HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 56 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibiting certain initiatives relating to wildlife. REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN introduced HJR 56. He explained that the legislation would remove wildlife management from the ballot initiative process in Alaska. The framers of our constitution restricted the ballot initiative process in Article XI, Section 7, of the Alaska Constitution. Section 7 exempts certain subjects from the ballot and referendum process. He stated that wildlife management is an appropriate subject for exemption. Representative Morgan commented that Alaskans best manage wildlife interests in Alaska. Removing wildlife from the ballot and referendum process will ensure that wildlife decisions are made in Alaska based on sound science, prudent management, and in an open and fair process. Representative Morgan continued, Alaska is not alone in the fight. In 1998, the citizens of Utah and Minnesota passed constitutional amendments to protect wildlife management and hunting in their states. Presently, there are constitutional amendments to protect wildlife management and traditional wildlife uses working their way through the state legislatures of Arizona, Idaho and North Dakota. He concluded that HJR 56 would amount to an amendment of the Constitution, not a revision, and would be within the power of the Legislature. Co-Chair Therriault encouraged Committee members to notice the letters of support included in member's packets. [Copies on File]. Representative Austerman asked if the legislation covered all wildlife. Representative Morgan replied that it covered all wildlife but not fish. Representative J. Davies questioned the scope of the initiative. Representative Morgan did not know. Representative J. Davies asked how a wild life issue could differ from any other issue. Representative Morgan spoke to the sustained yield principal. He noted that the initiative would be wild life taking care of wild life. Representative J. Davies asked why this issue was different from other issues, not "applying that logic to those other issues". Representative Morgan replied that the Advisory Board meetings are opened and all scientific facts are put on the table. He emphasized what an important issue "wildlife" is to the Alaska Native people. (TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 70, Side 2). Vice Chair Bunde asked why the legislation did not include fish. Representative Morgan responded that fish have a large cash economy and that he did not want to address that in this legislation. He indicated that the Board of Fish currently is doing a good job. Vice Chair Bunde countered that the legislation would not pass with the inclusion of fish. Co-Chair Therriault interjected that was not Representative Morgan's "battle". CARL JACK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), RURAL CAP, ANCHORAGE, spoke to the benefit that the legislation would have on the clients that he serves through Rural Cap. The conditions in rural Alaska has high unemployment and high costs compared to the urban areas. Those people depend on wildlife to meet their needs. At this time, given the current policies regarding the initiative process, people such as animals rights group, determine ballot initiatives. He believed that those people dictate policy in wildlife management and make criminals out of those that are trying to meet their survival needs. Such considerations are not based on sound scientific principles. Mr. Jack concluded that HJR 56 would protect the integrity of approaching sound management functions which have been used by the Board of Game and the Board of Fish in wildlife management to carry out the sustained use principle embodied in the Alaska State Constitution. Vice Chair Bunde pointed out that previous testimony indicated that the largest percentage of food used for the rural area is fish. Mr. Jack acknowledged that 60% of the subsistence resource is fish. However, people in rural Alaska also depend on wild game. Representative Phillips inquired, during the work initiative, if there had been many people in Mr. Jack's district who attempted to get signatures. Mr. Jack replied that most of the signatures on ballot Initiative #9 were gathered in the urban areas. He stated that the manner in which the initiative was explained was misleading. PETE BUIST, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CO-CHAIR OF THE COALITION FOR THE ALASKA WAY OF LIFE, FAIRBANKS, spoke in support of the legislation. He stated that he had spent a lot of time over the past few years working to get hunters and trappers to come together on the important issue that is common to both urban and rural hunters and trappers. He emphasized that this concern is an "immediate threat". In 1996, Mr. Buist stated that "We lost same day airborne" because they were unprepared. In 1998, the wolf snare initiative was won but that battle was expensive. He noted that it is not fair to ask Alaska's hunters and trappers to keep coming up with that amount of money every two years to fight big outside interest groups. Vice Chair Bunde interjected that politics and emotions should be removed from wildlife management. Mr. Buist commented that after going through the last fight, he anticipates what to expect and that it probably will be a "nasty" campaign. It will hopefully place wildlife management on the same bases as science. MATT ROBUS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, spoke in opposition to HJR 56. He noted that HJR 56 proposes to amend the Alaska Constitution by prohibiting its citizens from enacting laws dealing with the harvest and management of wildlife through the initiative process. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game does not support the proposal because it would remove a way for the public to contribute to making the policy required to compliment the Department's wildlife management expertise. Mr. Robus noted that wildlife management has been described as a mixture of art and science, and to be successful must be composed of several distinct components. Scientific research and management techniques, leavened by judgement gained from many years of observation and experience, are employed to achieve the goals and objectives desired by the Alaskan people for the conservation and utilization of their wildlife resources. However, there are often multiple management options, each of which is biologically sustainable. Making the choices between these alternatives is not a scientific exercise, but one of public policy. The initiative process is one avenue for policy to be promulgated through the direct participation of voters. Mr. Robus agreed that it is true that wildlife initiatives can result in problematic policies. Wildlife management does involve scientific and special expertise, but so do many other complex governmental functions. It is unclear why that wildlife issues should be singled out as being too complex for the public to understand. He commented that it is worth remembering that a law enacted by initiative can be amended by the legislature to correct errors, or to reverse unintended consequences that are harmful to the resource or the public. After 2 years, such a law can be repealed entirely if the legislature believes that it is an inappropriate public policy. These checks and balances to the initiative process minimize the risk that an initiative will cause any lasting harm to Alaska's wildlife. Mr. Robus concluded, by removing wildlife management issues from the reach of the initiative process will lead to more conflict. Without the opportunity to directly express views about wildlife, the public's frustration will mount and will make the job of wildlife management increasingly difficult. Representative Williams asked about the reference to "uninformed voters". Mr. Robus agreed that there have been times when the process has been manipulated so that voters have not voted on the real issue. People are often not provided the full information on the issue. Representative Williams asked the testifier if biological science was considered "not good" for managing wildlife. Mr. Robus replied that one of the problems in managing wildlife is that there can be several different outcomes in what could be sustainable, which is not always based on science but rather is sometimes based on a policy call. Representative Williams commented that he did not understand the testimony. He understood Mr. Robus to say that "science is not good". Mr. Robus replied that the State does depend on science and is proud of what has been developed. He emphasized that there are always choices that must be made at a certain point. You use the science to determine what the results of those choices will be and then make policy choices as to what is best suited for Alaska's people. Representative Williams asked if the Department believed that the wolf initiative was good. Mr. Robus replied that the information presented to the public had been skewed and caused misunderstanding amongst the voters. Representative Phillips asked if the Department had taken an active stand against the wolf initiative. She requested that information be provided to the Committee as she believed that those remarks should be made public. Vice Chair Bunde spoke to the philosophical dilemma regarding the initiative process. He noted that Anchorage "Can be the tail that wags the dog of Alaska", which could be unfair to rural Alaska. Mr. Robus explained that having impartial information before the voters is important. If unclear information is provided, that will significantly impact an important decision. He noted that the public will be asked to make the decision. Representative Foster asked what right do the urban area residents have to determine what will happen in the rural areas of the State. Representative Austerman requested clarification regarding the Department's position. Mr. Robus testified that the Department should be the responsible party to make policy decisions regarding the animal populations so that they stay stable and sustainable. Mr. Robus stated that the Department is in support of the initiative process, but that does not mean that they will support an initiative that is bad wildlife management. Representative Phillips requested clarification on that statement. Mr. Robus reiterated that the Department will not support "bad" wildlife management. Representative Phillips stated that the Department did not take a stand on the wolf initiative. SUSAN SCHRADER, ALASKA CONSERVATION VOTERS (ACV), JUNEAU, stated that the Alaska Conservation Voters is a not-for- profit organization dedicated to protecting Alaska's environment through public education and advocacy. The forty Alaskan organizations and business members represent over 22,000 registered Alaskan voters. ACV has consistently opposed efforts by the Legislature to limit Alaskan's constitutional right to participate directly in the law- making process through the initiative process. HJR 56 is another attack on that right. Ms. Schrader stated that ACV is opposed to HJR 56 for the following reasons: ? While this proposed amendment to the constitution appears to be limited to initiatives dealing with wildlife, on a more fundamental level, it represents erosion of public access to government. We can debate the "ballot box biology" issue endlessly, but when one group of Alaskans are denied an opportunity to address an issue they strongly believe in by the initiative process, the freedom of all Alaskans to express their will through direct democracy is threatened. Public policy issues addressed by the initiative process receive far more discussion and debate than many of the hundreds of bills passed by the legislature every year. The process is out in the open as contrasted to the often clandestine route bills can take to become law. ? Supporters of the resolution endorse placing the scientific process of wildlife management back into the hands of the Department of Fish and Game and the Board of Game. Yet Department of Fish and Game takes direction from the legislature and the legislature, through its confirmation process, essentially chooses the members of the Board of Game. Thus, the initiative process is an important check on the power of the legislature. Alaskans are being asked to relinquish their right to vote on wildlife management issues on the grounds that we are not competent enough to do so. Instead, we are being told to trust the decisions resulting from a unbalanced process that currently promotes the principles of intensive game management and the values of consumptive users to the near- exclusion of other users. ? Our Constitution's sustained yield and multiple use provisions have served all Alaskans and our wildlife very well. It protects the interests of all beneficial users. Those same framers of our constitution who were wise enough to put Article VIII into it, also included the initiative process. They had faith in the ability of Alaskans to make informed decisions when voting, a faith that evidently is not shared by this Legislature. As the passage of SB 74 last year exemplifies, the Legislature has the power to amend or completely negate a citizen-passed initiative after two years. Thus, it is within the legislature's power to correct any legitimate problems that might result from the initiative process. Clearly, the Alaska Constitution will not benefit from such tinkering nor will the wildlife of Alaska be "safer" if the initiative process is taken away from the citizens of Alaska. Representative Phillips referenced the comment that the many citizens have lost faith in the Department of Fish and Game. She asked what ACV would have done if the Department had supported the wolf initiative. Ms. Schrader replied that the group has lost faith in the entire system. She noted that a polling process has indicated that most voters do respect the biologists at the Department. They look to the Department for guidance on such issues. Representative Phillips inquired if the Board of Game had come out with a well-balanced response, what would ACV done with that information. Ms. Schrader replied that she could only speak for herself and that if she had convincing evidence, it would have made her think very carefully about the issue. Representative Phillips stated that if the wisdom of Department of Fish and Game and the "elected officials was not good enough", she asked, who would be good enough to make these policy decisions. Ms. Schrader responded that the line between science and public policy was being "blurred". The issue of intense game management is not purely science. It is public policy. Clearly, many Alaskan's believe that the Legislature is not the best body to provide public policy. Representative Phillips asked if, during the initiative process, had ACV met with the Board of Fish and Game. Ms. Schrader explained that ACV was not in existence at that time. In response to Representative Bunde, Ms. Schrader commented that democratic process can get "dirty" sometimes. Ms. Schrader and Committee members discussed the term non- consumptive users. Representative Morgan interjected that the initiative process will give the people the constitutional right to vote. It will allow Alaskans the right to decide how to manage their resources. Ms. Schrader replied that depending on the outcome of the vote, it could be the last time the voters had the right to vote on wildlife issues. Ms. Schrader stated if the resolution passes the Legislature and the proposition goes on the ballot, the majority of Alaskans would choose to give up their right on wildlife issues and "that would be it". Representative Foster questioned if there could be a more important issue to rural Alaskan than to be able to support their family through consumptive use. Ms. Schrader agreed that there is nothing as important as putting food on the table. (TAPE CHANGE HFC 00 - 71, Side 1). Ms. Schrader added that the issue is more complicated than that, and it includes recreational hunting. Representative Austerman voiced frustrations on the non- consumptive vocabulary. He pointed out that most people in the State are conservative. He admitted that the issue of whether the Alaskan people should have the right to vote warrants consideration. Vice Chair Bunde and Representative J. Davies discussed the concept of non-consumptive use versus consumptive use. There are complexities on both sides of the issues. JOEL BENNETT, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, JUNEAU, explained that he is an active hunter and has traveled extensively in the Bush for work and recreation. Additionally, he has served on the Board of Fish and Game. He commented that the HJR 56 is "spiteful" and that it is a "special interest" piece of legislation being promoted by one particular interest in the State. Mr. Bennett emphasized that there are supporters that consistently try to dismantle the legislation that the voters passed. The public recognizes the proposed bill for what it is. The bill singles out wildlife. The public has a fundamental right to the democratic process. Mr. Bennett stated that it is a misguided effort to single out a certain area. Mr. Bennett provided a brief overview of the 1996 Initiative. He noted that he was actively engaged in that issue. That effort was not an out of State effort. He noted that the steering committee consisted of former Governor Hammond and the Commissioner of Department of Fish and Game. It was an in State effort consisting of many Alaskans. Mr. Bennett applauded the effort made by Representative Williams last year, to address the initiative process and make it better. He emphasized that to eliminate the fundamental right to do this would be wrong. The 1996 initiative did not seek to ruin the Bush and that it passed overwhelming in the Bush. It was not a broad based effort with board based support. Mr. Bennett argued that he was responsible for the media in the 1996 election process and that the public was not "tricked". The public was clear about what they were voting on. Some will always say that the media is distorted and misrepresenting. He commented that the American pubic is sophisticated in terms of media. In conclusions, Mr. Bennett stated that the public process is in grave danger by having the right to participate taken away. Unless there is broad public support for major wildlife issues, they will never be able to implement them. Unless the process becomes more inclusive and representative, the victories will not be long-term. He encouraged members of the Legislature to try to improve the process of the Board of Game so that more citizens can participate and believe that their opinions can be heard. Representative Phillips asked if the Department of Fish and Game had come out with sound, biological, scientific information as to why they opposed the initiative, what would Mr. Bennett's group have done. Mr. Bennett replied that these decisions are more than biology. The proper rule of the board is to factor in public opinion. He emphasized that everything is not based on biology alone. Co-Chair Therriault requested to look at the TV commercial created for the 1996 vote. He pointed out the accompanying fiscal note. Representative Foster MOVED to report HJR 57 out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. Representative J. Davies OBJECTED. Representative Austerman objected for the purpose of discussion, clarifying his philosophy on the initiative issue, stating that it is good and that it should be available. He reiterated that the public does have a right to participate. He noted that Representative Williams does have a piece of legislation which will address the initiative process. He did not believe that this is an issue of urban versus rural. Representative J. Davies reiterated comments made by Representative Austerman in support of Representative Williams proposed legislation. He commented that that the State is on "dangerous, slippery ground" when political dialogue becomes separate from the public process. He provided an example of where biology and public policy is involved, asking if we should teach evolution in the public schools. He stressed that there is a distinction between science and public policy. The Board of Game hears the scientific concerns and then makes the choice. From a biological point of view, it does not make a difference, but from a public point of view, it does. He questioned where the process would stop. Silencing the peoples vote is dangerous. Representative J. Davies stated that the right approach would be to allow discussion which "generally averages out in the middle". Vice Chair Bunde commented that this is an interesting challenge between the democratic process and wisdom and concern. He asked why fish were being left out of the vote. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Foster, Moses, Phillips, Williams, Austerman, Bunde, Therriault OPPOSED: J. Davies Representative Grussendorf, Representative G. Davis and Co- Chair Mulder were not present for the voter. The MOTION PASSED (7-1). HJR 56 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Office of the Lt. Governor dated 3/3/00.