HB 266-BOARD OF GAME REGULATION PROPOSALS  1:07:31 PM CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced that the first order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 266, "An Act relating to the authority of the Board of Game to adopt, amend, or repeal certain regulations." [Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 266, Version 29-LS1205\N, Bullard, 3/31/16, adopted as the working document on 4/1/16.]   CO-CHAIR NAGEAK moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS), Version 29-LS1205\P, Bullard, 4/4/16, as the working document. There being no objection, Version P was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, as the sponsor of HB 266, introduced Version P and explained the two changes that Version P makes to Version N. She said the first change to Version N is on page 3, lines 17-19, which state: "(ii) the subject matter of the proposal would not be before the board for one calendar year but for the board member's proposal; and". Version P changes this language to read: "(ii) the subject matter of the proposal would not be before the board during the current period in which the board is considering proposals solicited under (c) of this section, but for the board member's proposal; and". She noted the second change is that Version P adds subsection (m) [to Section 3]. However, she pointed out, (m) is not right as written and there may be an amendment through the committee to get it right. CO-CHAIR TALERICO stated he has a conceptual amendment that he plans to offer that would correct (m). REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained subsection (m) makes it so the Board of Game can amend a proposal, but only amend to clarify. 1:09:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON drew attention to Version P, page 3, lines 6-7, which state "at least 60 days' notice before the board considers the proposal." He asked whether that 60 days would be at all restrictive on the board's ability to do its work. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied that the reason for the 60 days is because there must be enough time for [a proposal] to go back to the advisory councils and the councils must put it out for public comment before the councils have their agenda. This provision would ensure that the councils are not forced into having special meetings to be able to hear these proposals. 1:10:45 PM CO-CHAIR TALERICO moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 which would delete the language on page 3, lines 27-29, under subsection (m) and insert the following language: Nothing in this section restricts the board's ability to amend language to clarify proposals noticed in the same manner as provided under (c) of this section. CO-CHAIR TALERICO explained Conceptual Amendment 1 would clarify that the board would have the ability to improve or amend a proposal live at its meeting. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected to the conceptual amendment for discussion purposes. CO-CHAIR TALERICO reiterated that the conceptual amendment would clarify for the public and the board that the board would have the ability to work on proposals. 1:12:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON posed a scenario in which five proposals come to the board with varying time and varying numbers. He surmised that as Co-Chair Talerico is interpreting Conceptual Amendment 1, the Board of Game could go anywhere between those numbers and modify a proposal in that way such that it is a balancing of several proposals that might have come in after public testimony, similar to the way things are amended in a legislative committee. CO-CHAIR TALERICO believed that is the intent. Occasionally, he said, proposals are received that are not mirror images of each other but address the same topics and are very close to the same. This would give the board the ability to address an issue that is included in a multitude of proposals and massage that into one workable proposal that is moved forward. The board would not be "handcuffed" into voting a proposal up or down; it would have the ability to amend some language or potentially utilize one section of one proposal and insert it into another in an amendment form. 1:14:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, regarding subsection (m) as currently written in Version P, noted that the focus is on amendments or clarification made to changes offered by the board itself, which is the putative cause of HB 266. The amendment does not talk about the board's own proposals, it is about clarifying proposals generally. He inquired as to how Co-Chair Talerico perceives the difference there. CO-CHAIR TALERICO replied he thinks it is any proposal brought before the board, whether from a board member or the public. Occasionally board proposals and public proposals cover the same topics and can be very similar. He said he does not want to limit it or categorize the proposals from particular user groups or different regions, so he hopes the amendment will work with all proposals. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON related that in a memo or email from Matt Gruening it appears the deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) has worked with Mr. Gruening. He surmised [ADF&G] wanted subsection (m) to be as written in Version P to give the board some liberty to, at a board meeting, make changes on its own initiative, which is a very contentious thing for the board to do. He asked whether ADF&G would still be satisfied if subsection (m) [is amended]. KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), offered his appreciation to the sponsor for allowing the opportunity for some interaction on the language of the bill to make it a workable product for the board and get to the intent of the sponsor. He explained that the intent of subsection (m) is to recognize that a call for proposals is identified in Section 2, which is why this subsection references AS 16.05.255(c). These proposals have been properly noticed and lots of time provided for folks to weigh in. Under subsection (m) the department is trying to have the board members retain an ability to take all of those properly noticed proposals and wordsmith them, combine them, and make improvements, as is the board's custom and common practice now; the understanding being that the sponsor is trying to identify something that is new that no one has had any chance to see from just getting dropped in and acted on. It distinguishes all the other proposals that have been properly noticed and allows the board to work on those and make improvements as the board sees fit. MR. BROOKS, in response to Representative Tarr, clarified that he was referring to Version P, subsection (m) within Section 3. 1:19:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. 1:19:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated he cares greatly about this issue. He said he listened to the Board of Game hearing on Proposal 19 that Representative Wilson brought forth and heard most of that testimony, including advice offered by assistant attorney general Cheryl Brooking on the question of moving from 30 days' notice to 60 or 65 days. He has talked about this with a Board of Game member and a big game commercial guide and he has read Mr. Ted Spraker's letter that was provided to the committee today. His sense of the history of this is that there was more than a lot of public opportunity and in this instance there really was 60 days' notice in 2015. The testimony before the Board of Game was that it was brought up in January, the board took comments in January and February, this was an ongoing issue raised repeatedly, the board bringing up proposals on its own has not been abused, and it has had four in a year. Chairman Spraker notes the board has done it this way for decades. Something unique is that there was a sheep working group to which just about everybody was invited and he is told that a majority of the sheep working group wanted to do something about aerial hunting. So, he sees this bill as a contest over the efficacy of aerial hunting and the concern is that aerial hunting is very effective. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON continued, stating that he is not a champion of the Board of Game and is someone who scrutinizes the board's work and he does not think it is a diverse body. There is a dispute now about that very issue between guides and whether there are too many guides and others. Mr. Spraker notes that the people who were really hurt by Proposal 207 are non- residents and their guides who fly more. Some people play by one rule out of a sense of duty and other people play by other rules. Representative Josephson posited that the Board of Game acted properly and got it right. His sense is that the committee is going to move the bill and he will not object, but he will vote "do not pass". He added that there was testimony about whether sheep populations are healthy and he is reminded that in the western Brooks Range the populations are decidedly not healthy. There is also concern about taking full-curl rams and what that does to the genetics of the future population. 1:23:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the adoption of Conceptual Amendment 1 makes it clear that amendments can be taken and proposals can be massaged by the board so that the board can then function in its duties. Without that he could not support moving the bill forward and therefore he is pleased the amendment was unanimously adopted. 1:23:47 PM CO-CHAIR NAGEAK moved to report the proposed CS for HB 266, Version 29-LS1205\P, Bullard, 4/4/16, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 266(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.