Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/03/1993 08:00 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 3, 1993
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Pat Carney
Representative John Davies
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eldon Mulder
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 172: "An Act relating to the wildlife conservation tag
and to entry onto state game and wildlife
sanctuaries, state game refuges, state range
areas, and fish and game critical habitat areas;
and providing for an effective date."
CSHB 172 (RES) MOVED FROM COMMITTEE WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
Committee discussion of Subcommittee's recommendation on
Mental Health Lands issues.
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Bill Williams
State Capitol, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3424
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HB 172
David G. Kelleyhouse, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 465-4190
Position Statement: Supported HB 172
Geron Bruce, Special Assistant
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 465-4100
Position Statement: Addressed amendments to HB 172
Nancy Lethcoe, President
Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association
P.O. Box 1353
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Phone: 835-4300
Position Statement: Supported HB 172
John George
Alaska Outdoor Council
9515 Moraine Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 789-0172
Position Statement: Supported HB 172
Mary Forbes, Volunteer
Alaska Environmental Lobby
419 6th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 465-3366
Position Statement: Supported HB 172
Tom Garrett
Alaska Visitors Association
234 Gold Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-2480
Position Statement: Supported the motivations of HB 172, and
suggested amendments
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 172
SHORT TITLE: WILDLIFE CONSERVATION TAG AND FEE
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILLIAMS,Phillips,Larson,
Davies,Bunde,Finkelstein,Porter,Ulmer,James
TITLE: "An Act relating to the wildlife conservation tag and
to entry onto state game and wildlife sanctuaries, state
game refuges, state range areas, and fish and game critical
habitat areas; and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/22/93 413 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/22/93 414 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/24/93 445 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
03/03/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-24, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by
Chairman Bill Williams at 8:07 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams, Bunde, Carney,
Davies, Green, James, Finkelstein and Mulder.
Representative Hudson was absent at the call to order.
HB 172: WILDLIFE CONSERVATION TAG AND FEE
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced the meeting was being held
by teleconference with additional sites in Anchorage and
Valdez. He said the committee would first consider HB 172,
and then discuss the recommendations of a subcommittee
chaired by Representative Hudson, which met to consider the
possible introduction of a Resources bill on the Mental
Health Lands issue.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 172, explained that
the bill creates a program which would allow, and in some
cases require, non-consumptive users of Alaska's wildlife to
help pay for management of the resources. The fee would
purchase a tag or pin that would support wildlife programs,
as well as entitle the purchaser to apply for admittance to
several specific viewing areas. Walrus Islands and McNeil
River would require the tags initially, he explained, and
added the program would otherwise be voluntary. It was
hoped that with a small fee, large numbers of people might
be enticed to purchase the tag voluntarily, he stated.
Number 100
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted the fiscal note accompanying HB 172
was based on a fee of $15. In response to concerns raised
after introduction of the bill, he drafted five amendments
to resolve those concerns, and told the committee that each
amendment would be explained and considered after testimony
on the bill was taken. He noted amendment one would exempt
the Stan Price Bear Sanctuary in Southeast Alaska from the
entry fee requirement, because that facility is jointly
managed with the U.S. Forest Service, which will not allow
an entry fee.
Number 128
DAVID KELLEYHOUSE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (ADF&G),
offered strong support for HB 172. He explained that a
similar bill had been introduced during the 17th
Legislature. The wildlife tag and fee, he said, would
provide a way for those who did not hunt or fish to
contribute to wildlife management. House Bill 172 would
provide a stable funding source, he added, by creating a
user-pay funding base. The ADF&G hoped to market the
program to tourists who view wildlife. He suggested the fee
amount be set within the ADF&G rather than being established
in statute.
Number 185
MR. KELLEYHOUSE recommended provisions be made to exempt or
waive the fee for groups like school children who visit
wildlife areas. He noted HB 172 would allow those with
valid hunting or fishing license to access the resources
without purchasing the additional tag, and anticipated net
revenues of $60,000, which he called a modest estimate,
based on a $15 fee. If sales to tourists were strong, he
said that would allow expansion of the program.
Number 200
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted Representative Bill Hudson had
joined the meeting.
Number 205
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE indicated his strong support of
individual consumers contributing to management of the
resources. He said more broad participation should be
encouraged, and asked Mr. Kelleyhouse his views on how this
might be accomplished.
Number 219
MR. KELLEYHOUSE noted the fee was for facilities that were
actually staffed, and personnel costs made those facilities
more costly to maintain. He added tourism was anticipated
to be a substantial source of revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that a pin would be a good
idea to increase visibility of the program and encourage
sales.
Number 235
GERON BRUCE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, ADF&G, explained that some
of the amendments offered were technical in nature,
specifically amendments three, four and five, which were
developed after hearings were held on a companion bill in
the Senate, during which questions arose regarding the
subsistence use of resources, and potential penalties for
not paying the tag fee. Those questions were addressed, he
explained, in amendments three and five, respectively.
Amendment four, he said, established guidelines to allow the
ADF&G discretion to adopt regulations setting the fees and
other administrative factors.
Number 286
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to amendment number five, and
Mr. Kelleyhouse's statements that those holding valid
hunting or fishing licenses would not need to purchase the
tag. He asked whether it might be assumed that subsistence
hunters would abide by the law and buy a license.
MR. BRUCE affirmed that was a fair assumption. He noted
there were subsistence activities that did not involve
hunting or fishing, such as berry-picking, which would not
require a license. He said amendment five clarified those
activities were not going to be subject to the fee.
Number 304
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN commented that the program might be
hard to enforce. His concern was with the fiscal note and
its reference to part-time and contract personnel, with
revenue going up. He asked Mr. Bruce what would happen if
revenues were not high enough to cover the costs of
administering the program, and whether there were safeguards
to address that possibility.
Number 320
MR. BRUCE responded first to the question regarding
enforcement. The tag would only be required in areas where
entry was limited and where the ADF&G had personnel. He
cited McNeil River as an example, where visitors were
escorted into the area. Other areas would not require the
tag, but voluntary participation would be encouraged. He
said it was not likely the program would "run in the hole."
Number 353
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE related the success of the duck stamp
program, which he said appealed to people who collect
stamps, people interested in the conservation of duck
habitat, and also people who hunt. He hoped the program
proposed in HB 172 might appeal to people interested in
contributing to wildlife conservation in general, even those
who might not directly use the resources.
Number 371
NANCY LETHCOE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA WILDERNESS RECREATION AND
TOURISM ASSOCIATION, testified by teleconference from
Valdez. She referred to her written comments on HB 172
contained in members' files. She repeated her strong
support for the bill, and commented that she has been
involved and interested in this issue for many years.
Number 391
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to Ms. Lethcoe's written
testimony and her reference to vendors of the tag. He asked
whether she envisioned the vendors selling the tags on a
commission or percentage basis. He also asked whether the
vendors might promote the tag.
Number 404
MS. LETHCOE responded that people have approached her at her
place of business asking whether Alaska has a watchable
wildlife tag, because many visitors are familiar with such
programs in their home states. She indicated she would be
interested in including a check-off option on her company's
invoices, and would rather see all funds received from sales
of the tag go toward wildlife conservation programs, but
allowed that others might market the tag more if they
received a commission. She commented that the way HB 172 is
written, it appeared the only place to purchase the tags
would be outlets that sold hunting and fishing licenses.
This might cause a loss of sales to non-hunters or fishers
who did not frequent those establishments, but might
purchase the tag if it were offered at a gift shop.
Number 432
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked what Ms. Lethcoe believed might
be the most marketable physical form for the tag to be
offered in.
MS. LETHCOE preferred to leave those decisions to the
experts, but personally thought a pin would be nice.
Number 443
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE addressed his next question to Mr.
Bruce. He asked what the normal commission was on tags.
MR. BRUCE responded that either $1.00 or 10% usually went to
the vendor on tags. He added the program proposed in HB 172
would not restrict the type of vendor who could offer the
tag. He said gift shops would be able to enroll with the
ADF&G to offer the wildlife conservation tags.
Number 465
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER asked Mr. Bruce how the ADF&G
planned to market and promote the wildlife conservation
tags. He foresaw a tremendous potential for sales of the
tag, if adequately promoted.
Number 462
MR. BRUCE suggested those in the visitor industry be called
upon to work cooperatively in promoting the sale of the
tags. He commented on the potential for displaying posters
and other materials promoting the tags at airports and ferry
terminals. If a revenue stream was generated, he
anticipated advertisements in national periodicals.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER suggested many of the same groups that
have "screamed the most" about other programs should be the
first to sign up for the conservation tag program.
Number 490
VICE CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON referred to Ms. Lethcoe's prior
comments on where the wildlife conservation tag would be
available. He perceived, as the bill was written, the only
place would be through vendors of fishing and hunting
licenses and tags. He suggested an AMENDMENT to HB 172,
page 2, line 25 ADDING, AFTER "fish and game license" the
words "and other outlets at the discretion of the
commissioner." He explained this would provide the ADF&G's
Commissioner the opportunity to market what could become a
collector's item. He compared the marketing potential to
the successful efforts with duck stamps. He asked Ms.
Lethcoe and Chairman Williams, prime sponsor of HB 172, how
each might feel about such an amendment.
MS. LETHCOE responded that Representative Hudson's
suggestion sounded like a good way to handle the question.
VICE CHAIR HUDSON said he would offer that wording as an
amendment when the committee came to consideration of the
amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED to ADOPT the AMENDMENTS.
Number 522
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN commented that it would be
correct procedure to act on the amendments one by one.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE,
making changes as described in the amendment packet prepared
by George Utermohle of the Division of Legal Services, dated
March 1, 1993 (8-LS0650/A.1).
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the
motion. Hearing none, the AMENDMENT was ADOPTED.
Number 538
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO.
There were no objections, and IT WAS SO ORDERED.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE.
There were no objections, and IT WAS SO ORDERED.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR.
There were no objections, and IT WAS SO ORDERED.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE.
Without objection, the AMENDMENT was ADOPTED.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED to ADOPT AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX,
proposed in prior discussion, which was not part of the
Utermohle packet.
Number 548
VICE CHAIR HUDSON repeated the wording of the amendment:
INSERT after "licenses" on page 2, line 25 of HB 172: "and
other outlets at the discretion of the commissioner."
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the
adoption of amendment six. Without objection, the AMENDMENT
was ADOPTED.
Number 552
JOHN GEORGE, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, told the committee that
HB 172 has the support of a number of sportsmen's clubs. He
noted with the pressure on the ADF&G's budget, this user-pay
program would help alleviate the squeeze on the budget.
Number 560
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented he would not want to see
diminished general fund support of the ADF&G in an amount
equal to the amount of revenues from the wildlife
conservation tag program.
Number 577
MARY FORBES, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY VOLUNTEER, stated
her support for HB 172, and stressed that a strong marketing
campaign would be the key to the program's success. She
recommended a kick-off attention-getting campaign, such as a
design contest among Alaska schools. She said the
Environmental Lobby believed people will be happy to
participate in the program if they were aware of it and knew
how the funds would be used.
Number 590
TOM GARRETT, ALASKA VISITORS ASSOCIATION (AVA), addressed
the committee, mentioning that in addition to his role with
the AVA, he was also general manager of Alaska Discovery
Tours. He said that company ran about 70 tour packages in
the state, among which were day trips to the Stan Price Bear
Sanctuary, mentioned in HB 172 as potentially requiring a
wildlife conservation tag for entry.
MR. GARRETT said the AVA supports the motivations for HB
172, and had recommendations for amendments to make the bill
work better. He noted Alaska's wildlife was integral to the
marketing of tour companies. Therefore, he added, the ADF&G
was a key player in Alaska's tourism industry, whether they
wanted to be or not. He noted the political and economic
clout of Alaska's visitors to influence decisions regarding
game management, as evidenced by the recent boycott after
announcements the state would engage in aerial wolf hunts.
MR. GARRETT suggested as common property, Alaska's wildlife
resources should be managed for the highest and best use of
Alaskans, without regard for the amount of money collected
by the ADF&G through special fees. He stressed efforts to
collect money for management of non-game wildlife activities
should be voluntary. A broad based market driven program of
wildlife stamps would be the most effective way to generate
large amounts of revenue, he believed.
MR. GARRETT commented that if priced correctly (under $10)
and marketed so that visitors have convenient access, the
AVA estimated closer to half a million dollars in revenue
could be generated. Regarding the tag being required for
entry, he said the AVA considered that a separate issue from
a voluntary wildlife stamp program. He added entry fees
should not be one mandatory across the board amount, but
should be adjusted to the type of activity and resource. As
an example he noted a $15 entry fee to view Potters Marsh
would be unreasonable, while a similar fee to enter the
McNeil River area would be justifiable.
MR. GARRETT also recommended the effective date of the
program proposed in HB 172 be timed to allow the visitor
industry to react in its marketing. He said for the 1993
visitor season, prices were already set and tour packages
arranged. He suggested the prices be set in statute and not
left to the discretion of the ADF&G's Commissioner.
MR. GARRETT referred again to entry into the Stan Price Bear
Sanctuary, and noted the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) managed
the area jointly with the state, and charged a fee to
visitors, called a "scheduling fee" and not an "entry fee."
He recommended any fee for entry into that area be
coordinated with the USFS so the total fee to the visitor is
charged in one amount that was not out of line. In closing,
he remarked that the AVA supported the concept of HB 172 and
the state's efforts to generate revenue through creative
market driven programs.
Number 688
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted in response to Mr. Garrett's remarks
regarding the effective date, that HB 172 had an effective
date of January 1, 1994.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that the proposed fee for
entry into areas like Stan Price and McNeil River was small
in comparison to the cost to the state of managing those
areas. He expressed concern with what he termed a mixed
message from the AVA. He said they were willing to have the
state pay tens of millions of dollars to promote their
private industry, and yet were resistant to a $15 fee.
TAPE 93-24, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked Mr. Bruce for his reaction to
the two-tier pricing structure proposed by Mr. Garrett. He
referred to the example of the Potters Marsh area, and
agreed that a $15 fee would be too much.
MR. BRUCE responded that this was the reason the ADF&G had
requested the discretion to set prices, so that fees could
be fine tuned to the area, the cost of services, and the
type of use. He added there would be opportunities for
public comment and the ADF&G would not adopt a fee schedule
that would meet with the objections of the very people they
wanted to attract.
Number 052
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES remarked on the suggestion by Mr.
Garrett that the two ideas be addressed separately (one
entry fee and one tag or stamp program). This would allow
the wildlife conservation stamp (or tag or pin) to be
marketed on a broad basis as a voluntary contribution. A
separate entry fee program would allow the flexibility
needed to set fees for various areas and allow for waivers.
Number 078
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES commented on the cost
involved in managing wildlife areas and making them
available for public use. She supported the theory behind
HB 172, that would require those using wildlife areas to
help support them.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to the Potters Marsh area, and
stated he would not lose any sleep over the visitors being
charged $15 each.
Number 112
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON expressed concern that the legislature
and the ADF&G should not enter into a program that would
eventually require Alaskans to purchase an entry tag to use
a variety of areas that had not previously been regulated.
He also asked about trademark or copyright protection of
whatever type of tag, stamp, or pin used in the program.
Number 157
MR. KELLEYHOUSE understood the committee's concerns, and
said that the ADF&G would be careful not to price people out
of the market, and that any required fee would be set with
actual costs in mind. In response to Representative
Hudson's concern about trademark or copyright of the state's
design for a pin or tag, he was not well-versed in copyright
law, but thought it would not hurt to have a protective
clause regarding the logo or design.
Number 204
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN took issue with Representative
Bunde's previous remarks about the AVA. He noted the AVA
had been one of the few groups in the state to come forward
in favor of a statewide sales tax.
Number 223
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted Potters Marsh was in his
district, and said he visited the area often. He remarked
on a potential problem with regulating entry into the area.
He said the way HB 172 was written, he would be able to
visit the facility because he had a hunting license. His
wife, however, does not. He asked how the program would
allow for such situations, and how the ADF&G might enforce
entry requirements.
Number 238
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified the program was voluntary, and
noted the only two areas slated under HB 172 for entry fees
were McNeil River and Walrus Island.
Number 245
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES saw the wildlife tag as a very
worthwhile program, and as the tag became available she
promised to buy one for herself and every member of her
family, and encourage her neighbors to purchase the tag as
well. She said the proposed $15 fee was nominal and the
benefits would be great.
Number 260
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed with Representative James that
there was no free lunch. He reiterated HB 172 only required
the entry tag for two areas, which he perceived as a
weakness of HB 172. He said the program might fail because
it was voluntary, as has happened with similar programs in
other states.
Number 270
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN referred to page 3 of HB 172,
which stated Potters Marsh was an area where the entry fee
would not be required.
Number 285
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected to negative characterizations
and innuendoes expressed previously regarding those who did
not use wildlife resources for hunting or fishing. He said
those people had an equal interest and right to the use of
the wildlife. He also expressed concern over pricing of the
tag, noting that it should be reasonably priced if the state
expected to make the program work.
Number 300
VICE CHAIR HUDSON made a MOTION to MOVE HB 172 with
unanimous consent, as amended, with individual
recommendations. He added the motion would include the
fiscal note from the ADF&G.
Number 309
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the
motion. Hearing none, HB 172 with the ADF&G fiscal note was
MOVED from committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the next item for the
committee's attention would be discussion of the
subcommittee's recommendations on the Mental Health Lands
Trust Settlement.
Number 326
VICE CHAIR HUDSON, who chaired the subcommittee, reported
that he had worked with Representatives James, Davies and
Carney, as well as others who were not members of the
subcommittee. It was the subcommittee's recommendation that
the House Resources Committee sponsor and introduce a bill
identical to SB 67 with one exception. He said the
subcommittee was unable to identify the justification for
the six percent revenue stream called for in SB 67, and
instead recommended a three percent amount.
VICE CHAIR HUDSON said the subcommittee recognized the
percentage would be open to debate among all concerned
groups. He referred to the report of the subcommittee in
members' files, which identified various alternatives,
including a lease-back program. He said the problem with
that alternative was the same as the state faced with the
land exchange solution. Another option was a cash pay-off,
which was not recommended because of the cost.
Number 360
VICE CHAIR HUDSON noted since SB 67 was a known commodity,
the various parties who wanted to see the issue settled
might find this proposed legislation to be a possible
solution. He noted while SB 67 has not won the enthusiastic
support of the Attorney General, it has not been rejected
either. Regarding the anticipated revenues based on the six
percent versus three percent figures, Vice Chair Hudson said
that based on FY 94 unrestricted revenues, six percent would
equal approximately $140 million and three percent would be
$70 million.
Number 412
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented on the concerns the
subcommittee faced. First was the issue of the courts.
Even if the legislature passed a bill, she said there would
be no guarantee that the courts would accept it as a
settlement. She preferred a document more closely related
to the court order already in existence. The problem has
been on the failure of the parties to agree on how much to
pay, she stated. Regarding the reconstitution of the trust,
she does not believe the land exchanges would ever come to
fruition.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she would like to see an actual
dollar amount in capital and operating expenditures that the
state has paid for its mental health programs since 1978
until 1992. She said this amount should be incorporated
into the purchase price for the lands that could not be
given to the parties to the settlement.
Number 437
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to SB 67, and said it was her
understanding that in order to guarantee the revenue stream,
the state has to give the plaintiffs a secured interest in
the Legislatively Designated Areas (LDAs). If the
plaintiffs did not want the LDAs, then giving them those
lands would not work. She suggested giving them those lands
now and paying rent on them.
Number 452
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY commented that there would be
plenty of opportunity once a house bill was introduced for
Representative James' concerns to be addressed and debated.
Number 458
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN concurred, adding that he has heard at
least one of the attorneys of the non-settling plaintiffs
indicated he was amenable to the solution posed by the
proposed legislation. He stressed a settlement should be
reached quickly, because potential users of the land were
being lost as long as the land was tied up in litigation.
Number 476
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES was not opposed to getting some piece
of legislation on the table.
Number 478
VICE CHAIR HUDSON noted the lease-back situation had been
discussed in subcommittee, and the option could be discussed
and public testimony taken once a bill was before the
committee. He recommended the committee submit for
introduction the February 26, 1993 Chenoweth draft, with the
House Resources Committee as sponsor.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted there should be a motion on the
table for the committee to sponsor the draft legislation.
Number 495
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES MOVED that the House Resources
Committee sponsor the draft legislation as a house bill.
Number 500
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objection to the
motion, Without objection, the MOTION PASSED.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the House Resources Committee
would next meet on Monday, March 8, and Wednesday, March 10,
1993, at 8:00 a.m., to hear testimony on the confirmation of
appointees to the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game.
He noted there was a legal question pending on the
nomination of one game board member, and requested committee
members read the legal opinion on the issue that was
distributed to them.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting
at 9:21 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|