HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 56 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibiting certain initiatives relating to wildlife. This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN, sponsor of the bill, noted the bill has wide bipartisan support. Representative Morgan talked about the ballot initiative process in Alaska and the wildlife-related initiatives placed on the ballot in 1996 and 1998. Representative Morgan stressed that the claims made in support of the same-day airborne wolf hunting initiative that was adopted in 1986 were untrue. He asserted that these claims dealt with people's emotions and passions in the use of video footage of wolves being killed by an employee of the Department of Fish and Game. He stated that in the footage showing a wolf being shot from a helicopter, the wolf was actually being tranquilized and not killed. Representative Morgan told of the efforts required to spot wolves from an aircraft, find a place to land the aircraft and then run over 100 yards to the place were the wolf was last seen before a shot can be taken. He remarked on the difficulty of running in the snow and then stopping to aim and shoot. He asserted that fair chase is given to the wolves in this case. Representative Morgan stated that similar ballot initiative legislation has been adopted in Minnesota, and was pending in Arizona, Idaho and North Dakota. Representative Morgan referred to the animal rights groups efforts to eliminate funding from Ameri-Gas for Iditarod musher, Randy Brooks. Representative Morgan admonished that the groups never researched the positive works of Mr. Brooks, which include the receipt of a humanitarian award in 1998. Representative Morgan addressed the argument that this resolution is taking away the people's right to vote on important matters. He asserted that by placing this constitutional amendment on the ballot, all Alaskan's are given the chance to decide how wildlife should be managed. Representative Morgan countered the assertion that only 20 percent of Alaskans hunt and/or trap, saying that the constitution is intended to protect the freedom of the minority. Representative Morgan relayed that tourists come to Alaska to see the Native people and how they live, as well as to see wildlife. He said it is important for visitors to see Alaskan Natives thriving culturally, which includes a dependence on wildlife. Representative Morgan listed some of those who have written letters in support of the resolution. [Copy of list and letters on file.] One of these organizations is the Alaska Wildlife Society, which he remarked is made up of 300 professional biologists working for the Department of Fish and Game or the federal government. Senator Phillips requested copies of the Utah and Minnesota constitutional amendments regarding wildlife. Representative Morgan supplied the Utah constitutional amendment language. [Copy on file.] GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game, stated that the department could not support the proposal because it fails to recognize that there is more to the management of the public's wildlife resources than the application of science and technical expertise. He stressed that wildlife management must also consider and respond to the values held by the public about how they want their wildlife managed. Mr. Bruce pointed out that there are usually many options for wildlife management that are all biologically sustainable and therefore consistent with the sustained yield principal. He stated that the principle of achieving the maximum human harvest of big game as always the highest and best use of big game is not a scientific matter, but a public policy matter. Like many public policy issues, he asserted, there are different views. He said the initiative process is the most direct way the public sorts out its views on public policy and taking the process away is not something the department can support. Mr. Bruce continued saying wildlife management does involve scientific and special expertise, but so does the administration of many other public functions, such as education, public health and transportation planning. It appeared to him and the department, to be no reason to separate wildlife management as a subject too complex for the public to make policy decisions through the initiative process. Mr. Bruce added that it is worth remembering that a law enacted can be amended by the legislature immediately if there is some error, or if it brings about an unanticipated consequence that is injurious to the public or the wildlife resource. After only two years, he continued, the legislature may repeal the initiative entirely if the legislature believes it is an inappropriate policy for the state. Mr. Bruce concluded that given these checks and balances to the initiative process, there is little risk that a poor initiative would cause any lasting harm to Alaska's wildlife. On the other hand, he remarked that to remove wildlife management issues from the reach of the initiative process would lead to more conflict rather than less. JAMES BERLIN JR, Resource Specialist, ABCP, Inc., testified via teleconference from Bethel on behalf of 56 villages and one-quarter of Alaska's tribes. He relayed the corporation's support of the resolution. He spoke to the fine balance required to manage resources, saying a ballot initiate process could not achieve this. He told of his forefathers' management of wildlife that was dictated by the proper leaders and users of the resources. Tape: SFC - 00 #79, Side B 9:56 AM Mr. Berlin, Jr. continued stressing that the public input in wildlife management is already considered through the Board of Game process. BEN HOPSON JR., Chair, Coalition to the Alaskan Way of Life, testified via teleconference from Barrow in support of the resolution. He described the organization as a diverse coalition of many Native organizations, sportsmen, trappers and hunters in both rural and urban Alaska. He stressed that Outside interests are managing the state's renewable resources through their money and by using emotional influences. He contended that these animal rights groups only want to see total elimination of hunting and trapping in the United States, including Alaska. RON ARNO, Guide, testified via teleconference from Mat-Su that it is not in the best interest of Alaskans to use the initiative process for fish and wildlife matters. He spoke of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's, animal rights and racism. DICK BISHOP, Vice-President, Alaska Outdoor Council, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in strong support of HJR 56. He asserted that contrary to popular press reports, this resolution is not a matter of ignoring the public's interest, but instead is responding to the public's interest. MIKE TINKER, Chair, Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee testified via teleconference from Fairbanks about the importance of this resolution to the advisory committee. MARY BISHOP testified via teleconference from Fairbanks suggesting that while the adage "don't watch sausage or legislation being made" was wise, watching laws made by 30- second sound bites was more painful. JOE MATTIE testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in favor of the resolution saying that the legislature and the Board of Game is the best voice for Alaskans. GREG MACHACEK, Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee testified via teleconference from Fairbanks to say that the advisory committee is the best process for managing fish and game. He suggested that the only parties who benefited from ballot box biology were those who got paid for their efforts in getting the initiative passed. PETE BUIST, President, Alaskan Trappers Association, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks that he did not think it was fair that Alaskans had to spend their money fighting heavily funded groups. KNEELAND TAYLOR, Chair, Alaskan's Against Snaring Wolves, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to the resolution. He argued that Alaskans should put their trust in democracy. He asserted that if this resolution passes, it would be a "slap in the face" to the large number of Alaskans who voted for the two previous initiatives from 1996 and 1998. He noted that there was a third ballot initiative relating to wildlife, which was on the ballot in 1994 and pertained to sport fishing. He noted that HJR 56 does not apply to fish and commented the omission is a political move. He addressed the assertion that voters are not smart enough to voice their opinions on wildlife matters. He compared the amount of money spent by interest groups on both sides of the wildlife management issue, saying that the conservation groups are vastly outspent by the sportsmen's groups. He suggested the election to decide this initiative will be funded on both sides from sources outside the state. Senator P. Kelly stated that he did not approve of Outside interests deciding Alaskan's way of life. SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate, Alaska Conservation Voters, testified in Juneau talked about the importance of the ballot initiative process. She stated that her organization opposes the resolution. She suggested that if the concern is with the influence of Outside factors, why the legislature is proposing to limit Alaskan's rights. She asserted passing this resolution would not solve the problem of Outside money and suggested campaign finance reform was a better option. Senator Green mentioned the downside of this particular type of initiative. She wanted to know if this resolution poses a limitation on limited entry. Senator Leman answered there is no limited entry for the taking of wildlife. He noted that Mr. Taylor brought up a good point worth considering regarding managing of fish at the ballot box, which he thought, was not good. Senator Green noted there was no constitutionally valid method restricting Outside interests' spending money and influencing Alaskan elections. She stated that a court decision issued the previous year made it even broader. Co-Chair Torgerson had the same understanding. Senator Phillips asked if, constitutionally, the state could limit the amount of spending on constitutional amendment initiatives. Co-Chair Torgerson didn't think so. Several members commented it was a matter of free speech and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Senator Donley cited court decisions affirming this. Senator Phillips spoke to the constitutional amendment proposed in the State of Utah, saying its provision requires that two-thirds of voters must vote in favor to any constitutional amendment regarding wildlife. Senator Phillips was curious to know how much Outside funds was spent of the wildlife-related ballot initiatives in the 1996 and 1998 elections. Senator P. Kelly supported the initiative and wanted to counter some points brought up in testimony. He noted that in many states, voters do not have the right to amend their constitutions in any way. He suggested that on wildlife issues, the initiative process can be set aside because the animal rights and environmental extremists want to change Alaskan's way of life and turn Alaska into a big park. Results at stake at the ballot box. Secondly, he stated that the results of a mistake made at the ballot box are more dramatic with wildlife. Senator P. Kelly did not claim whether people knew what they were voting on or not in the 1996 election. However, he thought they did not understand the consequences on Rural Alaska, and in fact he didn't fully understand them either. He said this inability to understand the implications is the reason for the fish and game advisory committees and the Board of Game. He attested that it would take ten years to bring the moose population near McGrath back to minimum standards. Senator P. Kelly contended that the legislature could not turn these types of issues over to Outside interests who are very well financed. He asserted these groups use Alaska's issues to raise money. He stated that he saw no other reason for environmental and animal rights groups than to raise money to provide income for executive directors and to influence elections. Senator P. Kelly talked about college students from Oregon working to get signatures for the 1996 initiative. He stated that these "20-year old students with stars in their eyes" had no idea about the issue and knew nothing about Alaskans' way of life. He claimed they said things about the initiative that were not true. Senator P. Kelly stressed, "the fact remains, Outside groups are coming for this state and they've found a chink in our armor." Senator P. Kelly next asserted that wildlife viewing is a ruse and the arguments in favor are irrelevant. He stated that he has been in Alaska all his life and has seen very few wolves. He argued against the claim that this resolution would result in a loss of tourism due to too few wolves, saying it would be the exact opposite because there will be more moose, which are the animals more likely to be seen. Senator Green found it interesting that the Committee is told in the testimony against this resolution that constitutional amendments can be changed after the two-year period. She stressed that when the legislature actually attempts to make those changes it is accused of acting against the people's will. She surmised that this resolution was the answer to the dilemma. Senator P. Kelly offered a motion to move from Committee, HJR 56 with accompanying $1,500 fiscal note from the Division of Elections. Senator Phillips objected. A roll call was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Senator Leman, Senator Wilken, Senator P. Kelly, Senator Green, Senator Donley, Co-Chair Parnell and Co- Chair Torgerson OPPOSED: Senator Phillips ABSENT: Senator Adams The motion PASSED (7-1-1) The resolution was MOVED FROM COMMITTEE. AT EASE 10:36 AM / 10:36 AM