Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/09/1999 03:10 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 90-STATE JURISDICTION OVER FISH & GAME
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 90 to be up for consideration.
MR. HUBER explained that the proposed committee substitute has two
changes, but was not back from the drafters yet. In subsection
(d), it deletes "regardless of cost" and adds another section
exempting the provisions of this bill from federal/state
cooperative programs.
MR. HUBER said it was done in the same format as SB 91.
SENATOR MACKIE moved to adopt the CS to SB 90, version K, which the
committee had before them as the working draft. There were no
objections and it was adopted.
SENATOR MACKIE moved to remove "regardless of cost" on page 2, line
16 and insert the section from SB 91 which refers to the federal
acts exempted from the effect of the legislation. There were no
objections and the amendment was adopted.
SENATOR MACKIE said he had a possible concern on page 2, line 5
where it says, essentially, that the State of Alaska is the only
entity under which the federal government can transfer any type of
management to. He asked if it was the intent of this legislation
to effectively remove any possibility of co-management agreements
with anyone other than the State of Alaska.
SENATOR TAYLOR said yes and that is part of the problem. We do
have a constitutional standard that establishes who shall manage
fish and game in the State of Alaska. It's a constitutional
authority which the legislature cannot delegate from.
SENATOR MACKIE asked if there are any instances under which the
State or the federal government contract for any management of any
fish and game in the State currently.
SENATOR TAYLOR responded that he wasn't aware of any.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he knew that ministerial functions were
contracted, but not substantive decision making functions. He
asked Senator Taylor if he had a copy of the opinion on that issue.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he didn't have it with him. He said the real
question is one of who will have the discretionary authority to
make decisions about actual management policies.
Number 195
SENATOR MACKIE asked if we have the ability to deny the federal
government the ability to have a management agreement with anyone
they choose.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he thought we could to the extent that it
impacts state land and state waters. He thought we had the
ability, but the administration has refused to litigate it.
SENATOR MACKIE responded that until that is adjudicated, the
federal law allows for management by the federal government by an
Act of Congress if we're unable to resolve it.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thought the federal law said they manage
subsistence harvest, not the whole resource. The debate is how
they pull that thread into the whole resource.
SENATOR MACKIE asked if the federal government takes over
management of fish and game and chose to enter into a management
agreement in one particular region, how would this statute play out
against that authority.
SENATOR TAYLOR said the federal government believes that Act of
Congress leads them to believe they cannot only enforce it on their
lands, but they can also extend off of their lands into state lands
and waters in an extra territorial fashion. He thought someone
would have to litigate the issue eventually.
SENATOR MACKIE noted that in a sense, they were passing a statute
that doesn't have any authority whatsoever.
Number 200
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that federal law doesn't give management
authority, but a court case gave management authority.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 90(RES) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|