HJR 56 - CONST. AM: WILDLIFE INITIATIVES Number 2525 CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 56, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibiting certain initiatives relating to wildlife. REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HJR 56, informed the committee that he had introduced the resolution in light of what happened in 1996 on the same-day-airborne initiative and in 1998 on the wolf initiative. He read his sponsor statement: This legislation removes 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. I believe wildlife management is an appropriate subject for exemption. Our wildlife interests are best managed in Alaska by Alaskans. 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. The alternative is a repeat of the last two elections, where special-interest groups from the Lower 48, using emotion and political agendas, attacked Alaska's outstanding wildlife management system. Alaska is not alone in this 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. Legislative counsel has advised that the legislature possesses the power to amend the Alaska constitution, subject to a vote of the people, but does not have the power to make sweeping revisions that radically alter the powers of governmental branches. Counsel believes HJR 56 amounts to an amendment of the constitution, not a revision, [which is] within the power of the legislature. Number 2780 SANDRA MATTIE testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, noting that she is a local business owner and is involved with the Coalition for the Alaskan Way of Life (CAWL), the Caribou Calf Protection Program, and the Alaska Trappers Association. She indicated that recent firsthand experience in the 1998 ballot issue over Proposition 9 had made her aware that the biggest threat to Alaska's wildlife comes from animal rights extremists from both outside and inside Alaska, who are abusing the state's precious initiative process to shackle the state's ability to properly manage fish and game. MS. MATTIE said steps need to be taken to protect the state's wildlife treasures for Alaskans as well as visitors to the state who have a true concern for making sure that the state's wildlife is a lasting and abundant resource. She said she believes that the landslide outcome of Proposition 9 has proven the concern of the vast majority of Alaskans with a 64 percent victory; it was a victory that came at a very high price in dollars and time to many individuals forced to participate in an arena that never should have involved wildlife issues in the first place. She stated that the Alaska system of wildlife management has worked well over the years. MS. MATTIE said the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), the Board of Game and the Alaska State Legislature have worked well together to preserve Alaska's wildlife for everyone to enjoy. She indicated animal rights groups are using "ballot-box biology" to circumvent the process that has been used for decades. She suggested that when special-interest groups do not get their way, it proves that the system is working. She stated that HJR 56 is fair for all parties concerned, because it makes the initiative process off-limits to hunters as well as animal rights groups. HJR 56 only protects wildlife, and that is exactly what the wildlife in the state needs. She added that she strongly supports the passage of HJR 56. Number 2911 PETE BUIST, Co-Chair, Coalition for the Alaskan Way of Life (CAWL), testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He stated that CAWL is a unique and diverse group spanning both rural and urban wildlife interests. In its initial effort to oppose Proposition 9, the wolf-snare initiative on the 1998 ballot, it organized 150,000 registered voters. He urged the committee to support HJR 56. He said that after seeing the damage that large, well-funded animal rights groups have tried to do by ballot initiatives in the last two general elections, CAWL believes that it is important that Representative Morgan's resolution be passed and brought to the people of Alaska to vote on. Alaska's wildlife is simply too important to all Alaskans to be managed on the basis of a series of popular votes; one has only to look at the current political manipulation of the wolf management issue. TAPE 00-17, SIDE B MR. BUIST further stated that wildlife ballot initiatives can lend themselves to extremely disingenuous campaigns to gain popularity, and the animal rights groups that commonly sponsor them do not seem at all constrained by any truth-in-advertising laws. He also pointed out that wildlife ballot initiatives lend themselves to the fundraising efforts of the animal rights groups. He stressed that Alaska's wildlife enthusiasts simply cannot compete with those groups; although they raised enough money to fight the wolf-snare initiative, he wondered why they should be forced to do it every two years just to defend their way of life. He concluded that by supporting HJR 56, [legislators] can help to ensure that Alaska's wildlife is managed by science tempered with public discussion, not the ugly politics of popularity and big-money campaigns. Number 2851 WAYNE HEIMER, Board Member, National Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He stated that his organization is a nonprofit conservation organization that is hunting-oriented and has 8,000 members, approximately 400 of whom live in Alaska. He explained that they believe initiatives are peaceful forms of social revolution that are appropriate when the electorate cannot assert its will through the established process. He added that he is also a retired wildlife biologist with 25 years' experience with ADF&G; his last five years at the department were spent researching the history of state and federal wildlife management regulations. He stressed that the wildlife management system in Alaska is perhaps the most open of all state regulatory processes; hence, it is the least likely to need legitimate initiative-type remedies and is the most logical candidate for removal from the initiative process. He encouraged passage of HJR 56. Number 2764 STANLEY NED, Tanana Chiefs Conference Incorporated (TCC), testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support of HJR 56. He said TCC hopes HJR 56 will make sure that wildlife does not become another bargaining chip for special-interest groups. He pointed out that it is also fair for all parties concerned, because it makes the initiative process off-limits to hunters and animal rights groups alike; it only protects wildlife. Number 2715 PATRICK WRIGHT, President, Scientific Management of Alaska's Resource Treasures (SMART), testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He explained that SMART is a nonprofit organization with a major thrust to educate interested individuals about the wisdom of professional and scientific management of fish and game. He stated that SMART fully supports HJR 56. He pointed out that SMART is greatly involved with preserving the Public Trust Doctrine embodied in Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of Alaska. The Public Trust Doctrine maintains that government has the duty, on behalf of the people, to protect, manage and conserve renewable wildlife resources; therefore, that responsibility cannot be delegated to the electorate for determination by popular vote. Therefore, HJR 56, proposing a constitutional amendment to finally stop extreme groups from abusing Alaska's democratic game management system, is a significant first step in bringing sanity back to the process. MR. WRIGHT indicated "ballot-box biology" is not the way to manage Alaska's natural resources. Alaska has an extensive open and public process by which to determine wildlife management policies and regulations. Alaskans should use this system rather than deciding these critical issues on the basis of emotion from 30-second sound bites. He concluded that SMART stands with Representative Morgan in defense of Alaska's wildlife in the reasonable and systematic management of time-tested, established methods. Number 2561 NANCY HILLSTRAND testified via teleconference from Homer. She stated that she believes in a balanced wildlife management that serves the people for common use, and which protects healthy wildlife populations for multiple species. She explained that initiatives may not be the ultimate avenue for wildlife management, but maybe [legislators] should look at the larger issue this uncovers; she asked them to ask the questions, "Why is this occurring? Why are wildlife initiatives happening?" She said the majority of Alaskans have not been allowed to pay into wildlife management and therefore have been given the backseat in policy. It is healthy to have people rise up and be heard, debate the issue, and come up with a solution; this is what democracy is all about. Rather than trying to "squash" the outcry of the people, [lawmakers] should hear what they are trying to say, in order to try to figure out a solution and come up with a consensus that serves all Alaskans, so that they are not setting up special privileges and exclusive rights, which the constitution abhors. She urged the committee to look at what the real problem is and to look at what they can do to come to a better understanding and balance, so that there aren't these battles all of the time. JOE MATTIE, Board Member, Alaska Trappers Association, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. A local business owner who is involved with the Coalition for the Alaska Way of Life and the Caribou Calf Protection Program, Mr. Mattie explained that he has been a resident of Alaska for 30 years and has spent the last 20 years traveling throughout Alaska pursuing an occupation as a fur buyer. He has had the good fortune of meeting countless people and their families, in many villages and communities. He noted that on a typical fur-buying day, he would land on a village airstrip and would be met by several trappers who would take him to the community hall; soon the hall would be filled with trappers who would visit and share information on fur prices and concerns about wildlife in their area. MR. MATTIE pointed out that young people learn about the pride and dignity that comes from providing for themselves and later for their families; he has watched them grow up and become productive adults. He stressed that Alaska's wildlife and way of life are being threatened by multimillion-dollar animal rights organizations outside of Alaska that, he believes, abuse Alaska's ballot initiative process for their own selfish and deceptive reasons. He stated that he certainly believes HJR 56 should be passed if making wildlife issues exempt from the initiative process is what it takes to protect Alaska's wildlife. Number 2299 BILL HAGAR, Member of Executive Committee, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He thanked Representative Morgan for introducing HJR 56. He indicated that he is one of the 90,000 licensed and paid members who attempt to hunt and harvest Alaska's game resources and also spend time viewing. He explained that harvesting game does not and will not exclude viewing. HJR 56 speaks properly to ADF&G's constant cry to remove game management from politics. He concluded that HJR 56 is long overdue and has complete rural and urban support. CO-CHAIR MASEK called an at-ease at 2:14 p.m.; she called the committee back to order at 2:15 p.m. She pointed out a letter that was sent to the committee from Kenneth Jacobus, who was unable to testify, stating that he supports HJR 56 and HJR 53. Number 2079 SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate, Alaska Conservation Voters (ACV), stated: Our 40 Alaskan organizations and business members represent over 22,000 registered Alaskan voters. We have consistently opposed efforts by the legislature to limit Alaskan's constitutional right to participate directly in the law-making process through the initiative process, and for that reason we are opposed to this resolution. We are opposed for several reasons. While this proposed amendment to the constitution appears to be limited to initiatives dealing with wildlife, on a more fundamental level it represents an erosion of public access to government. As we've heard from other folks testifying today, we can debate this "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, then 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, far more debate, than many of the hundreds of bills that are passed out of this building each year. The process, on the initiative process, is out in the open and at contrast to the often-clandestine process that can occur with some bills as they become law. Supporters of this resolution endorse placing the scientific process of wildlife management firmly back into the hands of [ADF&G] and the Board of Game. Let's remember that [AF&G] clearly needs to take their direction from the legislature, and the Board of Game essentially is handpicked by the legislature. Thus, the initiative process is one major way that all Alaskans can perform an important check on the power of the legislature. Alaskans are being asked in this amendment to relinquish their right to vote on wildlife management issues on the grounds that we're not competent enough to do so, we don't understand. Instead, we are being told to trust those decisions resulting, right now, from an unbalanced process that currently promotes the principles of intensive game management and the values of consumptive users to the near-exclusion of other users of the resource. I would agree with the other folks that have testified that our constitution's sustained yield and multiple use provisions have served all Alaskans and our wildlife quite well; it protects the interest 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 through the initiative process, and obviously that faith that our framers had is not being shared by the legislature. The legislature, as we know, has ways to reverse the initiative process if they see fit; SB 74 that passed into law last year was a fine example. So it is within the legislature's power to correct any legitimate problems that might result from the initiative process. Clearly the system is not broken, and clearly the wildlife of Alaska are not going to be safer if this tool of democracy is taken away from the citizens of Alaska. Number 1876 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to HJR 53, HB 349, and Ms. Schrader's position statement on those issues where it states, "Alaska Conservation Voters supports wildlife management actions that are based on unbiased scientific studies." He asked why it was omitted in her position statement on HJR 56. MS. SCHRADER responded that in her position statement on the other two issues, she is suggesting that the management decisions should be based on unbiased science and should reflect the values of most Alaskans. It gets to the debate of whether it is science or politics that is running the wildlife management system, and she believes that everyone would agree it is a combination of both. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE agreed that there is a lot to be said for its being a combination of both. He said initiatives come around when there is little money; while there are many pockets to draw from in the Alaskan community, those pockets have limits, but they can draw on the many pockets of the nation. He explained that the ability to be for or against something gets unevenly tipped, and it is oftentimes those who feel strongly about an issue who put their money where their mouths are and beat the initiative back. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated that the only constitutional amendment that he thought he could support was the one on subsistence, and [the legislature] has gone around and around on that issue. He indicated that it comes to the point where he sees how the scales get tipped. He has a little bit of faith in the people that are appointed by the Governor and approved by the legislature, he said. He pointed out that there is a process by which people can bring a background of expertise to deal with the issues. As he gives more consideration to the concept of taking wildlife management out of the initiative process, he realizes that [people] can still use the legislative process, the board process, the advisory board process and all of the offices within to address the issues. He said that he does believe that ADF&G has done as apt a job as it can, and that is where the politics come in. MS. SCHRADER responded that the key word is "balance." She referred back to Ms. Hillstrand's question asking what the real problem is and what is bringing the initiatives to the ballot. She stated that it is because many Alaskans, when it came down to the same-day-airborne initiative, felt that the balance of the Board of Game, the advisory committees and ADF&G - which is given a certain direction by the legislature's intensive game management program - was being lost. Number 1508 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE indicated balance can mean so many different things to different people. He pointed out that on any given ballot initiative, nothing says that a like percentage of people who signed the initiative have to be representative of all the voting districts; there might be one signature from two-thirds of the district, which does not mean that there is a balance regarding how the people around the state feel on the issue. He concluded that balance can be skewed. If an initiative required [signatures] from 5 or 10 percent of [voters of] the whole state, it would have a harder time getting on the ballot, but would be reflective of the whole state. MS. SCHRADER pointed out that all registered voters have an opportunity at the polls to let their voices be heard. Although they could debate the whole petition [signature-]gathering situation, the bottom line remains that all Alaskans who are registered to vote can vote and make their views heard that way. Number 1393 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated that certainly every Alaskan that is registered to vote can vote, but it is also true that many people believe that there was false advertising and false information given out to the voting public [on prior initiatives]. She clarified that the legislature does not handpick the Board of Game, but rather the Governor submits names to the legislature to be confirmed or not confirmed. She referred to Ms. Schrader's comments about the legislature's restriction of the people's voice through the initiative process. She pointed out that the founding fathers, in Article XI, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, clearly laid out the restrictions on the initiative and referendum process. She read from Article XI, Section 7: The initiative shall not be used to dedicate revenues, make or repeal appropriations, create courts, define the jurisdiction of courts or prescribe their rules, or enact local or special legislation. The referendum shall not be applied to dedications of revenue, to appropriations, to local or special legislation, or to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety. Number 1151 MS. SCHRADER said that her choice of words was not skillful when she stated that the Board of Game is handpicked by the legislature. She explained that she is very aware of that process, and she is aware of the constitution as it relates to restrictions on the initiative process. However, the fact remains that when a governor proposes a candidate who is not a strong supporter of consumptive use, that person will have difficulty in getting confirmed by the legislature. Many Alaskans feel that there is not balance in the process of wildlife management and that they need to preserve their rights under the constitution to address that imbalance through the initiative process. CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that in the debates she has witnessed, the question that keeps coming up has to do with access and restrictions on hunting and fishing. She pointed out that the restrictions on the people who have lived in Alaska for many years in the rural areas are being affected by issues like the wolf initiative. She stated that there have been no restrictions on wildlife viewing and photography, yet there have been many restrictions with regard to hunting. Number 0999 MS. SCHRADER pointed out that wildlife viewing and photography are restricted. For example, Pack Creek is closed to viewing from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that the restrictions set at Pack Creek are so that people do not get eaten by a bears. She added that she herself has a serious conflict of interest, because her daughter is a photographer and believes that wildlife should only be photographed. CO-CHAIR HUDSON referred to Ms. Schrader's mention that the question is, constitutionally, whether it should be through politics or through science. He suggested that these kinds of issues should be based on science, and then the question is how to get the best science. He views the legislative process as being out in the open, he said, where the public has the right to see what [legislators] do, what they say and who testifies before them. CO-CHAIR HUDSON suggested that the question is whether sound science is better served by having the public vote on an initiative - where the science has not been revealed but public relations have been - or whether the public should vote on the legislators themselves. He pointed out that if the public does not agree with his input, then he will definitely hear about it, and it impacts his daily living: they send letters and give testimony. He stated that it is not just a question of trying to disrupt the public's opportunity to participate; rather, he believes it is not in the public's best interests to have it decided on the basis of popularity or a sound bite. MS. SCHRADER pointed out another problem: scientists have data that can disagree. In McGrath, there is not enough data to determine what the problems are. She stressed the need for more sound science instead of just going ahead with wolf control. She indicated that when the legislature passes intensive game management statutes that are so restrictive, it simply ties the hands of all the wildlife biologists, who are unable to apply their data because of being restricted by intensive game- management statutes. Number 0492 DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated that the AOC strongly supports HJR 56. He stressed that "ballot- box biology" is not the way to manage renewable resources. WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, pointed out that ballot initiatives in wildlife management have been used across the nation and have created some significant problems in several states. He stated that the ADF&G does not support HJR 56 because it fails to recognize that there is more to management of the public's wildlife resource than the application of science and technical expertise. Wildlife management must also consider and respond to the values held by the public about how they want the wildlife to be managed. MR. REGELIN told members that science-based management should be responsive to the goals and objectives of the Alaskan people for the conservation and utilization of their wildlife resources. There are many options for wildlife management that are biologically sustainable and, therefore, consistent with the sustained yield principle. There are many different views, and the initiative process is the most direct way for the public to sort out their views on public policies; taking it away is not something that the department can support. He indicated that wildlife management does involve scientific and special expertise, but so does administration and other public functions. There appears to be no reason to single out wildlife management as a subject too complex for the public to make policy decisions about through the initiative process. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered if Mr. Regelin was aware of the initiative process that chose to allocate fish. MR. REGELIN replied yes. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether Mr. Regelin had supported that. MR. REGELIN replied no. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested that what Mr. Regelin had just said flies in the face of his testimony. TAPE 00-18, SIDE A Number 0057 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether the advisory committees and the Board of Fisheries and Board of Game, during deliberations, take into consideration the public sentiment at the time, in addition to science. MR. REGELIN replied that ADF&G tries to provide a scientific basis for groups like the advisory committees to make sound decisions, and it is their job to meld in the public and social aspects. He explained that the advisory committees in the rural communities are very representative of the people. In the larger communities, the people feel that [these groups] are not as representative of the community at large because they are so heavily dominated by hunters and trappers. He indicated that when the issue gets to the Board of Game, anyone can put in a proposal or come and testify, and then the Board of Game listens to all of the different public input and the biology, and makes a decision. He believes the system works, he concluded, and it is one which he is proud of. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE indicated that he believes there are examples where the larger communities are not dominated by hunters and trappers, but rather have strong conservationists. He also said that he believes the whole process, all the way from the advisory committees to the legislature, is under pretty heavy public scrutiny and guidance. CO-CHAIR MASEK closed the public testimony on HJR 56. REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN made a motion to move HJR 56 from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note; she asked for unanimous consent. There being no objection, HJR 56 moved from the House Resources Standing Committee.