Legislature(1995 - 1996)

04/29/1996 08:18 AM House RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         April 29, 1996                                        
                           8:18 a.m.                                           
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman                                         
 Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman                        
 Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman                                      
 Representative Alan Austerman                                                 
 Representative John Davies                                                    
 Representative Pete Kott                                                      
 Representative Irene Nicholia                                                 
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 Representative Ramona Barnes                                                  
 Representative Don Long                                                       
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 112(RES)                                               
 "An Act establishing a discovery royalty credit for the lessees of            
 state land drilling exploratory wells and making the first                    
 discovery of oil or gas in an oil or gas pool in the Cook Inlet               
 sedimentary basin."                                                           
      - PASSED HCSCSSB 112(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE                               
 CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 262(RES)(ct rule fld)                                  
 "An Act relating to management of game populations for maximum                
 sustained yield for human harvest and providing for the replacement           
 of areas closed to consumptive uses of game; relating to management           
 of fish and game areas."                                                      
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
 CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 247(RLS) am(efd fld)(ct rule fld)                      
 "An Act restricting the use of certain funds deposited in the fish            
 and game fund; and relating to the powers and duties of the                   
 commissioner of fish and game."                                               
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
 SENATE BILL NO. 257 am                                                        
 "An Act relating to the taking of game or fish for public safety              
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
 CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 283(RLS)                                               
 "An Act relating to filing, recording, and indexing of documents              
 with or by the Department of Natural Resources; repealing certain             
 filing requirements concerning property involving nonresident                 
 aliens; and providing for an effective date."                                 
      - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  SB 112                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: DISCOVERY ROYALTY CREDIT                                         
 SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES                                                         
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 03/07/95       516    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/07/95       516    (S)   RES, FIN                                          
 03/08/95              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/15/95              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/17/95              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/17/95              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/27/95              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/27/95              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 04/07/95              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/06/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/06/96              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/11/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/11/96              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/13/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/13/96              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/20/96      2802    (S)   RES RPT  CS  4DP          NEW TITLE               
 03/20/96      2803    (S)   FISCAL NOTE TO SB (DNR)                           
 03/20/96      2803    (S)   INDETERMINATE FN TO SB (REV)                      
 03/25/96      2861    (S)   FN TO CS (DNR)                                    
 03/26/96              (S)   FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 03/26/96              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                       
 03/27/96              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                       
 03/27/96      2921    (S)   FIN RPT  5DP 2NR (RES)CS                          
 03/28/96              (S)   RLS AT  1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 03/28/96              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 03/29/96      2963    (S)   INDETERMINATE FN TO CS (REV)                      
 03/27/96      2921    (S)   PREVIOUS FN (DNR)                                 
 03/29/96      2966    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  3/29/96                        
 03/29/96      2968    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 03/29/96      2968    (S)   RES  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 03/29/96      2968    (S)   ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y12 N7 E1            
 03/29/96      2969    (S)   THIRD READING 4/1/96 CALENDAR                     
 04/01/96      2995    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 112(RES)                
 04/01/96      2996    (S)   PASSED Y18 N2                                     
 04/01/96      2999    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/02/96      3557    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/02/96      3557    (H)   RESOURCES, FINANCE                                
 04/15/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/15/96              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 04/18/96              (H)   RES AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 408                       
 04/18/96              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 04/25/96              (H)   RES AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 408                       
 04/25/96              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 04/29/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 BILL:  SB 262                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER, Sharp, Pearce, Halford, Green,                 
             Frank, Taylor                                                     
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/02/96      2286    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/02/96      2286    (S)   RES, JUD                                          
 02/05/96      2309    (S)   COSPONSOR(S): TAYLOR                              
 02/12/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 02/12/96              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/08/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/08/96              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/11/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/11/96              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 03/12/96      2709    (S)   RES RPT  CS  5DP 1NR  SAME TITLE                  
 03/12/96      2709    (S)   FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (F&G)                      
 03/18/96      2785    (S)   FIN REFERRAL ADDED                                
 03/26/96      2910    (S)   JUD REFERRAL WAIVED   Y12 N8                      
 04/03/96              (S)   FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 04/03/96              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                       
 04/04/96      3065    (S)   FIN RPT  2DP 2NR  (RES)CS                         
 04/04/96      3065    (S)   PREVIOUS FN (F&G)                                 
 04/09/96              (S)   RLS AT 12:20 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 04/09/96              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 04/10/96      3112    (S)   RULES TO CAL & 1 NR  4/10/96                      
 04/10/96      3116    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/10/96      3116    (S)   RES  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 04/10/96      3116    (S)   ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y12 N8               
 04/10/96      3116    (S)   THIRD READING 4/11 CALENDAR                       
 04/11/96      3168    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 262(RES)                
 04/11/96      3168    (S)   PASSED Y12 N8                                     
 04/11/96      3169    (S)   COURT RULE CHANGES FAILED  Y13 N7                 
 04/11/96      3176    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/12/96      3690    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/12/96      3690    (H)   RESOURCES, JUDICIARY                              
 04/26/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/26/96              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 04/29/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 BILL:  SB 247                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: USE OF FISH & GAME FUND/COMM'R'S POWERS                          
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR, Sharp, Miller                                  
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 01/30/96      2251    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/30/96      2251    (S)   RES, FIN                                          
 03/20/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/25/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 03/28/96      2941    (S)   RES RPT  CS  3DP 2NR    NEW TITLE                 
 04/03/96              (S)   FIN AT  9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532                
 04/03/96              (S)   MINUTE(FIN)                                       
 04/04/96      3064    (S)   FISCAL NOTES TO CS (F&G-3)                        
 04/04/96      3064    (S)   FIN RPT  CS  2DP 2NR    NEW TITLE                 
 04/04/96      3064    (S)   FISCAL NOTES TO CS (F&G-3)                        
 04/04/96      3064    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DPS)                      
 04/09/96              (S)   RLS AT 12:20 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 04/09/96              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 04/10/96      3112    (S)   RULES CS & 2CAL 1NR  4/10/96                      
                             NEW TITLE                                         
 04/10/96      3112    (S)   FNS TO CS (F&G-3)                                 
 04/10/96      3112    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DPS)                            
 04/10/96      3114    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/10/96      3114    (S)   RLS  CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                      
 04/10/96      3114    (S)   ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y12 N8               
 04/10/96      3114    (S)   THIRD READING 4/11 CALENDAR                       
 04/11/96      3166    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  CSSB 247(RLS)                
 04/11/96      3166    (S)   FAILED PASSAGE Y10 N10                            
 04/11/96      3167    (S)   TAYLOR  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 04/12/96      3206    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                 
 04/12/96      3206    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1                         
                             UNAN CONSENT                                      
 04/12/96      3206    (S)   AM NO  1   ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                   
 04/12/96      3207    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
 04/12/96      3207    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y11 N8 E1               
 04/12/96      3208    (S)   EFFECTIVE DATE FAILED Y13 N6 E1                   
 04/12/96      3208    (S)   COURT RULE(S) FAILED Y12 N7 E1                    
 04/12/96      3220    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/15/96      3732    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/15/96      3733    (H)   RESOURCES, FINANCE                                
 04/26/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/26/96              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 04/29/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 BILL:  SB 257                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) ZHAROFF                                                
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/02/96      2282    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/02/96      2282    (S)   RES, JUD                                          
 02/19/96              (S)   RES AT  3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 02/19/96              (S)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 02/21/96      2488    (S)   RES RPT  5DP                                      
 02/21/96      2488    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)                            
 03/22/96              (S)   JUD AT  9:00 AM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 03/22/96              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/25/96              (S)   RLS AT  7:00 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203                 
 03/25/96              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 03/25/96      2862    (S)   JUD RPT  4DP                                      
 03/25/96      2862    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS-2)                         
 03/25/96      2862    (S)   PREVIOUS ZERO FN (F&G)                            
 04/03/96      3045    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  4/3/96                         
 04/03/96      3045    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 04/03/96      3046    (S)   ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN                    
 04/03/96      3046    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  SB 257                       
 04/03/96      3046    (S)   PASSED Y12 N7 E1                                  
 04/03/96      3046    (S)   MILLER  NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION                 
 04/04/96      3070    (S)   HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 4/9                    
 04/09/96      3097    (S)   HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 4/10                   
 04/10/96      3129    (S)   PLACED AT BOTTOM OF CALENDAR                      
 04/10/96      3134    (S)   RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING                 
 04/10/96      3134    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 UNAN                    
 04/10/96      3134    (S)   AM NO  1     ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT                 
 04/10/96      3134    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
 04/10/96      3134    (S)   PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y20 N-                  
 04/10/96      3136    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 04/12/96      3690    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/12/96      3690    (H)   RESOURCES, JUDICIARY                              
 04/26/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/26/96              (H)   MINUTE(RES)                                       
 04/29/96              (H)   RES AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 124                       
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 WILSON CONDON, Commissioner                                                   
 Department of Revenue                                                         
 P.O. Box 110400                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0400                                                     
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on HCSCSSB 112(RES).                  
 GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Attorney                                                    
 Legislative Legal and Research Services                                       
 Legislative Affairs Agency                                                    
 130 Seward Street, Suite 409                                                  
 Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                          
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on CSSB 262(RES)                      
                      (ct rule fld).                                           
 PETE SHEPERD                                                                  
 1012 Galena Street                                                            
 Fairbanks, Alaska 99709                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 474-4685                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of CSSB 262(RES)                    
                      (ct rule fld).                                           
 BILL HAGAR, Member                                                            
 Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association                                      
 431 Gaffney Road                                                              
 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 452-6295                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of CSSB 262(RES)                    
                      (ct rule fld).                                           
 LYNN LEVENGOOD, Executive Director                                            
 Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association                                      
 1008 16th Avenue                                                              
 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 452-5196                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of CSSB 262(RES)                    
                      (ct rule fld).  CSSB 247(RLS) am(efd fld)(ct             
                      rule fld).                                               
 WAYNE REGELIN, Director                                                       
 Division of Wildlife Conservation                                             
 Department of Fish and Game                                                   
 P.O. Box 25526                                                                
 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4190                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSSB 262(RES)(ct rule fld),                 
                      CSSB 247(RLS) am(efd fld)(ct rule fld) and               
                      SB 257 am.                                               
 SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR                                                          
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 30                                                     
 Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3873                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of CSSB 247(RLS) am(efd fld)(ct                  
                      rule fld).                                               
 GERON BRUCE, Special Assistant and                                            
   Legislative Liaison                                                         
 Department of Fish and Game                                                   
 P.O. Box 25526                                                                
 Juneau, Alaska 99802                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 465-6143                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to CSSB 247(RLS)                 
                      am(efd fld)(ct rule fld).                                
 EDDIE GRASSER                                                                 
 Alaska Outdoor Council                                                        
 4506 Robbie Road                                                              
 Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 486-3830                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of the concept of                   
                      CSSB 247(RLS)am(efd fld)(ct rule fld).                   
 GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Assistant                                         
   to Senator Fred Zharoff                                                     
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 128                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3424                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Gave sponsor statement for SB 257 am.                    
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 96-71, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Resources Committee meeting            
 to order at 8:18 a.m.  He announced a quorum was present.                     
 CSSB 112(RES) - DISCOVERY ROYALTY CREDIT                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the committee would address HCSCSSB
 112(RES), Version O, "An Act establishing a discovery royalty                 
 credit for the lessees of state land drilling exploratory wells and           
 making the first discovery of oil or gas in an oil or gas pool in             
 the Cook Inlet sedimentary basin."  Co-Chairman Green said, "As you           
 recall at our last meeting we had a request by at least one of the            
 members, Representative Barnes, and I believe you also felt that we           
 should actually have the wording that we had been talking about,              
 and so you have before you Version O which has incorporated that              
 wording and I would entertain a motion to accept Version O as our             
 work draft.  It has been moved that 9-LS0808\O, 4/27/96, be adopted           
 as the work draft.  Without objection, that is the bill before us."           
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "It has also been brought to my attention             
 that we have a proposed amendment, Representative Davies."                    
 Number 114                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES made a motion to adopt the amendment               
 before the committee members.                                                 
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN objected for the purpose of discussion.                     
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained it removes the explicit definition            
 of "paying quantities" on page 5, lines 7 through 13.  He said                
 there was a long discussion in subcommittee on whether or not this            
 should be explicitly be defined.  Representative Davies said his              
 sense is this language is going to be pretty critical as to how               
 much litigation there will be over this bill.  He said it is his              
 view that it would better for the division to spend a fair amount             
 of time working with people of the industry and various legal                 
 people to make sure that this language is going to be the cleanest            
 possible language.  He said he believes the bill will work fine               
 without including this specific definition.  He said he thinks this           
 is an instance where we will be further ahead if we allow the                 
 division to establish this definition in regulations.                         
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "My objection would be that, as we found              
 out in subcommittee that there are at least three definitions                 
 banding about out there for what `paying quantities' means.  And              
 that rather than leave that to chance or uncertainty by putting it            
 in statute, there is no question what was meant when this bill was            
 passed as opposed to relying on regulations which, from time to               
 time as we have known in the past - regulations have a tendency to            
 maybe move a little away from the full intent of the legislation.             
 And for that reason, I would like to see -- and let the people who            
 may be involved in this know precisely what is meant rather than to           
 the possibility of a regulation that can be changed fairly easily,            
 and for that reason I would oppose the amendment."                            
 Number 351                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said there is an expert in this field in            
 attendance, Commissioner Condon.  He said he knows this is highly             
 irregular, but he would ask Representative Davies to withdraw his             
 motion to take testimony on this issue.                                       
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Condon if he would like to testify on             
 the amendment.                                                                
 WILSON CONDON, Commissioner, Department of Revenue, indicated he              
 wasn't in attendance to testify in favor of this bill, but                    
 Representative Ogan asked him to be available to answer any                   
 questions about his past experience with respect to the discovery             
 royalty disputes that have arisen.  He said he would be happy to              
 answer questions if the chair wishes.                                         
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Representative Davies to rescind his motion           
 while testimony is taken or would he rather vote on it.                       
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he would be happy to withdraw his motion           
 as long as he can reintroduce it.  He then withdrew his motion.               
 COMMISSIONER CONDON then came before the committee to answer                  
 Number 462                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the reason he asked him to be in                     
 attendance is so that he could describe, for the record, at what              
 capacity he has dealt with this issue with the state in the past as           
 far as discovery royalty.                                                     
 COMMISSIONER CONDON explained, "I dealt with the issues relating to           
 discovery royalty while I served as an assistant attorney general             
 and the deputy attorney general for the state back in the late `70s           
 and up until 1980.  In that capacity, there was a dispute between             
 Union Oil Company and Marathon Oil Company with respect to whether            
 or not they were entitled to a discovery royalty for their                    
 discovery of the McCarther River Trading Bay filed.  In my work               
 with respect to that particular dispute, I undertook to compile a             
 comprehensive history of how the discovery royalty provision came             
 to be what it was, and both in terms of the statutory origins of it           
 - the regulations that were adopted to implement it and then all              
 the disputes that had arisen up to that point with respect to the             
 discovery royalty and there were a number.  The disputes that arose           
 centered on what did you have to discover and the statute, lease              
 and regs referenced a geologic structure that had not been                    
 previously certified as a producing geologic structure as well, you           
 know, what did you actually have to find to constitute a discovery.           
 Did you have to have, you know, how much did you have to find?  And           
 then finally when did you make the discovery so that the clock                
 started running.  And all three of those issues were subjects of              
 dispute up to that time and subsequently with respect to a couple             
 of discoveries that were made on the North Slope."                            
 Number 639                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Commissioner Condon if he feels the                 
 language in the bill is adequate to cover those three issues.                 
 COMMISSIONER CONDON said, "I believe that the bill, as you have               
 drafted it, deals with what do you have to find by switching to               
 pool from geologic structure.  The timing I believe is explicit               
 enough so that you don't have the kind of dispute that might have             
 arisen and did arise before, and similarly by referring it to                 
 poolize, you have -- it also takes care of the timing and what, you           
 know, what kind of a discovery you have to make.  I don't --                  
 looking at it last night and again this morning, it seems to me and           
 I may not have thought about this as carefully as I should, but I             
 tried, that the definition of `paying quantities' if you leave it             
 in I don't think it's gonna create a problem.  If you take it out             
 I still think you're gonna land on the same square because I think            
 by having tied it to pool the way you have that you're not gonna be           
 sponding(Sp.?) litigation one way or the other as the previous                
 legislation did."                                                             
 Number 772                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he would renew his motion to adopt                 
 Amendment 1.                                                                  
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he would object.                                       
 Number 785                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN asked Representative Davies why he              
 would like to take this out.                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated that there was a long discussion in              
 the subcommittee about whether these kinds of terms should be                 
 defined in the bill or if they should be left to regulation.  He              
 read from the paragraph above the one he is proposing to delete,              
 "the commissioner shall adopt regulations setting out the                     
 standards, criteria and definitions of terms that apply to                    
 implement the filing of applications for the review and                       
 certification of, discovery oil and gas royalty certifications                
 under this paragraph;".  He said clearly with respect to most of              
 the definitions, certainly the intent of the bill is that the                 
 commissioner, through the normal process, would set out the                   
 regulations.  As the chairman has pointed out, there are at least             
 four definitions of `paying quantities' in the existing regulations           
 right now.  They are all very similar, but the reason why they're             
 slightly different is because they defend the definition of "paying           
 quantities" depends on the precise context in which the term is to            
 be used.  Representative Davies said he doesn't believe that during           
 the two hours of conversation in the subcommittee on this topic nor           
 in the 15 minutes that we'll spend thinking about right now that              
 the committee will spend the time requisite to understand those               
 nuances as to what the best definition, the one that will be                  
 subject to the least amount of litigation, will be.  He said he               
 thinks that is a topic for experts, within his division, to go out            
 and discuss it with members of the industry and other members that            
 have had experience with these kinds of pretentious issues and to             
 come back with a definition that will hopefully meet the goal of              
 the minimum litigation.  The chairman said, "Well, we'd it to                 
 chance," Representative Davies said he doesn't he is hoping that              
 the opposite occurs.  He said he doesn't want to leave this to                
 chance.  He stated he is concerned that if we just look down that             
 list of definition and pick one having spent about a half an hour             
 thinking about it, that they probably wouldn't pick the optimum one           
 under those circumstances.                                                    
 Number 946                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated his objection is that he thinks just the             
 opposite.  This doesn't leave it to chance.  He said the committee            
 heard the commissioner say that this answers the question.  Anybody           
 who is thinking about drilling knows what they have to have for               
 paying quantities.  If we have three or four paying quantity                  
 definitions out there and we leave it regulations, we may end up              
 with a fifth definition.  He said he doesn't think there is                   
 anything in the bill that doesn't address itself specifically to              
 discovery royalty, and because of that, he would think that is as             
 good as they could possibly get.  He said by including this, it is            
 cut and dry.                                                                  
 Number 997                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said if he understands the bill correctly,           
 paying quantities is the whole crux of the bill when you get right            
 down to it.                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Well, not exactly.  There has to be a                
 separate pool discovered, and so that's the main crux.  You have to           
 find it, as the commissioner said, you have find it, then you have            
 to develop it and then does that well that you use for the                    
 discovery royalty - it has a time certain completion date of that             
 well and that's, in essence, that used to be a squabble and we                
 heard between two companies who had the first date.  It is new,               
 it's a separate pool not associated directly in communication with            
 an existing pool and that what is required.  It can't just be a               
 grease stain.  It has to actually produce more profit than it cost            
 to operate it - not that you necessarily would be able to drill               
 another well and make your money back.  It just says, `If you're              
 producing it at greater rate, then you would have expenditures so             
 that a prudent operator would continue to produce the best paying             
 quantities.'  And to me, that's pretty cut and dried, straight                
 forward, no questions, no litigation, no anything and that's what             
 we want."                                                                     
 Number 1063                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he supports Co-Chairman Green's position             
 and would speak against the amendment.  He said there was quite a             
 bit of debate about the paying quantities.  Representative Ogan               
 pointed out that he has known Commissioner Condon for about ten               
 years and he is probably one of the leading experts on legal issues           
 regarding oil litigation in the state.  He stated he is comfortable           
 with the commissioner's analogy of it.  He said, "I think that the            
 idea of paying quantities is -- if we have discovery royalty and              
 the first one in the pool can -- and without paying quantities                
 description can say `watch out at first,' and then sit on it, and             
 we want the oil in production.  So I think it also motivates people           
 to bring the oil in production to get the discovery royalty.  So              
 for that reason, I think it's good to keep it in."                            
 Number 1118                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said, "As Representative Davies said,                
 doesn't that mean leave it open for (indisc.) lease to get into a             
 big squabble with the department as what really paying quantities             
 is if it's not in there."                                                     
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he isn't second guessing the department that           
 they would ultimately have something in regulation.  The question             
 is we don't know what that might be.                                          
 Number 1153                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to descriptions that currently              
 are in regulation and asked if any of them are strictly pointed               
 toward discovery.                                                             
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "No, this one is the closest and this is              
 actually is not my wording.  This is right out of one of the                  
 regulations, it's for unitization, but it certainly applies here.             
 There is another one that says that the paying quantities must be             
 sufficient to drill and pay out another well to the same formation,           
 and the problem is if you had a $5 million well and you have a 500            
 barrel producing well you wouldn't ever get your investment back.             
 But if you had the well drilled anyway, and that's sunk cost, 500             
 barrels a day certainly exceeds operating costs in most areas.  Now           
 if it was somewhere in a remote area it wouldn't, but in an oil               
 field it would be enough to pay for its operation."                           
 Number 1208                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said if Representative Davies' amendment             
 is adopted, is there anywhere in the bill where it specifies that             
 the department will promulgate those regulations or identify the              
 regulations immediately after this becomes effective.                         
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said nothing says that they will define "paying             
 Number 1226                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he can't believe that.  It says in the             
 paragraph immediately proceeding this, which he read earlier, that            
 the commissioner "shall."  It doesn't say "may," it says he shall             
 adopt regulations defining the terms.                                         
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that nowhere in the bill does it say            
 that they will define "paying quantities."                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said "paying quantities" is clearly a term              
 that applies to the implement of filing for applications.  In other           
 words, it's a term and for the review and certification clearly               
 that term must be defined.  He said the debate isn't whether it               
 should be defined or not.  The question is, "Who should define it             
 and when?"  Representative Davies said he would also point out that           
 there is another term that's not defined in the bill and that is              
 "pool."  That is an extremely complicated issue.  He said he thinks           
 the Senate committee chose not to define that.  We chose in our               
 subcommittee not to define it for very good reasons.  We don't have           
 the expertise to sit around and figure out exactly how to define              
 it.  He said the definition of "pool" will need to be in the                  
 regulations too before this whole thing moves forward.                        
 Representative Davies said he would submit that is a far more                 
 complicated issue than the question of paying terms.  He explained            
 it seems to him the underlying assumption is that somehow this is             
 not going to be included in the bill or that it will be left to               
 chance.  He said he is suggesting that he hopes the process is                
 precisely the opposite of that.  People who have really spent a lot           
 of time thinking about this will spend some more time thinking                
 about it in the specific context of this bill.  He said this                  
 doesn't exactly apply to discovery royalty, it applies to                     
 unitization.  He said of the four definitions he has read, this is            
 probably the best one.                                                        
 Number 1362                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said "pool" doesn't have four other definitions             
 handing around in statute, it is described in statute.  He stated             
 there is a motion before the committee and there is an objection.             
 He asked for a roll call vote.                                                
 Representative Davies voted in favor of the motion.                           
 Representatives Austerman, Kott, Ogan, Williams and Green voted               
 against the motion.  So Amendment 1 was not adopted.                          
 Number 1409                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that the committee move HCSCSSB 112(RES),           
 Version O, with fiscal notes and individual recommendations, out of           
 the House Resources Committee.                                                
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none,             
 HCSCSSB 112(RES) was moved from the House Resources Committee.                
 CSSB 262(RES)(ct rule fld) - MANAGEMENT OF FISH/GAME POPULATION &            
 Number 1470                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next order of business would be               
 CSSB 262(RES)(ct rule fld), "An Act relating to management of game            
 populations for maximum sustained yield for human harvest and                 
 providing for the replacement of areas closed to consumptive uses             
 of game; relating to management of fish and game areas."  He said             
 when the committee members previously reviewed the bill, they asked           
 that the drafter be in attendance to answer some questions.                   
 Number 1480                                                                   
 GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services           
 Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature, came before             
 the committee to answer questions.                                            
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there is a specific group of people that are           
 protected under this bill, but there are others that were mentioned           
 in the previous hearing on the bill that might also need the same             
 sort of protection such as the Board of Game.  He asked if there              
 was a purpose for just excluding the Board of Fish.                           
 MR. UTERMOHLE said that change was made on the floor of the Senate.           
 He said he was present and didn't hear the debate as to the reason            
 for that change.                                                              
 Number 1527                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Let me rephrase that.  If there seemed to            
 a justification for them, would you also seem - would it seem                 
 logical to follow that other boards and activities - other people             
 within various departments that a -- I know there is the                      
 legislative protection, but would there be protection for others              
 even though it's not specified?"                                              
 MR. UTERMOHLE said that we're basically talking about is the                  
 ability for a person to sue a public agency or public official to             
 enforce the provisions of this act.  Basically, in normal                     
 situations a employee of the state is entitled to qualified                   
 immunity as long as he is performing his functions in good faith,             
 he enjoys qualified immunity from suit.  However, this bill                   
 provides that persons subject to suite under this bill, because the           
 term "public official" is broad and left open on the face of the              
 bill, those people are denied their qualified immunity.  So they              
 are subject to suit regardless of whether their acts are in good              
 Number 1588                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Utermohle if he thinks this would                 
 invite litigation.                                                            
 MR. UTERMOHLE said he thinks the structure of the bill does invite            
 litigation.  He said it seems to him the crux of the bill uses the            
 threat or actual litigation to make sure that the provisions of the           
 bill do occur - that the game is made available for consumptive               
 uses - that the land is not closed to certain kids of hunting, etc.           
 He said the bill intends that result.  The bill only provides for             
 equitable relief, essentially an injunction to compel you to comply           
 with the act or to remedy some action that's in violative of the              
 act.  What this does is compel someone to perform an act.  The act            
 does not provide for damages - for payments, as a result of                   
 violating the act.                                                            
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the suit would be limited just to do what              
 you're supposed to do and not any kind of real or punitive or any             
 other kinds of damages.                                                       
 Number 1657                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said suppose that the public official                   
 believes that it is in the best interest of the state of Alaska to            
 take some action that would close and then refuse to implement a              
 order.  He asked if you would be subject to other penalties at that           
 MR. UTERMOHLE explained that if he declined to comply with an                 
 injunction issued by the court, he would be in contempt of the                
 Number 1679                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Is there a potential for, in sight of                
 litigation, if Area A is closed of whatever acreage that might be             
 and the state then is required to open three times that amount,               
 would that -- by reading this, does that imply or mean that it                
 would have to be adjacent in the same area or could that be `O.K.,            
 we're gonna close it here in Northwest Alaska and we'll open it in            
 the very southeast tip three times as much' and then somebody from            
 Northwest would say `Hey, you closed off my hunting rights and I              
 can't get to Southeast,' even though you've complied with the three           
 to one ratio."                                                                
 MR. UTERMOHLE explained under Section 2, the new language added is            
 AS 16.05.145, "Division relating to public trust for special fish             
 and game management areas."  It specifically provides that the                
 replacement land be provided in a location in the same geographic             
 Number 1732                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "What if there weren't three times as many            
 acres and that geographic - and how big is a geographic area?  I              
 don't know whether that means the same hunting area or -- Is a                
 geographic area a certain size?"                                              
 MR. UTERMOHLE explained a geographic area would be pretty much                
 determined by the size of the area to which the restriction for               
 closure is applied.                                                           
 Number 1751                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said "If they closed 40 acres then 120 acres                
 would be in the geographic area somewhere close."                             
 MR. UTERMOHLE answered in the affirmative.  He explained presumably           
 in some area that would be of benefit to those people who were                
 closed out by the closure.  There does not seem to be a similar               
 provision in the first section of the bill relating to management             
 of game where it requires that the state provide three times the              
 area is to where closure or whether consumptive uses of game are              
 precluded.  He said the first section of the bill seems to operate            
 more on a statewide level.                                                    
 Number 1795                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS referred to a person who may bring civil            
 action and asked if a person can't do that today.                             
 MR. UTERMOHLE said they could.                                                
 Number 1804                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he thinks Mr. Utermohle indicated there is             
 a certain amount of immunity, as a public employee, that this                 
 MR. UTERMOHLE answered in the affirmative.  He explained that under           
 current law, the ability to bring suit against a public officer               
 exists and would protect any public officer from damages.  This               
 bill releases equitable relief.  The loss from immunity perhaps is            
 not that significant for the individual officer.                              
 Number 1837                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to the terms of the bill on the                
 bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3 where it says the public               
 trust would be breached by restricting access and also restricts              
 fishing and hunting and trapping activities.  He asked if there is            
 any mitigation or definition of that restriction.  He asked if the            
 restriction in a certain area to bow hunting only would constitute            
 a breach of trust.                                                            
 MR. UTERMOHLE said he thinks that could be considered a restriction           
 subject to provisions of the bill.  He said what constitutes a                
 restriction will very well be in the eyes of the beholder and may             
 result in considerable litigation.                                            
 Number 1892                                                                   
 PETE SHEPERD testified via teleconference in support of CSSB
 262(RES)(ct rule fld).  He said ever since the environmental                  
 (indisc.) was adopted, it misinterpreted all the (indisc.) who is             
 considered the father of modern day management.  The concept of a             
 land ethic, which he among other (indisc.), allows for active                 
 management (indisc.), we have witnessed a distortion of this vision           
 to one of protecting land from human manipulation and consumptive             
 use.  The environmentalists reasons for placing land in restrictive           
 categories would protect the integrity of ecological (indisc.),               
 ecosystems and wildlife diversity.  This paradigm saw its Alaska              
 (indisc.) in ANILCA in which 32.5 million acres belongs to general            
 hunting and about 60 percent of the state, under federal control,             
 was to be only actively managed.  Mr. Sheperd said since ANILCA,              
 every opportunity or excuse has been ceased to set land aside for             
 nonconsumptive use.  Some game managers and activists apparently              
 view the game fund as an entitlement, and apparently use it for               
 viewing set aside perusing nonconsumptive uses.  Sportsmen do not             
 deprive the resources in these funds, but they deplore the                    
 assertion that hunting and trapping are not compatible uses of                
 these lands.  Mr. Sheperd said it is only just that land use laws             
 for hunting and trapping be compensated by replacement.  Otherwise            
 the hunters, trappers and subsistence oriented persons will be                
 effectively disenfranchised from consumptive activity even on state           
 owned land.  Active management for human consumptive use is a                 
 legitimate and healthy use of state lands.                                    
 Number 2005                                                                   
 BILL HAGAR, Member, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association                  
 (AWCA), was next to testify via teleconference from Fairbanks.  He            
 stated he has great concern over the ability to litigate an                   
 individual in the department.  He said, "What we've found is that             
 they're basically telling us and the legislature to take a hike,              
 and advancing an agenda that seems to be personal and through our             
 research, it's quite unethical as far as their ethical guides go.             
 And we've felt that we've asked the legislature for a balance to              
 give us a little bit of fair play when bureaucracy out of control             
 as they misappropriated $861,000 last year.  This year the                    
 legislature defunded subsistence and habitat and also the misuse of           
 $900,000 that Senator Sharp had set up for the intensive                      
 management.  When we consulted counsel, it was over the fact of how           
 do make the bureaucracy do what the legislator intended (indisc.)             
 This (indisc.), so that's probably the primary reason why this                
 litigation and the ability to sue puts a little more responsibility           
 in that balance.  The legislature is very good.  Time's short and             
 I appreciate you for taking it up.  Thank you very much."                     
 Number 2091                                                                   
 LYNN LEVENGOOD, Executive Director, Alaska Wildlife Conservation              
 Association (AWCA), was next to testify via teleconference from               
 Fairbanks.  He said the legislation is necessary and it's intended            
 that there be no net loss for consumptive uses.  Since the                    
 beginning of statehood, millions and millions of acres have been              
 lost to consumptive uses and that trend has recent resurfaced in              
 the last two years promulgated by the lack of the of the Department           
 of Fish and Game and most recently, the Board of Game.  He said               
 since Alaska has become a state, we've lost millions of acres.                
 Alaska has more park lands than any other state or country in the             
 world.  The recent advocacy of the Alaska Department of Fish and              
 Game and the Board of Game to close hundreds of square miles to               
 consumptive uses makes this legislation absolutely necessary.  The            
 board, last year, closed over 200 square miles on the Alaska                  
 Peninsula to hunting, though no conflicting uses or biological                
 problem existed and that was admitted to by the department's own              
 biologists.  They closed over 90 square miles in the Mat-Su area              
 this year.  Then after promising to open up new lands to hunting at           
 the spring meeting in Fairbanks, they opened no new lands, but                
 instead closed over a million acres to certain user groups.  These            
 closures were led by environmental extremists who want no hunting             
 and were championed by Board of Game nominee Ruggle(Sp.?) who must            
 not be confirmed.  Mr. Levengood said the intent of this                      
 legislation has widespread support bipartisan.  It has have urban             
 and rural Native and non-Native people supporting this bill.  He              
 said this legislation is necessary because of the bait and switch             
 tactics that the department is using.  He urged the committee to              
 set aside the areas that are designated in the bill.  He continued            
 to give testimony in support of the legislation.                              
 Number 2241                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there is Amendment 1 before the committee,             
 by Representative Ogan.  He asked Representative Ogan if he would             
 move his amendment.                                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out that a quorum wasn't present.                 
 Number 2250                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN called a brief recess at 8:56 a.m.  He called the           
 meeting back to order at 9:00 a.m.  He announced Amendment 1 was              
 before the committee.                                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained Amendment 1 deletes the three times             
 and changes it to equal in size.  He said he agrees that we cannot            
 lose areas to hunting and stated he would like to see a nonet loss            
 policy as he thinks it is more reasonable.  Representative Ogan               
 said he believes it would be more manageable for the department and           
 everybody concerned to identify areas that need to be opened.                 
 Number 2292                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said because of the way the bill is                  
 written, he would have to support the amendment.  It makes it a               
 little more realistic, in his eyes, but he is not necessarily                 
 supporting the bill.  If the bill does pass, he believes this will            
 a be at least a step in the right direction.                                  
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN  asked Representative Ogan if his amendment would           
 also apply to page 3, line 15, in that "three times" would also be            
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN answered in the affirmative.                              
 Number 2330                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he is going to support the amendment               
 because it moves in the right direction, but it doesn't move far              
 enough, in his view, to rectify all the problems of the bill.  He             
 said, "The idea of nonet loss is - I think, you know - under                  
 reasonable restrictions can get totally abused in this (indisc.)              
 whole issue, it's surrounding this issue and others are gonna just            
 invite enormous numbers of lawsuits, but having said that the                 
 amendment clearly doesn't make it any worse."                                 
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN called a brief recess at 9:03 a.m.  The meeting             
 was called back to order at 9:08 a.m.  Co-Chairman Green asked that           
 the record reflect that Representative Nicholia had joined the                
 Number 2366                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN reviewed Amendment 1 for the members that                 
 weren't present earlier.                                                      
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection to the adoption             
 of Amendment 1.  Hearing none, Amendment 1 was adopted.                       
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said at the previous meeting on the bill there              
 was discussion regarding page 3, relating to limiting the public              
 officials.  There was a discussion about inserting after the word             
 "official" on line 19 and line 21 "other than a member of the Board           
 of Game."  He asked if that was still the wish of the committee.              
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he had thought the committee had already            
 made that change.                                                             
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he also had thought that had been done, but            
 he got input from other committee members that it hadn't been done.           
 Number 2452                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS moved that the previous stated amendment be              
 TAPE 96-71, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the amendment.  On page 3, lines 19 and              
 21, after the word "official" insert "other than a member of the              
 Board of Game."  Co-Chairman Green said, "And I don't know whether            
 you were here, Representative Nicholia, when George Utermohle, the            
 drafter of the bill, explained that while that still leaves a                 
 significant number of people potentially liable that it would --              
 and we asked him specifically `Would that just mean...' oh, George            
 is still here, I'm sorry.  I'll see if I can get this right - that            
 it would only apply to this specific action and not to any kind of            
 damages, punitive or otherwise."                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES pointed out that the committee further heard            
 that if the public official believes that they're acting under the            
 best interest of the state of Alaska and the sustained yield in the           
 constitution and they continued not to follow the order of the                
 court that they could be held in contempt of court.                           
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN indicate that was true.                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said if the court viewed the management                 
 activity as rational or not, it might not be relevant if this bill            
 prescribes and irrational action.                                             
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN added that the person involved would stay with              
 the decision.                                                                 
 Number 073                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he would speak against the amendment.  The           
 Board of Game are the people that pretty much make the calls                  
 regarding these situations.  He said, "We've already declawed some            
 of the bill with making it one for one and I don't think we need to           
 defang it either."                                                            
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "By voting against the amendment you would            
 be allowing specific...."                                                     
 Number 098                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN withdrew his objection.                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection to Amendment 2.             
 Hearing none, Amendment 2 was adopted.  He said, "We've dropped it            
 from nonet loss and we've excluded the Board of Game from the...              
 We've put them back, I guess, where they were.  We haven't excluded           
 them from the protection they now enjoy."  He asked if there was              
 any discussion about the bill as it has been amended.                         
 Number 125                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he would appeal to the members of the                
 committee that over the years we've lost millions of acres of                 
 hunting opportunity.  It continues to be eroded by actions taken by           
 state officials and various special interest groups.  He said if we           
 want to continue the loss of what has been traditional lifestyles             
 and resources in this state then we shouldn't support the bill.               
 Representative Ogan asked for support of the bill.                            
 Number 169                                                                    
 WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,                   
 Department of Fish and Game, came before the committee members.  He           
 pointed out that the Board of Game does have a nonet loss policy              
 for loss of hunting areas that they passed three years ago.  Mr.              
 Regelin they have instructed the department to go back and find all           
 areas that are closed for various reasons to see if they can be               
 opened again.  He pointed out that at their last board meeting they           
 did that.  He referred to the Delta closed area, which had been               
 closed for many years, and said it was much bigger than necessary             
 so they reduced that in size so that it is just around the town of            
 Delta.  Mr. Regelin said he would urge the committee to look at the           
 record of the Board of Game's March meeting.  He noted he has some            
 summaries of the actions that the board took.  Mr. Regelin said he            
 can't see how the hunter feels unbalanced.  They got a lot more               
 opportunity to do this.  There were three areas that were                     
 restricted.  One was in the Wasilla area and was restricted by                
 request of the advisory committee from Wasilla and the borough.  It           
 was made a bow only area.  He noted the area was right around the             
 residential areas and has also been done in Fairbanks and other               
 places.  Mr. Regelin said another restriction was the use of air              
 boats around the Nenana area.  That was restricting a method                  
 access.  He noted the department didn't take a position on that               
 MR. REGELIN explained the third area where there was a restriction            
 was on the North Slope.  He explained the board, at the                       
 department's request, restricted the moose season on vast areas of            
 the North Slope.  The board closed a huge area to moose hunting.              
 The area closed is much bigger than necessary.  This is an area               
 that is right on the fringe of the range of the moose population              
 and they just use the river valleys.  Rather than name every river            
 valley, they closed the whole larger area.  This is a moose                   
 population that has declined about 50 percent in the last three               
 years.  He said the department isn't sure why, but it is probably             
 just because it's on the fringe of its range and they fluctuate as            
 most species do.  He pointed out that 25 years ago there were no              
 moose in this area.  Mr. Regelin said he thinks that all the areas            
 where we have moose in Alaska that can support a harvest are open.            
 The only exception would probably be some of the state parks near             
 Anchorage.  He said they might be able to open pieces of the                  
 Chugach.  The other would be the hillside area which gets to be               
 very controversial.  Beyond that, he isn't sure where you would               
 open an area to replace this restriction.  He said the alternative            
 is that they get sued and then he doesn't know what happens.                  
 MR. REGELIN said he wanted to explain that this requires the                  
 management of maximum sustained yield throughout Alaska.  There are           
 areas that we don't manage that way.  For instance, Unit 9 is a               
 great area for brown bear hunting and there are lots of bears in              
 the area to maximize the harvest.  Because of that, we have a lot             
 smaller moose population than we could if we would reduce the bear            
 population.  Those are decisions that were made many years ago by             
 the boards.  Another place this is done is in the Tok sheep                   
 management area where there is a trophy area where they restrict              
 access - a number of permits, and the Delta walk in sheep hunting             
 area.  He said, "We won't be able to do those any more because the            
 way this is structured, it guarantees access for hunting.  Like Mr.           
 Utermohle said `It's in the eye of the beholder what you're gonna             
 sue on.'  But if a hunter says, `I'm guaranteed access to the Tok             
 sheep trophy area,' and he doesn't draw a permit, we're gonna lose            
 the way this is structured.  And I think it's pretty poor                     
 legislation and I think that you need to look at the record of                
 what's really going on rather than to listen to people who have an            
 agenda that they do not want to share the wildlife of Alaska."                
 Number 403                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he finds it rather unusual for Mr. Regelin           
 to make the comment "Do no want to share the wildlife with Alaska."           
 When you're managing primarily for hunters, that means there is a             
 lot of animals around which means that the people who wants to view           
 them has them available to view as well.                                      
 MR. REGELIN said in Alaska, we manage primarily for hunting in                
 almost all areas.  There is a few areas that are available for                
 wildlife viewing and they've been sanctuaries, Pac Creek and McNeil           
 River.  He said he thinks those are important areas that benefit              
 hunters.  The next bill on the agenda would allow the department to           
 not spend any money on that activity.  In most areas, hunting is              
 very compatible with wildlife viewing and the department works hard           
 to make sure that areas don't get closed down for that reason.                
 When you mandate that you have to manage throughout the state for             
 maximum sustained yield, there are many other beneficial uses for             
 trophy hunting, for having good bear hunting areas and for having             
 high quality hunts.  All of the control use areas that we have                
 around the state are for very good reasons.  He noted there are               
 some that he doesn't agree with personally, but the Board of Game             
 passed those at the request almost always of the public because               
 that's how they want their wildlife to be managed.                            
 Number 533                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA said one thing she learned while                
 growing up is that the people living in the area were the best                
 biologists because they know the land, they know what's out there             
 and they hunt those populations every year.  She said she learned             
 a lot from her father.  Her father new best about where the caribou           
 populations were going.  He could tell her when the populations               
 were down, if they were too far back or if they were migrating                
 south.  She said when she looks at the controlled use areas, she              
 knows they're put there for reasons by the advisory councils for              
 those different areas.  Representative Nicholia asked if the                  
 amendments that have been adopted would eliminate those                       
 MR. REGELIN said he thinks in areas where the board will say that             
 consumptive use is an important use of the wildlife resource, which           
 will be over time almost all of Alaska, yes that will require that            
 we won't be able to use those types of controlled use areas anymore           
 because it would restrict access.  The bill is very specific about            
 not allowing access to be limited for hunting.                                
 Number 639                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said his personal opinion is that this is            
 poor piece of legislation and he doesn't plan on voting to move it            
 out of committee nor would he vote for it on the floor, especially            
 in its present form.  He said he thinks we are going out and                  
 usurping the power of the Board of Game by legislation and he has             
 a problem with that, just as he would have a problem with going out           
 and setting fishing limits on major river streams by legislation              
 rather than letting the Board of Fish take care of that.                      
 Representative Austerman said by passing this type of legislation             
 could lead to setting aside one for one or one for three pieces of            
 property in the timber industry as well.  If you're going to close            
 an area for timber in one area, lets open to three areas somewhere            
 else.  He continued to give examples and said he sees all kinds of            
 things we could do with this type of legislation; therefore, he               
 opposes it and will object to it moving out of committee.                     
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out the bill is one for one and not one           
 for three anymore.                                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he understands that.  Even one for              
 one, he thinks it is a bad piece of legislation.                              
 Number 733                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Well, I think in interest of time, it                
 appears that we probably should do a little more thinking on this,            
 so I'm going to hold the bill in committee and review it a little             
 bit more."                                                                    
 CSSB 247(RLS) am(efd fld)(ct rule fld) - USE OF FISH & GAME                  
 FUND/COMM'R'S POWERS                                                         
 Number 745                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would hear CSSB 247(RLS)            
 am(efd fld)(ct rule fld), "An Act restricting the use of certain              
 funds deposited in the fish and game fund; and relating to the                
 powers and duties of the commissioner of fish and game."                      
 SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, sponsor of SB 247, came before the committee            
 to explain the bill.  He informed the committee members he would              
 give a philosophical background as to why the bill is before the              
 committee.  He said the majority of the funds currently utilized by           
 the department are what is called "program receipts."  Those                  
 program receipts come from several different sources and the                  
 primary source is the federal government.  The federal government             
 taxes people who purchases hunting equipment, ammunition and                  
 fishing gear.  There are excise taxes on various sporting equipment           
 that you buy if it is to be used in the field.  He informed the               
 committee that a majority of the budgets of the different state's             
 Departments of Fish and Game, throughout the west, are paid for by            
 the user groups.  It is like our federal highway program, taxes on            
 gasoline and tires, etc., pay a majority of the cost of repairing             
 and building the super highway system that we have in the United              
 States.  It wasn't paid for by someone who wanted to view the                 
 highway or by who someone who thought highways are nice and they              
 liked ambiance of seeing a highway wonder down a valley.  Senator             
 Taylor said if we were to take 50 percent of the funds that the               
 people of Alaska are paying on taxes on gasoline, tires, etc., and            
 directed those monies into surveying parks, none of the repairs               
 would be done to roads and the roads would become almost                      
 impassable.  You are paying a very high amount of taxation for                
 those roads all of which was being diverted.  He said that is the             
 reason for this legislation.  Senator Taylor said the legislation             
 says if you're going take my money and you're taking my money for             
 a given purpose, then use it for that purpose.  He stated there are           
 both criminal and civil sanctions if you don't pay these takes.               
 You're going to use a gun, pointed at my head, to take the money              
 out of my back pocket and tell me it is going to be used for the              
 following purposes.                                                           
 SENATOR TAYLOR said the federal laws are very specific.  There is             
 one area of income within the federal law that says you've got to             
 use approximately 12 percent of it to provide access for                      
 recreational purposes.  That is the money we use for building boat            
 ramps.  Senator Taylor said, "You know what they were doing with              
 that before I got here?  It was getting used by the department.               
 And they would stack up on boat ramps about once every three or               
 four years - they would decide where they wanted to build their pet           
 boat ramp and they would go in and they'd build one.  That was 11             
 years ago.  When I got here I said, `Wait a minute, that money is             
 dedicated for that purpose.  Why aren't you using it for that                 
 purpose?'  You know something, we built four boat ramps in the next           
 year.  Now everybody has kind of maintained that stream, we're                
 building boat ramps now so that recreational boaters have an                  
 opportunity to get to a river, other than the Kenai, to stand                 
 shoulder to shoulder on.  If we provided some more access, I                  
 guarantee you wouldn't have the problems that you've got on that              
 combat fishing on the Kenai.  Instead, we won't build roads.  We              
 just force them all to go to the one stream.  We've got hundreds of           
 streams in that area that they could be fishing on, but they have             
 no choice.  You send them all to one stream and then everybody gets           
 upset because they're not catching their quantity of fish so they             
 start stealing money from other people."                                      
 SENATOR TAYLOR continued, "What this amounts to is this department            
 for years and years and years has made internal priority decisions            
 and those decisions were, `Oh, we're doing enough for the hunters             
 lets go off now and do something for our echo buddies.  Lets go               
 over here and study wolves for habitat conservation areas so they             
 can take forest base out of the Tongass.  Lets go over here and               
 study something else so they can do whatever they want with it.'              
 We have probably the worst managed game populations in the world              
 right now.  The people of McGrath, last year they took hunter's               
 money, hired a sociologist, sent him to McGrath and spent $40,000             
 doing a study.  What was the study on?  The study was on whether or           
 not the people of that area wanted some predator control.  What a             
 shock.  Just like Representative Nicholia was indicating to you the           
 people of that area know a great deal more about what McGrath needs           
 than any biologist sitting in Juneau seems to understand.  They               
 know for a fact that they haven't had any kind of survival on their           
 caribou or moose population calves for the last three years.  They            
 know they've got a major problem.  They've been begging this                  
 department to come up there and do some predator control.  So what            
 does the department do?  `Why we've got to be nice and boutique and           
 warm and fuzzy and make everybody feel like we're really concerned            
 about the world.  We're not concerned about the people of McGrath.            
 We'll send out you monies, your tax dollars, we'll spend those to             
 send a sociologist out there do a survey.'  They did their survey.            
 The people of McGrath - over 80 percent indicated they wanted                 
 something done about predators now.  So what was the response of              
 this department?  Any of you sit on Finance or do any of you sit on           
 the Finance subcommittee on the Fish and Game budget?  They didn't            
 ask for one thin dime for predator control, but they asked for all            
 the same amount of money in the Habitat Division so they could go             
 off and do more studies.  I imagine we'll probably get five or six            
 more sociological studies done out in the bush where everybody out            
 there says, `Please do something about our declining game                     
 populations.  We need this for subsistence.  We need this meat for            
 our families.  Don't allow the predators to keep eating it all up.'           
 And they'll smile at them and pat them on the head and come right             
 back down here and not ask for dime.  They'll want to have a peer             
 review done by some group in Washington, D.C., on whether or not              
 they should actually go out and upset a wolf.  That's the purpose             
 of this bill."                                                                
 SENATOR TAYLOR continued, "Those of us who are paying for the                 
 fiddler are sick and tired of listening to him play the wrong song            
 and this pervades this department.  If you don't think it pervades            
 the department when we first put the bill in and said, `No, you               
 only got to use - are going to use that money for the purposes for            
 which it is dedicated under both federal law and now state law,'              
 because that's all this does is put federal law on to our books and           
 say, `If you're gonna take the money for that purpose, you have to            
 use it for that purpose.'  You know what we got?  A $30 million               
 fiscal note.  Give you an idea how much of it was being misused and           
 is being misused today?  A major percentage of their budget.  Now             
 we can either start being honest with the people of Alaska and                
 putting their money back where it was intended for.  And if you               
 don't like this concept, and I'm sure there are people who don't              
 like the legislature setting any policy that the Fish and Game                
 Department might have to carry out because they seem -- because of            
 fish boards and other things, they seem to have this aura of being            
 able to go out and set their own policies - that the legislature              
 really can't have anything to do with them.  Well if that's what              
 you want and you want to maintain that autonomy to where these                
 bureaucrats can decide how and when they're gonna spend their money           
 and what they're gonna put that money into, then quit taxing these            
 people for it or quit taking those federal taxes.  Send it to a               
 state where they're gonna do something about providing more deer              
 for their population - providing more moose for their people.                 
 Sweden kills 100,000 moose a year - kills.  Sweden isn't much                 
 bigger than Southeast Alaska - a 100,000.  When I asked Mr. Regelin           
 what that number would compare to in Alaska - that's more moose               
 than we have in Alaska.  They harvest that much each year.  They do           
 it through intensive habitat management and they've even got a wolf           
 pack in the north end of Sweden, but it's a real small wolf pack              
 and it doesn't have much impact on those herds.  I'll be darned,              
 I'll bet the Swedes keep it small.  I bet if it started expanding             
 up there, they can go up there and shoot a few wolves because their           
 people want to be able to harvest 100,000 moose a year.  They                 
 probably like the meat.  Their people probably subsist on that and            
 live on that just like ours should be.  I can show you areas in my            
 country where my Department of Fish and Game would not allow us to            
 shoot one single black tailed deer for seven years.  Under federal            
 management, we shot four, per year, per person in that area.  Fish            
 and Game came along and refused to do any predator control in                 
 Southeast Alaska and for seven years around Wrangell you couldn't             
 shoot a deer.  You had to travel over 100 miles to find a place you           
 could shoot a deer.  The only place you can get good deer hunting             
 in Southeast Alaska is where either intensive clear-cut logging has           
 occurred, Prince of Whales which you can shoot six on, or you can             
 go the ABC Islands, none of which have wolves.  And you've always             
 been able to get good deer hunting on those islands because there             
 isn't a bunch of predators out there eating them up."                         
 Number 1275                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS referred to information in the member's file             
 from the Department of Fish and Game, dated April 9, 1996.  He                
 said, "I know you've talked to them already, talked to what were              
 the results of the loss of over $2 million in federal funds.  Maybe           
 you could talk a little bit more."                                            
 SENATOR TAYLOR said, "O.K., first will result in the loss of over             
 $2 million in federal funds.  Look at the first fiscal notes on               
 this thing, they were over $25 - $30 million.  So each time we                
 tried to work with with department - say `What's your problem here?           
 Why do you really think it will cause this?'  So we made amendments           
 to put words like `personnel' back into it so they could use funds            
 for personnel purposes and so on.  And literally what you've got it           
 down to now I think, the department will have to speak to this, I             
 think this $2 million in federal match that they're worried about             
 losing may be part of the monies that they're using either                    
 administratively, although I though we'd took care of that one                
 also, but it may be within the Administration where they've got               
 some shared folks they're using.  It may be for some other                    
 purposes, but any amount that they're losing is an amount of money            
 that under federal law they shouldn't be spending.  `Will prohibit            
 the spending of Fish and Game federal aid monies on managing catch            
 and release fisheries.'  I think that's also preposterous.  And how           
 much money do they actually spend on a catch and release fishery?             
 There is only a few in the state and they're the trophy trout areas           
 up north.  You mean that they're not gonna hire the same protection           
 officer to go out there and protect the resource and they can't               
 hire him for going out and looking at bear and going out and                  
 looking at caribou.  They can only him to go out and look at a                
 trout.  I mean are we so specialized now that we'd have people                
 hired to do nothing but just go out and watch catch and release               
 fishermen.  That's the only function they have in life?  I don't              
 think so.  What this amounts to is the department trying to find              
 every nitpicky way they can to come in here and say -- it's like              
 that last bill, I just loved it - come in here and tell you that              
 there wouldn't be an ability to close down any land again around              
 Nenana.  Do you know that the McNeil bear refuge is larger in acres           
 than all of the land ever developed by human beings since we came             
 into this country?  That's how big it is.  They mean to tell me if            
 they wanted to lock up a 10,000 acre chunk around some other town,            
 around some other village.  They couldn't lock that one up by                 
 merely taking 10,000 acres out of the McNeil River bear refuge.               
 The back end of the drainage, for crying out loud might be open to            
 - it's the same arguments that being made here."                              
 SENATOR TAYLOR said federal funds are specifically supposed to be             
 within their budget, allocated for rifle ranges and for educational           
 purposes.  It says right in them that they're supposed to be out              
 there educating on hunter education and safety.                               
 Number 1503                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said the first part talks about certain              
 funds deposited into Fish and Game.  He asked if basically all                
 we're talking about are license fees.                                         
 SENATOR TAYLOR said license fees and then there are various tags              
 and tags even on king salmon.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN questioned whether taxes collected on                
 binoculars, tents, etc., are involved in this.                                
 SENATOR TAYLOR said that is regulated under federal law.  What he             
 has attempted to do is put the two together to say, "If you're                
 gonna spend the money and it's for a designated purpose, lets spend           
 it for the designated purpose and not for something else."                    
 Number 1661                                                                   
 GERON BRUCE, Special Assistant, Legislative Liaison, Department of            
 Fish and Game, came forward to give testimony in opposition to SB
 247.  He said to understand why the department opposes the                    
 legislation, you need to take some time to look at the history of             
 the funding sources that are being discussed.  Mr. Bruce said there           
 are two funding sources.  One is the federal aid and wildlife                 
 restoration which was enacted as a result of legislation that                 
 passed in 1937.  One of the consequences of that piece of                     
 legislation was that license fees paid by hunters in states had to            
 be dedicated to the the support of a wildlife management agency.              
 In the 1950s, the federal aid and sport fish restoration also came            
 on the books and it carried forward the same kind of program to               
 sport fishing.  There were two basic ideas in establishing this               
 kind of funding system.  Mr. Bruce explained in the period of time            
 before this program came on-line, which is really the foundation of           
 all modern scientific fish and wildlife management of recreational            
 resources in the state, the fish and wildlife resources in the                
 United States, as a whole, were in very bad shape as a result of              
 unregulated hunting and habitat degradation.  There were two basic            
 concepts involved in this funding source.  One was that it would              
 create a stable secure source of funding for these programs.  It              
 mandated that the states who have primary management authority for            
 fish and wildlife set up scientific agencies supported with their             
 license fees and with the federal dollars that came to them on a              
 formula basis.  Mr. Bruce referred to the second purpose, which was           
 just as important in the minds of these people who founded this               
 program, was that to insulate the management of fish and wildlife             
 resources from the the heat and emotion of political life.  It was            
 recognized that at least the history up to that point had been that           
 when fish an wildlife interests and issues conflicted with the                
 agendas of different political groups, nearly always the fish and             
 wildlife resources lost.  This was an attempt, to a certain extent,           
 to buffer the management of those resources from the changing very            
 heated political life.  Mr. Bruce explained that purpose has been             
 very largely successful.  In Alaska, our fish and wildlife                    
 resources are in very good health.  We do have individual pockets             
 of problems that are being worked on.  As a whole, the fish and               
 wildlife resources in Alaska are at historic high levels, they are            
 very healthy.  He pointed out that in the United States many of the           
 wildlife resources that were near extinction when the Wildlife                
 Restoration Act was passed in the late 1930s, and have now been               
 very successfully recovered.  He noted he is talking about the wild           
 turkeys, white tailed deer and some other populations.  The program           
 has been very successful and the two principles he outlined were              
 fundamental in that success.  Mr. Bruce said this legislation                 
 proposes to complete change that, essentially reverse it and make             
 the appropriation process for funding management programs for                 
 recreational fish and wildlife resources a completely political               
 process similar in concept to the way the capital budget is put               
 together where each item -- between the two division's budgets, 340           
 projects would be individually line item appropriated.                        
 Number 1937                                                                   
 MR. BRUCE explained another problem the department has with the               
 legislation is that the state legislation does not mirror the                 
 federal legislation.  He pointed out in the committee member's                
 files is the actual enabling legislation for the federal programs.            
 He said you can see what the purposes are that the federal                    
 legislation was designed to serve.  The purposes are extremely                
 broad and it doesn't talk at all about restricting activities only            
 to consumptive use, which is the heart of the legislation before              
 the committee.  There is a basic disjunction between the two pieces           
 of legislation and what they seek to achieve.                                 
 MR. BRUCE explained another concern of the department is that the             
 management of fish and wildlife has to a holistic approach.  You              
 cannot manage just hunting without also managing habitat and                  
 considering some of the other uses that the public demands of its             
 fish and wildlife.  You have to have a total program to be                    
 successful.  This legislation would only authorize the funding,               
 through these two funding sources, of elements of that program.  It           
 would not support the entire range of the program.                            
 MR. BRUCE explained the legislation contains some similar                     
 definitions to the definitions that were in SB 77.  He said the               
 department has the same concerns with those objections which relate           
 to high level of human harvest, intensive management and maximum              
 sustained yield.  He said he believes the department has spoken               
 about concerns with those definitions in other pieces of                      
 legislation and they are very similar in this bill.                           
 MR. BRUCE referred to the heart of the bill and said it restricts             
 the programs that can be funding by the two funding sources, which            
 is the entire base of the Division of Sport Fishing and the                   
 Division of Wildlife Conservation, to only programs that are                  
 directly related to consumptive activities.  The other is that the            
 line item appropriation nature of the bill.  He said it is                    
 important to realize that the legislature already has the authority           
 to make appropriations by line item.  Mr. Bruce said you have to              
 ask yourself, "Why has the Alaska Legislature, since we became a              
 state over 30 years ago, chosen not to take that approach?"  There            
 must be some good reasons why they have not.  One reason is that              
 the legislatures in the past have considered it wiser to allow the            
 actual budget for the agency to be constructed by the wildlife and            
 fisheries management professionals in the field who work on a day             
 to day basis with these programs.  They are then submitted to the             
 legislature for approval, review, etc., but legislatures have bowed           
 out of getting involved in that level of detail of putting together           
 an agency budget of programs.  These programs go on year after year           
 and require a certain amount of training, background, experience              
 and education to implement and design.  So the legislature, who has           
 after all set up the Department of Fish and Game and hired the                
 professionals to run it, has deferred to these folks to put the               
 budgets together.  The legislature still has the authority to come            
 in if anything is seriously out of line and change the budget                 
 MR. BRUCE said the other question is just a practical one with time           
 management from the legislature's standpoint.  "How and when is the           
 legislature going to put together a budget of 360 items?"  He noted           
 that within each of these projects there are a number of other sub-           
 projects.  So it is a very time consuming process.  He stated he              
 really doesn't think the Finance Committee or the subcommittee                
 wants to take on the time commitment and the burden of putting                
 those things together from scratch.  You could say, "Well, they're            
 not gonna put them together from scratch, they're just going to               
 take what the department does, they're gonna look at them and then            
 rubber stamp them."  He questioned what has been gained.                      
 Number 2430                                                                   
 MR. BRUCE pointed out the committee members have a letter from the            
 Alaska Sport Fishing Association opposing this legislation.  He               
 informed the committee that the primary proponents of this                    
 legislation are from the wildlife community and they seem to be               
 prompted by the feeling among some hunters that too much is going             
 to nonhunting programs out of the Wildlife Conservation Division's            
 budget.  In point of fact, less than 5 percent of the entire                  
 division's budget is going toward other activities in those                   
 directly related to benefitting hunters.  That is a very small                
 percentage of their budget.  Mr. Bruce said the department                    
 maintains that is not out of line.                                            
 MR. BRUCE explained there was a survey done of Alaska voters.  He             
 said, "We asked them two questions.  The state gets a third of its            
 money for wildlife management from the sale of hunting and trapping           
 licenses and tags.  How much of that money should be spent on                 
 programs for wildlife viewing or other wildlife programs which do             
 not involve hunting?  Only 26 percent of the Alaska voters said               
 `none.'  So 75 percent, roughly, of the Alaska voters favors                  
 spending some money on those programs.  The same question was asked           
 about the federal aid sources of funding and there, less than 20              
 percent said `none.'  18.7 percent said they did not think any                
 money from the federal aid source should be spent on managing for             
 wildlife programs which do not involve hunting.  I guess my final             
 two points involve -- you know, to a certain extent I think we have           
 a family feud here within the wildlife community and I think we've            
 all had fights in our families.  We all understand that one of the            
 primary things to consider when you're in the middle of a fight               
 like that is don't do anything in a short term that is going to               
 damage permanently or....[END OF TAPE]                                        
 TAPE 96-72, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 MR. BRUCE continued, "....and it threatens to do permanent damage             
 to a relationship that really has more going for it than it has               
 going against it.  My final point in think involves Senator                   
 Taylor's example of the highway funds, and I'm really glad he                 
 brought it up because I would use the analogy in a little bit                 
 different way.  I would say that, as I said earlier, we believe we            
 have a well rounded balanced and comprehensive wildlife management            
 program and it certainly - the major funding comes from the sale of           
 hunting licenses and tags and then from the federal funds which are           
 not all paid by hunters, but are paid by anybody that buys a hand             
 gun.  It's paid on a national level.  Alaska gets $9 from the                 
 federal funding source for every $1 that our folks contribute to              
 those taxes.  So there is a lot of folks in the rest of the country           
 that are contributing significant money through the federal aid and           
 wildlife restoration funding source for our management programs.              
 But using Senator Taylor's example of the analogy of the highway              
 funds, I submit that not allowing any use of the federal aid                  
 programs and the hunting - the fish and game fund for wildlife                
 viewing is similar to saying in the highway program, `You can't use           
 any of the money for any pedestrian facilities because they're not            
 paying anything to maintain these highways and roads.'  So no more            
 crosswalks, no more sidewalks, no more overpasses, nothing for                
 people who are walking along those roads and I don't think that               
 makes sense.  I don't think Senator Taylor would think that that              
 makes sense.  What we're looking at here is a balanced program, a             
 well rounded program.  We think we have one and we urge you not to            
 pass this legislation out of this committee.  Thank you, I'd be               
 happy answer any questions."                                                  
 Number 183                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to Mr. Bruce saying that the                     
 legislature has bowed out of managing the funds this closely.  He             
 asked if it is not the legislature that gives the authority to the            
 department to do that and if we chose to bow in, that's our option.           
 MR. BRUCE said the legislature appropriates all funds spent by                
 state agencies.  What the legislature has done in the past is to              
 provide general appropriations, set general policies and allowed              
 the details to be determined by the agency.  Mr. Bruce said what he           
 is suggest is that has been a practice that has worked well and he            
 doesn't think the arguments that have been advanced for radically             
 changing that are that strong.                                                
 Number 243                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "You know you stated in your testimony              
 that we have the authority to change the budget priorities, yet is            
 it not true that in spite of definite budget priorities that the              
 legislature has given the Department of Fish and Game that those -            
 money has been shifted around and moved into other departments that           
 were specifically defunded by the legislature and very directly --            
 would very direct -- direction from the legislature yet,                      
 internally, you guys shifted around and - and furthered what the              
 department's agenda is and not the legislature."                              
 MR. BRUCE said he believes Representative Ogan is speaking about a            
 number of the department's reimbursable service agreements between            
 various divisions and the Division of Habitat and the Division of             
 Subsistence last year.  He explained that money was not transferred           
 into the base of those divisions.  That money was provided to those           
 divisions so that they could conduct work which was considered                
 essential to the missions of the other divisions.  In the case of             
 subsistence and habitat, they had programs going on....                       
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "Is that a yes or no answer, please, we             
 don't have time for a long -- have they misdirected funds that the            
 legislature definitely appropriated and used it for something else,           
 yes or no?"                                                                   
 MR. BRUCE said, "No sir, there was no misdirection of funds."                 
 Number 350                                                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he would like to continue taking testimony,            
 but some of the committee members are going to have to leave.  He             
 said Co-Chairman Williams will continue to take testimony.                    
 Number 423                                                                    
 WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,                   
 Department of Fish and Game, came before the committee.  He said he           
 agrees with what Mr. Bruce has said.  He informed the committee               
 members that in the Wildlife Division they have 180 individual                
 projects that range in size from $10,000 up to about $200,000, and            
 rather than having one BRU for wildlife management, he guesses they           
 would 160.  He said he thinks it would be fairly cumbersome for the           
 legislature and for the division to administer.  Mr. Regelin                  
 referred to a lot being said about how restrictive federal aid                
 funds are and how they can't use them for anything.  He said it is            
 clear and very simple as to what it says in the federal law, "The             
 following are eligible for funding under the Pitman/Robertson Act.            
 Projects having as their purpose the restoration, conservation,               
 management and enhancement of wild birds and wild mammals and the             
 provisions for public use of and benefits from these resources."              
 It says you can use them for any wild animal or wild bird and it              
 doesn't get into any other definitions.  Mr. Regelin informed the             
 committee there are two activities that are prohibited.  It can't             
 be used for law enforcement activities and public relations (PR).             
 It is very broad on how those funds can be spent.  He said the                
 department spends all of the funds on management of hunted species.           
 They use the fish and game fund, which is the license fees, to pay            
 for the programs of last year and are proposing this year that are            
 more for the nonconsumptive use programs such as the wildlife                 
 education programs.  Those were formally paid for with general fund           
 Number 577                                                                    
 MR. REGELIN said he thinks the intent is to make sure that the fish           
 and game fund and the federal aid dollars are used for intensive              
 management programs and no other programs.  It talks about using              
 them for wolf control, habitat manipulation and vegetation                    
 transplanting.  There is a list that states what the funds can and            
 can't be used for.  Mr. Regelin said it is very clear that they               
 couldn't be used for any areas where hunting is not allowed such as           
 the McNeil River and Potters Marsh.  He stated there are a few                
 other things and that is why there is a large fiscal note.  They              
 wouldn't be able to use them for public services people because it            
 is very specific that it has to have a direct benefit back to                 
 sustained yield management.  He said the way he reads the bill they           
 wouldn't be able to fund the people who work in public services.              
 He noted those are the people who answer the phones and meet with             
 the people who come in off the street to talk about hunting and               
 where to go or fishing.  The department would have to stop doing              
 that or use general funds.                                                    
 MR. REGELIN said another thing it would do is preclude the                    
 department from building office buildings when they need to.  He              
 noted one is currently being built in Fairbanks.  Mr. Regelin said,           
 "The other thing that it - why there is a large fiscal note is that           
 what we do -- the federal funds that come in, the Division of                 
 Administration within the Department of Fish and Game assess 6                
 percent of the federal aid to help run the administration of the              
 programs.  The federal aid, we've worked very hard to keep this               
 percentage low.  It's been pushed up in Senate and House Finance              
 Committees before.  Legally, it's under the federal aid rules, you            
 can assess up to 15 percent for indirect costs.  We've kept it at             
 6.  If we did this it would cost our Division of Administration               
 probably I think it's just over a million dollars of those funds.             
 So I think that its, again, it's a trying to mandate that we only             
 spend funds on very specific activities and it removes all of the             
 balance from our programs.  Thank you."                                       
 Number 764                                                                    
 EDDIE GRASSER, Alaska Outdoor Council, was next to come before the            
 House Resources Committee members.  He stated his organization                
 supports the concept of SB 247.  They have some concerns with the             
 way the bill is written.  Mr. Grasser said they also have some                
 concerns about some of the statements that have been made.  On a              
 historical basis, it is true that conservationists supported the              
 Pitman/Robertson Dingel/Johnson (Sp.?) programs, but he would like            
 to point out that those conservationists were pro hunting in the              
 beginning.  These concepts were generated by people like John                 
 Westly Powell, Gifford Pinshow, Teddy Roosevelt, etc.  These people           
 are all pro hunting people.  They're the people who started the               
 biological survey that later led to the Fish and Wildlife Service             
 being instituted.  These people all felt that animals could be                
 restored throughout the country and managed scientifically also               
 here in Alaska for the benefit of the public, but their view of the           
 public included hunters and not just people who wanted to view                
 wildlife.  Mr. Grasser said as far as whether or not the PR program           
 and the fish and game fund program was to insulate the department             
 from politics is rather a dubious argument.  One of the reasons               
 that we're in the state that we're in now, as far as a group in               
 supporting some suggested budget cuts to the department and                   
 supporting bill like SB 247 in concept, is because the anti hunting           
 public has continually closed areas to hunting for their exclusive            
 use and not for the public's use.  He said it seems to him that if            
 we don't take into account all the lands of Alaska, we can't                  
 achieve a balance and he thinks that is where the hunting and                 
 trapping public is coming from.  Mr. Grasser said, "We feel that a            
 balance has been achieved, that we've already closed enough lands             
 to hunting and we don't need to close anymore unless there is a               
 specific reason for doing so.  A prime example of this is the                 
 McNeil River refuge bear closure that happened at the Board of Game           
 this last year.  That was a closure for an exclusive use -                    
 exclusive use of segment of the public.  There are no areas, I                
 would like to reiterate, in this state that are closed to viewing.            
 You can go out to any place in this state and view, but there are             
 places now where you cannot hunt or trap.  There was no biological            
 reason to close the Paint River area to bear hunting.  Bear hunting           
 is a highly desirable species for trophy hunters, it's not                    
 necessarily a subsistence animal or an animal that people in Alaska           
 hunt to put food on their tables, but it's an animal that a lot of            
 people desire to hunt."                                                       
 MR. GRASSER continued, "There is an argument that's been made by              
 the department that there is no way that we could win that battle             
 on Paint River that the world view and the nation view was that               
 hunters were wrong to support hunting in that bear population.                
 Well there is 30 some years of viewing and hunting took place                 
 there.  There is a history that proves that both those uses are               
 compatible.  In our opinion, the department failed to take an                 
 opportunity where we could have used and educational effort to show           
 people that these two uses are compatible.  I think that is what we           
 would have preferred to see happen there.  I'd like to make a                 
 remark.  This public survey that was taken of voters on whether or            
 not people voted or supported using monies from the fish and game             
 fund for PR sources for non-game functions like viewing.  It is               
 also true in that same survey that the same percentage or close to            
 the same percentage of people opposed closing areas to hunting for            
 viewing.  I think that's reflects poorly on the department not to             
 bring that up when they're making the other argument.  I think the            
 last thing I'd like to say is that in the direction of using these            
 funds, a lot of people in the nonhunting or anti hunting community            
 are concerned about hunters control these funds, and especially in            
 the last few months because of our desire to  have these funds                
 expended in a more, what we view, appropriate manner."                        
 MR. GRASSER continued with his testimony, "Besides the PR/DJ                  
 program, the fish and game fund monies that are derived from                  
 licenses and tags, hunters and trappers throughout this nation and            
 in this state have put together private efforts, have nothing to do           
 with licenses or taxes or fees to the government, to raise funds              
 for wildlife populations.  Millions of dollars, nationwide, have              
 been raised this way and expended on protecting habitat and                   
 restoring game populations.  The people that are supporting these             
 viewing areas for their exclusive use and opposed to hunting, they            
 don't do that.  They've never raised money and put it into habitat            
 or wildlife restoration programs to the point that hunters have.              
 There are some instances like the Nature Conservancy where they do            
 by habitat, but in a lot of instances those lands are closed to               
 hunting and, therefore, again an exclusive use.  But most of the              
 real strident environmental groups have put little or no effort               
 into raising money out of the private sector and putting it towards           
 a public purpose.  So here, again, the hunters are the ones that              
 have borne the brunt of restoring wildlife populations and                    
 management goals.  I think that concludes -- again, we support the            
 basic concept here.  I think that there has to be some movement               
 within the state to recognize more appropriate use of these funds.            
 I think that the argument that the department has been insulated              
 from politics on the way these funds and the PR funds are set up is           
 incorrect.  We no longer have predator management to any great                
 degree in this state because of the anti hunting groups that raise            
 all kinds of hell, or whatever you want to call it, whenever we try           
 to do a program.  So, you know, we finally decided I guess as a               
 group that we had to do something.  We were trying to work with all           
 the groups.  We were trying to work within the system, but the                
 people that yelled and screamed and demanded their use be given               
 exclusive usage of these lands were winning consistently.  We were            
 getting nowhere.  So thank you for this opportunity to testify."              
 Number 1180                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Grasser if there are any changes he            
 would like to see in the bill.                                                
 MR. GRASSER said there are some, but he would like to write them up           
 and present them to the committee.                                            
 Number 1205                                                                   
 LYNN LEVENGOOD, Executive Director, Alaska Wildlife Conservation              
 Association (AWCA), testified via teleconference from Fairbanks.              
 He said, "It would be probably a statewide (indisc.) of mine if               
 school tax money was spent on a visitors center at the airport and            
 I'm sure that many of the taxpayers, landowners who pay their                 
 property taxes for schools, like visitor centers would probably use           
 it.  But a specific tax base should be spent for the specific use             
 allocated and authorized by law.  Now what Mr. Regelin failed to              
 tell you about the federal legislation is that in the intent                  
 language, much earlier in the federal legislation, it says that the           
 PR program is a -- for PR program, the purposes are intended to               
 benefit the license purchasers, and that's license purchasers and             
 not general people in the state.  There is nothing about SB 247               
 that would preclude Department of Fish and Game from spending any             
 money.  It would only preclude them from spending money generated             
 by license revenue for activities which do not benefit license                
 purchasers pursuant to the federal legislation.  Historically,                
 there has been many instances of misuse of this money.  The state             
 of Illinois tried - actually (indisc.) complaints (indisc.) for a             
 museum and that was ultimately brought to the attention of the tax            
 payers or license holders in Illinois.  Currently, the governor of            
 Maryland is trying to combine the Parks Department with Fish and              
 Game in order to utilize fish and game funds from license                     
 purchasers to fund the Parks Department.  Our current governor, in            
 his CIP (Capital Improvement Program) budget, is trying to say that           
 over $100,000 of license revenue to be spent for an access study              
 into McKinley or Denali Park.  He also is trying to take another              
 approximately $100,000 to print brochures aimed at reducing bear              
 encounters with tourists.  There is active attempt within the                 
 department and within the Administration to steel these funds from            
 dedicated users for purposes that are not clearly (indisc.)                   
 intended to befit licensed purchasers.  The total balance program             
 approach may have been O.K. when there was a significant amount of            
 general funds in the fish and game budget.  That is no longer true.           
 Now the Department of Conservation is being run on license revenues           
 paid by hunters and the matching fees promulgated by the license              
 fees sent by hunters.  So - because nothing in this legislation               
 would restrict fish and game's activities, it would just make them            
 find additional funding source.  If people want a balanced program,           
 great.  Go to the legislature, get some general fund money and have           
 a balanced program.  But the funds dedicated and paid by sportsmen            
 need to be provided for consumptive use activities.  Again, some of           
 the language within the bill does not provide any further                     
 restrictions than the Department of Transportation operates under             
 regularly.  Currently, Fish and Game is one of the few departments            
 within the state which gets a general appropriation and takes the             
 money and spends it where they want to, and we know from last                 
 year's experience that large -- well a million dollars was                    
 appropriated for intensive management purposes and it was diverted            
 and spent on routine salaries and data collections.  So we know               
 that the history of the department for limiting expenditures to the           
 intent of the legislature has not been very good recently.  For               
 that reason, this legislation is needed and I'd ask you pass it."             
 Number 1450                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said there was nobody further to testify.  He            
 closed the public hearing on the bill.  He noted the CSSB 247(RLS)            
 am(efd fld)(ct rule fld), would be held.                                      
 SB 257 am - TAKING FISH OR GAME FOR PUBLIC SAFETY                           
 Number 1547                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee would address SB 257             
 am, "An Act relating to the taking of game or fish for public                 
 safety purposes."                                                             
 GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Assistant to Senator Fred Zharoff,                
 Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to explain SB
 257 am.  He informed the committee SB 257 was introduced in                   
 response to numerous complaints from communities throughout Senator           
 Zharoff's district about problems primarily with problem bears.               
 There are habituated bears within communities that are causing a              
 lot of uncertainty to residents.  Mr. Williams said it was not                
 clear on the authority on how these problems should best be taken             
 care of.  He pointed out there are rules on the books for defense             
 of life and property, but often it was thought by these communities           
 that there should be a better way to deal with a truly habituated             
 animal rather than waiting for a chance of tragedy in a defense of            
 life and property situation.                                                  
 MR. WILLIAMS said Senator Zharoff met with the department and the             
 Board of Game last fall to address these concerns.  Through those             
 discussions, it became apparent that the department didn't have               
 authority to authorize this.  He said "At the meeting, he went to             
 talk to the Board of Game at -- the Attorney Generals Office                  
 happened to be there to inform the Board of Game that actually                
 they'd had never had the authority to adopt regulations for public            
 safety either, or never had the clear authority."                             
 MR. WILLIAMS explained Section 1 of the bill authorizes the the               
 commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game to authorize the              
 taking of fish or game for public safety.  Section 2 refers to the            
 authority or the powers of the Board of Game to enact regulations             
 regarding taking of fish or game for public safety.  Section 1                
 would deal with the way the community would be able to contact the            
 department and work out a method to take a bear or whatever problem           
 animal was the topic.  Section 2 refers to the Board of Game's role           
 in this.  Mr. Williams said it is his anticipation that the                   
 department would work with the Board of Game and the public through           
 a process to come up with the criteria that would be involved.  So            
 if there was a problem in a rural community, there would be some              
 criteria to follow and a method so that the commissioner would be             
 able to make a decision on whether or not an animal could be taken            
 for public safety reasons.                                                    
 MR. WILLIAMS referred to Section 2.  He said the Board of Game has,           
 over the years, adopted numerous regulations.  Even the defense of            
 life and property regulation is a taking for public safety                    
 regulation which comes into question with the Department of Law's             
 interpretation that they didn't have that authority.  He referred             
 to requiring hunter education classes before hunting and said he              
 thinks there is an area in Anchorage where a hunter education class           
 is required before hunters can go out and hunt in that area.  The             
 taking of birds around airports is a public safety measure.  It is            
 not clear that the board had authority and has currently has                  
 authority to adopt those kinds of measures.                                   
 MR. WILLIAMS informed the committee members the bill hasn't had               
 opposition while it has been moving through the process.  He noted            
 there is a letter in the committee member's files from the                    
 Department of Fish and Game that makes a reference to the village             
 public safety officer - the VPSO (village public safety officer)              
 program that could be used in some of the areas for the taking.               
 That caused concern with the Department of Public Safety because              
 those officers are not allowed to currently carry weapons.  If you            
 were going to get into that, it kind of opens up an area of                   
 liability.  Mr. Williams said that wasn't their intent, but it is             
 their belief that they could be involved in the process, but                  
 probably would not be involved in the actual taking on official               
 duty as it could open up another area for the department.  The VPSO           
 could have a role in helping to identify the habituated animals and           
 work with the department to come up with a solution.                          
 MR. WILLIAMS said other concerns he has heard on the bill are that            
 people don't want the communities to not address what caused the              
 bears to become habituated.  Often it's a problem around a land               
 fill or other attractions for these bears.  He noted the bill is              
 not a "cure all" by any means.  We need to also deal with the                 
 attractions to try and break the cycles.  He said he would be happy           
 to answer questions.                                                          
 Number 1758                                                                   
 WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,                   
 Department of Fish and Game, indicated the department is in support           
 of support of SB 257 am.                                                      
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Regelin if the department currently               
 takes care of areas where people have a problem with bear sightings           
 or unusual activities.                                                        
 MR. REGELIN indicated that is correct.  In areas where they have              
 staff, there are no real problems.  They destroy the animal or                
 capture it and move it.  Out in rural areas where they don't have             
 staff, this will give the department the opportunity to delegate              
 authority to an individual in the community to take care of the               
 problem without worrying about getting in trouble with the law.               
 Mr. Regelin said it will make it clear that a person won't get sued           
 by somebody that doesn't want anything to ever die.                           
 Number 1850                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he lives in Saxman where there are a lot            
 of bears.  They need something there.  He noted the department                
 comes out there often and sets bear traps, but it doesn't always              
 work in trying to get the bears to come into the traps.  He said              
 they have since they have closed the land fill.  Co-Chairman                  
 Williams discussed a situation where a bear had been relocated and            
 it has made its way back to Saxman.  He said he believes the bill             
 is a good bill.                                                               
 MR. REGELIN said he agrees it doesn't solve all the problems.  In             
 Ketchikan, it is going to take some time for the problem to be                
 solved.  He noted the department is under lots of pressure to move            
 the bears rather than to destroy them.  They are given one chance             
 and if they come back, they have to be destroyed.                             
 Number 1925                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there was any further people to                 
 testify.  There being none, he closed the public hearing on SB 257            
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Resources Committee meeting             
 at 10:30 a.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects