoor
traditions.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS said she had put things in and taken
things out, and had tried for two years to go through every
angle but she had "no intention of getting involved" with the
clubs' different philosophies. She wanted what was best for
Alaska, Alaskans, and the department on how to use the fund for
education. Nothing in the bill says, and the department has
reiterated, that there will be special hunts in closed areas,
out of season hunts, or allowable helicopter use. She noted that
this bill passed out of the House with a vote of 30 to 5, and
the five folks that struggled with it were from Fairbanks.
4:50:59 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that it's unfortunate, because there
are many people on both sides of this issue that normally work
together on outdoor tradition and related issues, and it was
painful to watch.
SENATOR DYSON said he was concerned about the fiscal side of it
and was surprised the bill had no Finance referral in either
house.
4:52:20 PM
SENATOR DYSON moved to report SCS CSHB 161(RES), version 28-
LS0530\I, from committee to the next committee of referral with
attached zero fiscal note and individual recommendations. He
said if it is passed, he personally wanted a Finance referral.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
4:52:53 PM
At ease from 4:52 to 4:54 p.m.