02/10/1998 01:04 PM RES
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE February 10, 1998 1:04 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair Representative Fred Dyson Representative Joe Green Representative William K.(Bill) Williams Representative Irene Nicholia Representative Reggie Joule MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Ramona Barnes OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT Representative John Cowdery COMMITTEE CALENDAR SUBSISTENCE WORK SESSION: OVERVIEW OF SUBSISTENCE PROPOSALS PAST AND PRESENT CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2(RES) Relating to management of Alaska's wildlife resources. - MOVED CSSCR 2(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: CSSCR 2(RES) SHORT TITLE: MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 01/17/97 81 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/17/97 81 (S) RESOURCES 03/07/97 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 03/07/97 (S) MINUTE(RES) 03/10/97 651 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 1AM 03/10/97 651 (S) DP: GREEN, TORGERSON, LEMAN, SHARP 03/10/97 651 (S) AM: LINCOLN 03/10/97 651 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.RES) 03/11/97 689 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR & OTHER RECS 3/12/97 03/12/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 03/12/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 03/12/97 700 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 03/12/97 700 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 03/12/97 700 (S) PASSED Y19 N1 CSSCR 2(RES) 03/12/97 702 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 03/14/97 659 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/14/97 659 (H) RESOURCES 02/05/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 02/05/98 (H) MINUTE(RES) WITNESS REGISTER McKIE CAMPBELL P.O. Box 20231 Juneau, Alaska 99892 Telephone: (907) 463-3171 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on former Governor Hickel's subsistence advisory council. MEL KROGSENG, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 30 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3873 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for Senator Robin Taylor. ROD ARNO, President Alaska Outdoor Council 211 4th Street, Suite 302 A Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 463-3830 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony support of Senate CSSCR 2(RES). WILLIAM MILLER P.O. Box 131 Tok, Alaska 99780 Telephone: (907) 883-5138 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on Senate CSSCR 2(RES). DON SHERWOOD, Legislative Officer Alaska Boating Association P.O. Box 210430 Anchorage, Alaska 99521 Telephone: (907) 333-6268 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of Senate CSSCR 2(RES). ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-8, SIDE A Number 0001 CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Ogan an Dyson. Co-Chairman Hudson arrived at 1:11 p.m. Representatives Masek, Green, Joule, Nicholia and Williams arrived at 1:05 p.m., 1:10 p.m., 1:12 p.m., 1:13 p.m and 1:38 p.m., respectively. Number 0061 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced that Representative Barnes is excused from today's meeting. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained before the presentation and until there is a quorum he will go over the issue of public trust. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated the fish and game resources are held in trust for the people of the state. Legislators have a fiduciary duty and obligation to manage those assets in the best interest of the public. An example is the permanent fund dividend. It is based on earnings from oil and gas resources held in the public's trust. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the state can not discriminate against distributions of assets based on length of residency. Similarly, the public trust obligation does not allow discrimination of other assets - fish and game. The public trust doctrine is an overview of all case law taken as a whole. The federal government's claim to manage fish and game, especially fish, in the state is based on navigational servitude. However, states hold title to public trusts, lands and water, that are vested with sovereignty. Thus, states have both ownership and regulatory power over these resources. The federal navigational servitude confers only to regulatory power, not ownership. The property clause does not apply to navigational servitude. The federal government is allowed to condemn land and land under navigable waters to further navigational purposes only. Subsistence does not impede any navigation, therefore, the federal government does not have the right to condemn land or take over management. According to a book titled Putting the Public Trust Doctrine to Work - Second Edition, neither the Ninth or Tenth Amendments that together limit the powers of the federal government to those enumerated in the United States Constitution and are reserved for the people, affect the property clause power. When it comes to public trusts, lands and waters, however, the property clause does not delegate exclusive federal control. As the United States Supreme Court said in the 1845 case of Pollard's Lesse v. Hagen et al, the shores of navigable waters and the soils under them are not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but are reserved to the states respectively. Secondly, new states have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over the subject as the original states. Thus, public trust lands are outside the scope of the property clause power, except when the United States acts as a trustee prior to statehood. The lack of exclusive property clause power over public trust lands has generally been distinguished from the exclusive power of the federal government to dispose of (indis.). As a result, the beds and shores of navigable waters are not subject to survey and disposition of the United States. Lands under navigable waters are not exclusively addressed but covered by the admission of the state on an equal footing. After a state is admitted to a union, the federal government can acquire land through two constitutional powers. One is the power to purchase places with a consent of the legislature of the state where the place is located. This is commonly known as the enclave clause and is a kin to when a willing buyer and seller make a transaction. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated this is in direct contradiction to what the attorney general has been saying. In 1953 the federal government gave title to all submerged lands to the states. However, when states are incorporated into the union they are admitted under the equal footing doctrine; they are admitted with the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations as all other states. SUBSISTENCE WORK SESSION: OVERVIEW OF SUBSISTENCE PROPOSALS PAST AND PRESENT CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the first order of business was an overview on former Governor Hickel's subsistence advisory council presented by McKie Campbell. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained Mr. Campbell served as Senate staff from 1981 to 1990, primarily for former Senator Arliss Sturgulewski. He was staff to the Senate Resources Standing Committee in 1986 when the legislature wrote the first subsistence statute in response to the Madison case. He has been involved in every legislative action on subsistence since 1986. In 1991 and 1992 he served as staff to former Governor Hickel's subsistence advisory council and was the principle point person for the special session. After the special session, he worked with subsistence issues as a deputy chief of staff in the governor's office and as deputy commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game. Currently, he is the owner of a natural resources consulting firm. He also continues to follow the subsistence issue closely. Number 0639 McKIE CAMPBELL explained in 1991 he was asked to come to the governor's office for a temporary assignment as staff to the subsistence advisory council. It was an attempt to deal with the ongoing problem between state and federal management. It consisted of the following nine members: Governor Jay Hammond - Port Alsworth; Dick Bishop - Fairbanks; John Burns - Fairbanks; Mitch Demientieff - Nenana; Eric Forrer - Juneau; Matthew Iya - Nome; Byron Mallott - Juneau; Theo Matthews - Kenai; and Gene Paltola - Bethel. MR. CAMPBELL stated it was an extremely diverse group. The council held meetings throughout the state for over a year. At the time, Governor Hickel felt that a constitutional amendment would not pass the legislature so the council worked to try to solve the problem without a constitutional amendment. The council produced a proposal that was introduced to the legislature at the start of the session in 1992. MR. CAMPBELL explained there were two main components to the statutory provision put forth by the council. One was aimed at trying to resolve the state-federal management conflict. In addition, there were a serious of functional improvements to the statutes to improve the responsiveness of the ongoing management of the fish and game and to deal with a series of court cases that were lost by the state from 1986 to 1991. MR. CAMPBELL explained the council adopted an identification system of qualified subsistence users and a flexible point system while applying three levels of presumptions. The first presumption was that anybody who lived in a community of less than 2,500 and where dependence upon subsistence was a principal characteristic of the economy, culture, and way of life, was presumed to be a subsistence user. The second presumption was that anybody who lived in a community of 2,500 to 7,000 where dependence upon subsistence was a principal characteristic of the economy, culture, and way of life, was rebuttaly presumed to be a subsistence user. The third presumption was that anybody who lived in a community of over 7,000 and where dependence upon subsistence was a principal characteristic of the economy, culture, and way of life, could qualify as a subsistence user through an application process with the Department of Fish and Game. The series of presumptions would have worked well, but they were based on who was and was not a qualified subsistence user. The problem with any mechanism of sorting folks out using a point system was the fighting of poles. On the one hand there was administrative convenience, while on the other hand accuracy was necessary or faith in the system would be lost. The qualifications were weighted on a 7-point criteria that the boards would award points for. The criteria consisted of the following: "1. the quantity of fish and game consumed by a person in the preceding twelve months, with a mandatory minimum of 125 pounds;" MR. CAMPBELL explained criterion number one was the single most unpopular of all the criteria. "2. the number of species and groups of species of fish and game from the subsistence use area consumed by the person in the preceding twelve months, with a mandatory minimum set by the boards by region;" MR. CAMPBELL explained the theory behind criterion number two was that a subsistence user uses a broad spectrum of resources, not just moose, for example. "3. the number of days in the preceding twelve months that the person engaged in taking fish and game in the subsistence use area or spent processing that fish or game, with a mandatory minimum of 30 days; "4. the number of months in the preceding twelve months in which the applicant engaged in taking fish or game in the subsistence use area, with a mandatory minimum of four months; "5. the number of weeks, in the preceding twelve months, during which the taking or processing of fish and game was the applicant's principal work effort, to a maximum of 26 weeks; "6. the number of households, other than the person's household, with which the person shared or received fish and game in the preceding twelve months, with a maximum of 10 households; and "7. whether the person's taking of fish and game occurred solely in the subsistence use area for which they are qualifying." MR. CAMPBELL stated the criteria would have sorted out a subsistence user, but there could have been a backlash against going through them. Number 1298 MR. CAMPBELL explained when the proposal was introduced to the legislature, the portion that dealt with compliance without a constitutional amendment was stripped out of the bill - the presumptions and qualifications. What remained in the bill were a number of improvements in terms of function to the state statute - Section 16.05.258(a),(b), and (c). He said, "No matter what else you may or may not do, please be careful about not losing those parts that actually are working well." MR. CAMPBELL explained in 1986 the law was written so that the Board of Game and Fisheries would go through an allocation process. But, it did not match with the reality of how boards worked causing lots of overturned hunting and fishing cases. Therefore, to deal with the issue, it became clear that not every fish or animal in Alaska was subject to subsistence. There were fish stocks and game populations that were simply not used for subsistence, such as, bison and other transplanted species. There were some catch and release areas and some areas that were so remote that there had never been a subsistence use of that particular fish stock. He cited mountain goats, some populations of brown bears, and some populations of Dall sheep as other examples. The approach created Section 16.05.258(a). MR. CAMPBELL explained Section 16.05.258(b) allowed the boards to go through a series of allocated steps depending on the relative abundance of the fish stock or game population. The board would determine whether they could be harvested consistent with the sustained yield principle. If a portion could be harvested, the board would determine the amount that would be reasonably necessary for subsistence uses - the first introduction of "reasonably necessary." Prior to reasonably necessary, subsistence allocations were considered an absolute guarantee. It was not a commonly held belief, but there were some court cases that required a guarantee of taking as opposed to a reasonable opportunity. If there was a harvestable portion sufficient for all consumptive uses, the boards would adopt regulations to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence use. Then, the boards would adopt regulations to provide for other consumptive uses and "may" adopt regulations to differentiate amongst the uses. The next level was if a harvestable portion was sufficient to provide for subsistence uses and some, but not all, other consumptive uses. The next level was if a harvestable portion was sufficient to provide for subsistence uses, but no other consumptive uses, the boards would then be required to provide for subsistence uses only. The fourth level was if a harvestable portion was not sufficient to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses, the boards would then be required to differentiate amongst the qualified subsistence users through the customary and direct dependence on the fish stocks or game populations by the subsistence user for human consumption as a mainstay of livelihood; the proximity of the domicile of the subsistence user to the stock or population; and the ability of the subsistence user to obtain food if subsistence use was restricted or eliminated. MR. CAMPBELL explained the second was the most useful in terms of administration. But, the court held in the Kenaitze case that proximity to domicile was in direct violation of the state constitution - Section 15, Article VIII and the common use clause. The state still uses the first and third. The changes together with a set of definitions - "customary and traditional" and "customary trade" - helped stop the court cases, however. He said, "Whatever you're going to do, please be very, very careful of unintended consequences and not losing the good parts that do work in an attempt to fix the rest. The rest does need fixing." He urged the committee members to read the sectional analysis of the bill proposed in 1992. MR. CAMPBELL concluded by stating in working on subsistence, he has learned that there is no single answer, and that people of diametrically opposed views can work together. For example, the findings from SB 443 in 1992 were almost more difficult to agree on than the technical details. He read the following first three findings to illustrate his point: "The legislature finds that "(1) there are Alaskans, both Native and non-Natives, who have a traditional, social, or cultural relationship to and dependence upon the wild renewable resources produced by Alaska's land and water; the harvest and use of fish and game for personal and group consumption is an integral part of those relationships; "(2) although customs, traditions, and beliefs vary, these Alaskans share ideals of respect for nature, the importance of using resources wisely, and the value and dignity of a way of life in which they use Alaska's fish and game for a substantial portion of their sustenance; this way of life is recognized as 'subsistence'; "(3) customary and traditional uses of Alaska's fish and game originated with Alaska Natives, and have been adopted and supplemented by many non-Native Alaskans as well; these uses, among others, are culturally, socially, spiritually, and nutritionally important and provide a sense of identity for many subsistence users;" MR. CAMPBELL stated those are still good words. Number 1863 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN agreed that the words are still relevant today. It is very important that the committee members do not demonize each other. There can be differing views and still have the highest amount of respect for each other. Number 1890 CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON asked Mr. Campbell what is the principal thing required by the constitution that is giving the state such difficulty in developing a management scheme here in Alaska. He wondered whether it is the residency situation, for example. Number 1926 MR. CAMPBELL replied the main issue is the proximity of domicile - the Kenaitze case. The decision explicitly prohibited proximity of domicile based on Section 15, Article VIII, and implicitly prohibited it based on the common use and equal access clauses of the state constitution. The heart of the local residency issue is proximity of domicile. He cautioned against dealing with anything else in the constitution, if the local residency route is taken. Number 2025 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN referred to the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) summit held on subsistence and asked Mr. Campbell whether a cooperative effort could be reached between rural and urban, Native and non-Native. Number 2077 MR. CAMPBELL replied there are representatives of all Alaskans in the legislature. As part of the process, it is important to continue to consult with every group. In addition, given the stage of the issue, a new task force is not needed. Number 2128 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated Mr. Campbell has no doubt read the most recent task force outcome, and has seen the statutory language and the proposal to modify the constitution to conform with the Alaska National Interest Conservation Act (ANILCA), and asked him whether he sees the application of rural as impossible without changing the constitution because of the Kenaitze case. Number 2158 MR. CAMPBELL replied he sees the application of rural as impossible because of the McDowell and Kenaitze cases. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Campbell, in terms of providing for the low-harvest needs for many of the people in Alaska, whether he has thought of a least-intrusive modification to the constitution or of a way to word smith the statutes to take care of the people of rural Alaska, without saying rural, while at the same time, provide an opportunity for those living in non-subsistence regions. Number 2205 MR. CAMPBELL replied, in my opinion, a constitutional amendment is needed, but it has to be narrow and targeted to take care of unintended consequences. Some versions put a preference for subsistence in the constitutional amendment which is not necessary because there is a preference for subsistence in state law. The constitutional problem is the inability to use proximity of domicile, the heart of local residency. However, if local residency is chosen then make sure the harvestable portion of the fish stocks and game populations are identified for subsistence uses. It would only be needed when there is not an abundance of resources to provide for all consumptive uses. An amendment could read "subsistence uses by local residents." The identification of use for local residents would have fewer objectionable qualities than a simple rural-urban split. Under a rural-urban split, a person from Anchorage might not qualify for the Nelchina moose hunt, while a person from Kotzebue or Angoon might. It does not make any sense. Under local residency, a proximity of domicile to the resource could be used along with other criteria. He reiterated a very narrow use of local residency could fix the problem and comply with ANILCA, and most importantly, it would have a minimal adverse impact on anything else. Number 2358 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated there can be discriminate as long as it is rational. There are different ways to discriminate without being arbitrary or irrational. "I don't think anyone can argue that rural priority is a total rational discrimination, especially with some of the examples." Number 2401 MR. CAMPBELL stated the Alaska Supreme Court ruled out a rural- urban split in the McDowell case. Following the McDowell case, the state continued to use the tier 2 criteria - allocation amongst subsistence uses based on customary and direct dependence on the resources for human consumption, proximity of domocile to the resources, and ability to obtain alternate sources of food. Everybody thought it was rational in the circumstances, until the Kenaitze case. The state has used many ways over the years to provide for subsistence uses other than a rural-urban split. The difficulty comes.... TAPE 98-8, SIDE B Number 0000 MR. CAMPBELL continued. The difficulty comes with certain population of species such as, moose, sometimes caribou, coho, and kings, near urban areas. Number 0018 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Campbell whether he is implying the use of a local residency priority instead of a rural priority. Number 0027 MR. CAMPBELL replied, "Yes." The Alaska Supreme Court has said there are some gaps in the logic of a straight rural-urban split. There are three places in Section 16.05.258(b) that by inserting "local resident" would comply with ANILCA. "And, I say that because subsistence uses do not occur in urban areas, they're described in statute in 16.05.258(c) as non-subsistence areas. And, I have to say it is a good and appropriate thing...I want to be careful folks don't misinterpret this, but that subsistence uses don't happen in urban areas because what happens if you do, if you have subsistence, and because it has a priority over every other use, if you allow subsistence use in an urban area you immediately wipe out all these other uses. Instead in urban areas what we do is we give the board the use of personal use (indis.) and personal use is exactly the same means and methods and everything else. It just--it doesn't have a preference over say sports fishing or sports hunting. So the board is able to continue to have this mix of things. But, because in 16.05.258(c) it says the boards may not permit subsistence hunting or fishing in a non-subsistence area, subsistence uses only occur in a rural area and if you talk about uses by local residents those folks are going to be rural residents and they can participate. However, the big distinction of what I'm talking about and what will happen prior to McDowell is, I certainly would allow and I see no conflict in ANILCA whatsoever, in allowing urban residents to go out to participate in subsistence activities in those areas where there are plenty of resources, where there is not a shortage. And that's a lot of the state. There's a lot of resources. Some areas there's not, but anyway that's what I'm suggesting." Number 0118 REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS referred to proximity of domicile and asked Mr. Campbell, what is the difference between someone from Southeast Alaska going to the Interior to hunt for moose when there is a shortage, and the decision from the McDowell case. Number 0149 MR. CAMPBELL replied the court said in the McDowell case that a rural-urban split is against the state constitution. Prior to McDowell, a person who lived in a subsistence area qualified for subsistence use throughout the state as long as there was not a restriction between subsistence users. Therefore, a person could live in Kake and participate in a subsistence harvest in Kotzebue when a resident of Anchorage could not. There is a rational basis for a person's particular proximity to a resource. Number 0192 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS replied it sounds like the same thing. A person's proximity to a resource would also require a constitutional amendment. Otherwise, "You're going to hold me from going to the Interior or Kodiak or wherever I want to go. And you're going to discriminate against me." Number 0209 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated it would depend on whether you are totally eliminated or not. Clearly, it would be within the realm of the constitution and standard state practice to give advantages, not preferences, to people in an area. Maybe, there is something that could be devised to give an advantage to local residents as long as others are not excluded. For example, if there are seven moose, four would go to the local guys, while three would go to people from other areas. There is no discrimination as long as there is not a total exclusion. Number 0247 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Campbell whether Governor Hickel's proposal would be held unconstitutional given the findings of the Kenaitze case. Number 0266 MR. CAMPBELL replied it would be a close call. At the time, the Department of Law felt the proposal would not require a constitutional amendment. And, there were a number of attorneys, not from the Department of Law, that thought it would take an amendment to the constitution. The Kenaitze case has tipped it more towards those who said it would require an amendment to the constitution. Number 0296 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted in the Kenaitze case there are three sections of the constitution that would have to be amended and in the proposal by the task force there is only one section of the constitution that would have to be amended. He stated he is not a lawyer, but there appears to be five areas that would have to be amended. Number 0317 MR. CAMPBELL stated it is a very important point. There are definitely three areas that have a problem with proximity to domicile or local residency. However, it would not be necessary to reference or amend each section. The adoption of a new section that said something like "the legislature can provide for the use of proximity to domicile to distinguish amongst subsistence users when the harvestable portion is not enough to provide for all consumptive uses" would take care of it. Number 0373 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Campbell whether there was any concern of the council when trying to determine how far a local resident was extended. Number 0383 MR. CAMPBELL replied the council advocated for using game sub- management units and their contiguous units. For example, if there was a hunt in Unit 19C, the residents of 19C along with the residents of the contiguous units would also be included. Number 0440 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to the issue of reducing the federal court oversight or intervention and asked Mr. Campbell whether the council considered any way to curtail it. The current task force proposal considered using arbitrary and capricious, and due deference. Number 0472 MR. CAMPBELL replied the council talked about it a lot, but the political climate was different. There was no attempt for a constitutional amendment and it was generally believed that there would not be any changes to ANILCA, where the expedited federal review resides. However, in 1993 and 1994, after the law was passed, there was work and discussions within the administration on how to resolve the issue. There were discussions of linkage between changes to ANILCA and a constitutional amendment. Some felt that along with the linkeage good definitions were needed in the federal law as well. There were also discussions on requiring a person with a grievance to exhaust the state chain of remedies before going to the federal courts thereby getting rid of the expedited portion of the federal court review. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked Mr. Campbell for his input today. He encouraged the committee members to contact him if they have further questions. Number 0570 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced that there will be meetings three days a week now - Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, unless another day is determined. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated he would like to draft legislation as a vehicle to work on at the table even if it is just a shell. The leadership has established a timetable for the end of February to allow time to facilitate a bill over to the Senate. He would like to continue to meet with the committee members once a week nonetheless. Number 0648 REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE asked Co-Chairman Ogan whether it is his intent to put together a subcommittee to allow for a public process. Number 0681 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied a subcommittee would depend on the draft legislation. A vehicle is needed at the table for discussion. At this time, there is no plan for a subcommittee. Number 0728 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON agreed that something out there is needed. He suggested to Co-Chairman Ogan to put some of his ideas in print then circulate it amongst the committee members to examine. He also suggested soliciting other conceptual ideas from the committee members. Senate Bill 443 from the days of Governor Hickel has some good definitions. If it looks like there needs to be a change in the constitution, a working document could be drafted along with the input of an attorney general or whoever. "But, to simply sit back and rely upon the fact that there is no way you're going to modify the constitution period, I think, is tying our hands in finding a solution. Because what we're going to end up doing is we're going to listen to an awful lot of people and ultimately and probably nobody is going to tell us unequivocally that you can do this within the framework of the constitution and still take care of all of the people that we heard in the summer with their needs in this issue." A concept needs to be put out there; it will sink or fall on its own merit, but it needs to be put out there so that it can be drafted into a bill. He reiterated SB 443 from the days of Governor Hickel is good stuff with some minor changes. It is not necessary to reinvent the wheel. Number 0966 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN agreed there has been a lot of work already done and it should be used as a genesis of where to go. He wants it to be a consensus of the committee members. Number 0991 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated it would be very difficult for nine members to conceptualize on a bill. It would be a lot more productive to start with a bill. Number 1067 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wondered as the hearings evolve who will be heard from. During the interim the subsistence task force and the House Resources Standing Committee held some hearings; and, the Alaska Federal of Natives, RurAL CAP, and the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council (AITC) held a joint summit where 900 people came from around the state to dedicate time to the issue of subsistence - more participation than all of the other efforts combined. He wondered whether that population of people would have an opportunity to bring forward their positions. Number 1135 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated he has the reports from the AFN subsistence summit in his hands at the moment and he is going to speak with them today at 3:30 p.m., at which time, he will convey a message of working together to craft a solution. There is not a lot of time, luxury, or money to take the show on the road to rural Alaska. But, there are four members on the House Resources Standing Committee of aboriginal descent. He would take into consideration the work done at the summit. "I think that if we sit down as reasonable people and work this out as Alaskans so that we can possibly come up with a solution. So, I'll certainly give deference and consideration to those concerns." Number 1191 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stated she really like what Representative Hudson said in terms of putting the issue to the public. "I just don't think that we should have individual meetings. But, I think that we should have it like with a committee, subcommittee, whatever it is just so that there's a group of people together so that they won't be able to say that this was done behind closed doors. Because that is something that we always hear from the public is that they don't like legislation done behind closed doors. I would suggest that we would just keep this in a committee forum whether it's a subcommittee or a full committee." Number 1232 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied when a legislator drafts legislation there are a series of people to consult with which is at times one-on- one. He reiterated an invitation has been extended to every committee member to discuss the issue. Number 1252 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA replied subsistence is a statewide type of legislation, not an individual type of legislation. Therefore, it should go through the committee and public process. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, absolutely, but something is needed at the table to talk about which is why he has been asking for input. It has not been as fruitful as he would have liked, however. Number 1293 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON explained in his district he schedules meetings on Saturdays with a one-month advance notice. It would be helpful to preempt a Saturday meeting with a notice. He would also be glad to meet at night or early mornings. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated his committee aide, Kathleen Graves-Moore, would work with the committee members to determine the best day to meet. Saturday is on the schedule, unless an alternative is determined. CSSCR 2(RES) - MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the next order of business was CS for Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 2(RES), Relating to management of Alaska's wildlife resources. Number 1370 MEL KROGSENG, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska State Legislature, explained Senator Taylor could not be here this afternoon due to a scheduling conflict. She read the following statement into the record: "Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 is a simple resolution that sends a message to the Administration that this legislature believes that fish and wildlife resources should be managed for abundance. "The state of Alaska will go a long way towards solving the subsistence dilemma which we have just been talking about, if the department implements a policy of managing for abundance - managing wildlife rather than trying to manage people. "A shortage of wildlife will not be solved by determining who may have a preference regarding harvest. Our state constitution is very explicit on this issue. Article VIII, Section 3 states 'Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife and waters are reserved to the people for common use'. I am sure over the last several weeks, months and years, you have heard that statement a lot. "Our constitution also mandates that fish and game resources be managed on the principle of sustained yield. The current Administration has failed to implement an intensive management program that will ensure an abundance of wildlife. Attempting to manage complex wildlife populations by only addressing human use will not work. Alaskans currently harvest less than 3 percent of the harvestable surplus, an amount so small that it is statistically insignificant. "An abundance of fish and wildlife for all Alaskans is the only practical solution to the subsistence impasse. Present policies only perpetuate shortages. An abundance of wildlife is what the people of Alaska need, want and demand. Plentiful populations are good for consumptive users, wildlife viewers, photographers, tourists and any other users. "Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 calls on the Administration to do everything possible to implement management based on abundance." MS. KROGSENG stated she would be available to answer any questions of the committee members. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Ms. Krogseng whether the resolution is talking about both fish and wildlife. MS. KROGSENG replied, "Yes." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Ms. Krogseng whether this issue had been taken care of three or four years ago by Senator Bert Sharp. Number 1518 MS. KROGSENG replied she does not recall. She has been gone for the last three and a half years. MS. KROGSENG shared with the committee members a statement prepared by a retired fish and game biologist, Bud Burris (ph). He said the moose populations were estimated to be ten times higher in the 1960s and early 1970s than current populations. In addition, moose populations in Game Management Units 12, 19C, 19D, 20C, 20D, 20E, 20F, 21, 24, 25, and 26 have been severely reduced to the extent that the welfare of local residents and the economic health of the region has been impacted. The Steese-forty-mile caribou heard, was over 60,000 at statehood and provided a sustained harvest of thousands each year. It presently numbers about 22,000 and has a maximum subsistence harvest quota of 150 caribou a year. There are other examples that could be cited, but the Department of Fish and Game has concentrated on trying to manage people than actually managing the animals and fish. Number 1666 ROD ARNO, President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated the AOC supports the resolution. Managing wildlife resources on a biological basis for abundance in accordance with the sustained yield principle is in the best interest of most Alaskans. We believe that our state constitution mandates managing for abundance. Biological sustained development of natural resources should be a priority for all lawmakers all over the world. And, as we go through the subsistence debate and try to come to a solution, we see that the largest problem is when there is not enough resources to meet the needs - an issue that the AOC has been involved in since the passage of SB 77. Had we been able to manage the prized species for abundance, we may have relieved a lot of those concerns in the areas that are road accessible - the areas of the most conflict. And, by working towards that now both urban, rural, Native and non-Native can look at it and see the advantages of coming together. Number 1782 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Arno whether the difference of what the state is doing and managing for abundance is minimizing the impact of natural predators on game. Number 1799 MR. ARNO replied predator reduction is one thing that managers can use in terms of environmental restrains that would cause a smaller population of game. Number 1918 ANGIE MORGAN testified via teleconference in Aniak. We are having our moose hunting season right now. She kind of agreed with the resolution in terms of managing people versus managing moose populations. Her 80-year-old father-in-law said the moose started coming back to this area in the 1940s and 1950s. In Units 19C and 19D the moose population is really low so that local people are getting worried about Units 19A and 19B. Last year, there was over 1,300 moose, but there were only 89 successful local people in getting a moose. All the rest were from out of town or the state. Number 2020 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Ms. Morgan whether there is a problem with wolf predation. Number 2028 MS. MORGAN replied there are a lot of wolves in the area. People have been seeing more this year than previous years. The wolves are showing themselves more in the rivers than ever before. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Ms. Morgan whether there were locals that went same-day-airborne hunting before it was outlawed last year. MS. MORGAN replied she does not know. Number 2095 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Ms. Morgan what were the Unit numbers she mentioned again. MS. MORGAN replied Units 19A, 19B, 19C and 19D. Number 2138 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Ms. Morgan whether she or her father-in-law were aware of an increase in wolf trapping in the 1950s and 1960s that would have helped increase the moose population. MS. MORGAN replied she does not know. Number 2366 WILLIAM MILLER testified via teleconference in Tok. He is from the Native village of Dot Lake. In reference to the management of game as opposed to hunting, both have to work together. In reference to predator control, every time we have tried in Unit 20D to solve predator control we run across opposition from the conservationist that love wolves. They say that all the wolves eat are the sick and lazy, but we have documented moose kills by wolves of bulls, calves and cows. A few years ago over a 45 day period kills were documented every three to four days. TAPE 98-9, SIDE A Number 0000 MR. MILLER continued. When you do talk to organizations in the state the AITC represents the interests of a lot tribes in the state. It would be a very good contact. Number 0043 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Miller who documented the wolf kills. MR. MILLER replied the residents of the Native village of Dot Lake. At the time, there were approximately 14 to 18 wolves called the Billy Creek pack. The pack migrated back-and-forth between Billy Creek and Sand Lake in Unit 20D. The wolves increased to where they drove the moose down so low that they finally left the area and started preying on a caribou herd. We now have the same pack at the head waters of the Robertson River. Something has to be done with the wolves. Number 0125 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated wildlife is managed by initiative in this state which is how the same-day-airborne law came into effect. Number 0163 DON SHERWOOD, Legislative Officer, Alaska Boating Association (ABA), testified via teleconference in Anchorage. The ABA, a group of over 1,000 hunters and fishers, stands behind and supports the resolution. As elected representatives, you have sworn to uphold our constitution, it behooves you to take this resolution and pass it on to the Senate for final passage. Our constitution states that wildlife and fish resources should be managed on a sustained yield basis. Shortages do currently exist and continue to abate in some areas. Wildlife resources must be sustained on a biological basis for abundance. The Board of Game, the Board of Fisheries and the Department of Fish and Game must restore the abundance of the resources with every means available to accomplish this goal. We believe that this resolution can and will give these agencies the power they need. He thanked Senator Taylor for his foresight and for the much needed legislation. Number 0296 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced it was time to take action on the resolution. Number 0308 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON made a motion to move CSSCR 2(RES), version 0- LS0369\E, from the committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSSCR 2(RES) moved from the House Resources Standing Committee. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced next Thursday, February 19, 1998, the House Resources Standing Committee will hear HB 28 and HB 285. ADJOURNMENT Number 0365 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee meeting at 2:43 p.m.