SB 90-STATE JURISDICTION OVER FISH & GAME CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 90 to be up for consideration. MR. HUBER explained that the proposed committee substitute has two changes, but was not back from the drafters yet. In subsection (d), it deletes "regardless of cost" and adds another section exempting the provisions of this bill from federal/state cooperative programs. MR. HUBER said it was done in the same format as SB 91. SENATOR MACKIE moved to adopt the CS to SB 90, version K, which the committee had before them as the working draft. There were no objections and it was adopted. SENATOR MACKIE moved to remove "regardless of cost" on page 2, line 16 and insert the section from SB 91 which refers to the federal acts exempted from the effect of the legislation. There were no objections and the amendment was adopted. SENATOR MACKIE said he had a possible concern on page 2, line 5 where it says, essentially, that the State of Alaska is the only entity under which the federal government can transfer any type of management to. He asked if it was the intent of this legislation to effectively remove any possibility of co-management agreements with anyone other than the State of Alaska. SENATOR TAYLOR said yes and that is part of the problem. We do have a constitutional standard that establishes who shall manage fish and game in the State of Alaska. It's a constitutional authority which the legislature cannot delegate from. SENATOR MACKIE asked if there are any instances under which the State or the federal government contract for any management of any fish and game in the State currently. SENATOR TAYLOR responded that he wasn't aware of any. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he knew that ministerial functions were contracted, but not substantive decision making functions. He asked Senator Taylor if he had a copy of the opinion on that issue. SENATOR TAYLOR said he didn't have it with him. He said the real question is one of who will have the discretionary authority to make decisions about actual management policies. Number 195 SENATOR MACKIE asked if we have the ability to deny the federal government the ability to have a management agreement with anyone they choose. SENATOR TAYLOR said he thought we could to the extent that it impacts state land and state waters. He thought we had the ability, but the administration has refused to litigate it. SENATOR MACKIE responded that until that is adjudicated, the federal law allows for management by the federal government by an Act of Congress if we're unable to resolve it. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thought the federal law said they manage subsistence harvest, not the whole resource. The debate is how they pull that thread into the whole resource. SENATOR MACKIE asked if the federal government takes over management of fish and game and chose to enter into a management agreement in one particular region, how would this statute play out against that authority. SENATOR TAYLOR said the federal government believes that Act of Congress leads them to believe they cannot only enforce it on their lands, but they can also extend off of their lands into state lands and waters in an extra territorial fashion. He thought someone would have to litigate the issue eventually. SENATOR MACKIE noted that in a sense, they were passing a statute that doesn't have any authority whatsoever. Number 200 CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that federal law doesn't give management authority, but a court case gave management authority. SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 90(RES) from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.