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
+ 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
purposes."
- 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
SHORT TITLE: MANAGEMENT OF FISH/GAME POPULATION & AREA
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
SHORT TITLE: TAKING FISH OR GAME FOR PUBLIC SAFETY
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
CONSENT
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
CALENDAR
04/09/96 3097 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 4/10
CALENDAR
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
CONSENT
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
questions.
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
quantities."
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 &
AREA
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
faith.
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
point.
MR. UTERMOHLE explained that if he declined to comply with an
injunction issued by the court, he would be in contempt of the
court.
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
area.
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
waves.
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
deleted.
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
meeting.
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
adopted.
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
restriction.
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
restrictions.
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
priorities.
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
monies.
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
am.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Resources Committee meeting
at 10:30 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|