HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE February 21, 1998 1:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair (via teleconference) Representative Ramona Barnes Representative Fred Dyson Representative Joe Green Representative William K. (Bill) Williams (via teleconference) Representative Reggie Joule (via teleconference) MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Irene Nicholia OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Alan Austerman Representative Carl Moses COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 406 "An Act relating to subsistence uses of fish and game." - HEARD AND HELD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 406 SHORT TITLE: SUBSISTENCE USES OF FISH AND GAME SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 02/12/98 2312 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/12/98 2312 (H) RESOURCES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 02/17/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 02/17/98 (H) MINUTE(RES) 02/21/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 WITNESS REGISTER GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Attorney Legislative Legal and Research Services Legislative Affairs Agency 130 Seward Street, Suite 409 Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105 Telephone: (907) 465-2450 POSITION STATEMENT: Drafter of HB 406 and answered questions of the committee members. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-15, SIDE A Number 0001 CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Hudson, Ogan, Barnes, Dyson, and Green. HB 406 - SUBSISTENCE USES OF FISH AND GAME CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the first order of business was House Bill No. 406, "An Act relating to subsistence uses of fish and game." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called for a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute for discussion. Number 0082 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute for HB 406, version 0-LS1573\H, Utermohle, 2/21/98, as a work draft. There being no objection, it was so adopted. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN expressed an apology to the committee members for getting a bill to them so late. He assured them that there was no sinister plan behind bringing it out at the last moment. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced there will be no public testimony today. He wants the public to take a good look at the proposed committee substitute to allow for constructive comments on Saturday, February 28, 1998. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated, as a sponsor statement, the concept of proposed committee substitute is best described in Section 2 that reads as follows: "The harvest of fish and game for personal and family use for sustenance by residents is the highest and best use of fish and game. The Board of Fisheries, the Board of Game, and the department shall adopt regulations, policies, and management plans to implement a preference for consumptive use of fish and game for personal and family use for sustenance over other uses of fish and game." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN further stated the key elements of the bill are embodied in language found in Article VIII, Section 4 of the state constitution that reads as follows: "fish, forest, wildlife, grasslands and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN further stated the operative principle is the preference of the use of fish and game. The proposed committee substitute spells out that in times of shortage, the appropriate board may adopt a regional preference of the use of fish and game, specifically requiring that the flesh or meat of the fish and game be consumed within the region where the fish and game was taken. The difference is that the former proposals dealt with the consensus issue of preference amongst users. There are many, including myself in this body and across the state, that have serious problems with differentiating amongst users because of the conflict with the common use and equal protection clauses in our constitution. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN further stated the proposed committee substitute would give greater authority to local advisory boards on a regional basis. It would set up five regions of the state with nine advisory committees in each region. The chairs of the advisory boards would also sit on a regional board. The advisory committees and regional board recommendations would be given deference by the main boards. The idea is to take some of the work off the main boards by letting regional boards have more say, and by retaining the overall authority of the main boards to avoid regional resource disputes. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated the boards are already deluged with putting out fires because they are required by law to consider every proposal. Therefore, he would like to see the regional boards have more authority by filtering proposals to the main boards. But, the regional boards should not be allowed too much authority so the proposals would still be transmitted to the main boards for oversight. Most importantly, it would address the issue of a lack of trust between rural Alaskans and state government. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN further explained the proposed committee substitute also addresses the question of authority in terms of how to deal with a shortage within a region. In a shortage, the meat would have to stay within the region and the proposed committee substitute identifies basic criteria of who would get the meat. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN welcomed Representative Bill Williams and Reggie Joule to the meeting. They had been listening via teleconference. Number 0798 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Co-Chairman Ogan whether he was going to do a sectional analysis at some time in the future. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, "Yes." A sectional analysis will be forthcoming in the future. Number 0843 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Co-Chairman Ogan to go through the proposed committee substitute section-by-section. Number 0865 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained a number of sections are a clean up of the language. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained Section 1, "findings and intent," was before the committee last week. There is no need to review it again. Number 0878 CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON referred to Section 1 (1), asked Co- Chairman Ogan where in the state constitution is the ability to take fish and game for personal and family use for sustenance a fundamental right. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied it does not specifically address it, but Article VIII, Section 4, addresses preferences among beneficial uses. There are also a lot of references in the state constitution regarding the common use of the fish and game by the people. Number 0955 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated it might be an implied or inferred right rather than a fundamental right. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested getting a legal opinion in regards to the constitutionality and how it would comply with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Number 1013 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated Representative Hudson is right. There is a difference between a fundamental right and a right. The Resources committee should not get hung up on those types of things. Let the Judiciary committee handle the legal issues, and let the Finance committee handle the financial issues. The Resources committee should stick with with policy issues. Number 1054 REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES respectfully disagreed with Representative Green. She does not sit on the Judiciary committee and she would never support moving a bill out of a committee that is not constitutionally correct at the time it leaves. Number 1082 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied he subscribes to that as well. If the issue is flawed, then it should be straighten up, but a legal battle over words is improper in the Resources committee. Number 1099 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated, whatever is sent out of the Resources committee, the members should be of the opinion that it is constitutional. It has to be constitutional, otherwise he would not vote it out either. Number 1119 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he agrees with the intent of Co- Chairman Hudson. However, whatever is voted out of the Resources committee might require an amendment to the state constitution as part of a package. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN recognized the presence of Representatives Carl Moses and Alan Austerman in the audience. Number 1178 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained the definition of "subsistence" in the dictionary refers to an endowment of an inalienable right, the basic right to procure food to live. The right has been recognized in the state constitution and in statute. There is a portion in statute that allows one in dire straits to take any fish or game regardless of the season to sustain life. In addition, the guiding principles of the Alaska Federation of Natives discuss subsistence as a human right. Number 1267 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained the committee substitute would call for the use of the word "sustenance" rather than "subsistence." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained Section 2 would identify dependent-use areas by the Board of Fisheries and Board of Game, acting jointly. The section sets out a criteria for establishing regions for preference and for people who would apply for such a use. It also would establish an appeals process for those denied a preference. It would give the local advisory committees and regional boards greater weight in their decisions. It would establish limits on commercial activity and define the terms principal, reasonable opportunity, shortage, and sustained yield. Number 1337 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained Section 3 would change the name of the section in the department from "subsistence hunting and fishing" to "fish and game dependent use." Number 1345 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained Section 4 would do the same as Section 3. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred the committee members to page 4, line 5 and read, "In a time of shortage of fish and game resources, the appropriate board may adopt a regional preference among beneficial uses of fish and game by requiring that the flesh or meat of fish and game be consumed within the region where the fish or game was taken." This is probably one of the key elements of the proposed committee substitute in order to provide some kind of preference for people in a time of shortage. Many from the federal government say the rural priority would only kick in, in a time of shortage, when it really is a full-time priority. Therefore, he would like to define what a time of shortage means, and how to deal with it. As-long-as, all the regions in the state are treated the same and there is not a preference of people, but a preference of the use of fish and game in a region, then "you're in good shape." Number 1447 REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE asked Co-Chairman Ogan, whether up until a time of shortage, the harvestable resources of fish and game would not have any preference to commercial or sport take. Number 1480 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, "No, not necessarily." The proposed committee substitute spells out a preference on page 2, line 15, "The harvest of fish and game for personal and family use for sustenance by residents is the highest and best use of fish and game." According to the sustained yield principle in the state constitution, a preference amongst beneficial uses can be identified. Number 1500 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said, "You say it's the best use and then you say in a time of shortage." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, "Right." REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wondered about when there is not a time of shortage. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, when there is not a time of shortage and there is an abundance, then there would not be a problem with people in any region to get fish or game. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Co-Chair Ogan, for clarification, whether he is referring to Article VIII, Section 4 of the state constitution in regards to a time of shortage. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, "Correct." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Co-Chairman Ogan how it relates to the requiring of the fish and game being consumed within the region where it is taken. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied it is a preference of the use under the equal protection clause of the state constitution. Number 1564 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON replied, a beneficial use then, would be a regional preference subject to consumption within the region it is taken. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, "Correct." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated this is an area that needs to be looked at carefully to make sure that the constitutionalist agrees there is a co-relationship. Number 1616 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated it is a key element because "we are allowed to discriminate what the uses of fish and game are, and to keep it in a region in times of shortage, is an appropriate discrimination." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called George Utermohle, drafter of the bill, to the table to answer questions. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Utermohle where there is a constitutional nexus of the authorization to require in statute that the fish and game be consumed within the region where it was taken. Number 1666 GEORGE UTERMOHLE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, replied it rises under Article VIII, Section 2, "general authority". The section says that the legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the state. The authority is also subject to other provisions of the state constitution such as, the common use and sustained yield provisions. The provision in the proposed committee substitute, to his mind, does not strike to the issues that have caused problems in the past such as, a rural based preference. The ability to grant preferences in the state lies with the legislature to the extent that it does not violate the common use provisions. However, the rural subsistence preference was found to violate the sustained yield provision. Therefore, the provision in the proposed committee substitute would be balanced against the interests protected by the common use and sustained yield provisions. On its face, he does not see the provision as being directly opposite to the requirements of the common use or sustained yield provisions. It parallels the language in the sustained yield provision, "subject to preferences among beneficial uses." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Utermohle whether the constitutional nexus then, is Article VIII, Section 2, "general authority". MR. UTERMOHLE replied, "Yes." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Utermohle whether it would give the legislature general authority to provide for the use, development, and conservation of the resources for the maximum benefit of the people. MR. UTERMOHLE replied, "Yes." Number 1810 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to the language "consumed within the region," and wondered whether he would be breaking the law if he brought food to Juneau when the legislature was in session. Number 1848 MR. UTERMOHLE replied he could not say because it would depend on the regulations adopted by the boards. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wondered why the clause was in there then. Number 1863 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated there has been similar language in bills in the past to stop people, in a time of shortage, from going into a region and taking food out. The provision in the proposed committee substitute then, would give the constitutional nexus so that it would have to be consumed in a particular region. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained that he is trying to provide people who live in one of the five regions - Southeast, Southcentral, Southwest, Northwest, and Arctic - a defacto priority in a time of shortage. It comes close to preserving and protecting the lifestyle of the people of a region. "In my region of the world, around the Mat-Su - Anchorage area, there has been a long customary and traditional use of fish and game for sustenance. My neighbors and myself and my children have literally been raised on fish and game. We dip net in the Copper River, we dip net in the Kenai River." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked everyone to image what the state would be like if the Alaska Federation of Natives and the legislature could go to Congress and say the issue has been resolved as a state, as Alaskans, as people, and ask that ANILCA be amended to change a rural priority to a regional preference. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said he does not have pride of authorship of the bill. He just wants to get something out of the Resources committee that will work. He pleaded to the people of the state to help him. Number 2063 REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS referred to the promise made by the Secretary of Interior and the state in ANCSA to take care of the subsistence needs of the Alaskan Natives. The promise was made to clear up the land problems in the state in order for a pipeline. "And we all know what it's like at the end of session to get a bill out that is very well needed for the good of the state." Granted, the language in ANCSA was not good and clarified to a certain extent in ANILCA, but it needs to be fixed some more. The regional concept is something that could be looked at to broaden the focus of rural for the long-term. But, a promise was made in 1971, and it needs to be looked at to come up with an Alaskan solution. In addition, the dependence on fish and game for personal and family use should not be made into a welfare program. The intent of ANCSA was not for a welfare program. Number 2238 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON complimented Co-Chairman Ogan for the originality in the proposed committee substitute. A final solution, however, would have to be endorsed by a variety of interests. He suggested submitting the proposed committee substitute as soon as possible to the United Fishermen of Alaska in order to consider the concerns of commercial fishermen; the Alaska Federation of Natives in order to consider the concerns of Natives; Attorney General Bruce M. Botelho for a written legal critique; the Department of Fish and Game; the Board of Fisheries; the Board of Game; the federal subsistence boards; United States Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt; and above all, Alaska's congressional delegation in order to consider the retention of management by the state. Number 2410 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he was concerned about getting feedback from the above mentioned interests in a timely fashion so that it is not held up in the committee. Number 2435 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON agreed that the bill should not be held up in committee, but it is important to get it out to the effected groups for their professional opinions. Especially, the congressional delegation for their opinion on management rights. Number 2458 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated, in regards to the concerns of commercial fishing.... TAPE 98-15, SIDE B Number 0000 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN continued. In regards to the concerns of commercial fishing, representatives have testified in the Fisheries committee that they do not have a problem with taking care of Alaskan residents. Number 0030 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that Mr. Utermohle discuss the proposed committee substitute now, in the interest of time. Number 0045 MR. UTERMOHLE explained the proposed committee substitute has a lot of conforming amendments to Title 16 that are technical in nature. MR. UTERMOHLE explained Section 2 would establish the preference of fish and game for sustenance. Number 0073 MR. UTERMOHLE explained Section 5 would establish the procedure for reviewing regulatory proposals by the Boards of Fisheries and Game, the advisory committees, and the regional boards. Number 0085 MR. UTERMOHLE explained Section 12 would establish the local advisory committees and the regional boards. Number 0094 MR. UTERMOHLE explained Section 19 would establish a new paragraph to contain the definition of "fish and game dependent uses." Number 0105 MR. UTERMOHLE explained Sections 32 to 36 would repeal certain definitions relating to subsistence, the former subsistence statute, the sunset provision, and a number of transitional provisions. Number 0128 MR. UTERMOHLE stated the nature of the subsistence issue in terms of the common use clause, equal access to fish and game resources, the no-exclusive right of fishery clause, and the uniform application clause, are inherent in the proposed committee substitute and need to be considered at each step of the process. More specifically, there are some issues outside of Title VIII that would also need to be considered - the greater role of the advisory committees and regional boards in the regulatory process and in determining a sustenance based preference. It would give these boards a degree of regulatory authority because their decisions would bind decisions made by the Board of Game and Fisheries. Thus, it would raise issues under Article III, Section 26, "boards and commissions". Number 0202 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Utermohle whether the state constitution allows a latitude of delegating authority down to a local advisory board. Number 0229 MR. UTERMOHLE replied there are problems of delegating rule-making down to the present advisory committees. They are established by the Boards of Fisheries and Game and by giving them regulatory powers now would seem counter to the provision in the state constitution that requires regulatory boards to be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature. Number 0251 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Utermohle whether the local advisory committees could make recommendations to something that is already constitutionally approved such as, the department. Number 0274 MR. UTERMOHLE replied as-long-as a decision made by a committee or whatever does not bind something with power, and that it is just advise, and that the sole power to make a decision lays with the entity of power. Number 0331 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Utermohle whether he believed the proposed committee substitute is satisfactory to the state constitution in all parts. Number 0342 MR. UTERMOHLE replied he has not made a determination as to its constitutionality or whether or not any provision would fail under the state constitution. Number 0361 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to the frame of reference to subsistence in ANILCA as a rural priority, and asked Mr. Utermohle how the proposed committee substitute would stack up against it. Number 0400 MR. UTERMOHLE replied ANILCA requires that the state adopt a rural subsistence preference and the proposed committee substitute does not contain a preference limited to rural residents. Therefore, it would not comply with ANILCA. Number 0414 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON wondered whether there is language in the proposed committee substitute that would satisfy ANILCA, without using the term "rural." Number 0435 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied the proposed committee substitute would give a regional preference for personal and family use of fish and game for sustenance, not the people, that is intended to parallel the intent of ANILCA. He asked Mr. Utermohle whether the provision would satisfy the spirit of ANILCA. Number 0499 MR. UTERMOHLE replied there are provisions in the proposed committee substitute that tie in to provisions in ANILCA. In particular, the traditional requirement for subsistence is a rural preference and ANILCA has been amended to tie subsistence to communities or areas where subsistence is a principal characteristic. And, there are provisions in the proposed committee substitute that refer to the characteristics of a community or area. Number 0548 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN read from ANILCA, "rural Alaska resident means a resident or rural community or rural area." And, "a rural community or area means a community or area substantially dependent on fish and wildlife for nutritional or other subsistence uses." It could be argued that there are people substantially dependent on fish and game who live around the area of Anchorage, not the whole community. It is broad enough that it could fit somewhat. Number 0597 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Utermohle whether the definition of a "rural community area" in ANILCA could be used in the proposed committee substitute to satisfy federal law. Number 0622 MR. UTERMOHLE replied the concept is largely contained in the proposed committee substitute on page 2, Section 16.16.020. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN suggested defining "regional preference" as a community or area substantially dependent on wildlife for nutritional or other sustenance needs. "If we get consensus and try this to see if it works, and make our law look a lot like the federal law, and in practicality we've got a defacto regional preference when in reality it achieves what I think a rural preference is trying to do for most areas in the state. Would it work, legally?" Number 0705 MR. UTERMOHLE replied he can not speak for the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture. But, if they felt comfortable, in substance, that the state has enacted an act that provides for a preference that they felt they had to provide under their law, then it seems possible they could approve a state act along that line. Number 0786 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wondered whether something has been put together showing the amendments to ANILCA. Number 0814 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied specific amendments to ANILCA have not been addressed yet. Number 0850 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested a side-by-side comparison of the salient provisions in ANILCA and the proposed committee substitute. He also wondered what a constitutional amendment, if any, would have to look like to comply with the proposed committee substitute. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Utermohle to explain the definitions in the proposed committee substitute. Number 0959 MR. UTERMOHLE explained there are four definitions added on page 6, lines 12 to 23 - principal, reasonable opportunity, shortage, and sustained yield. There are also new definitions and amendments to existing definitions in Sections 17, 18 and 19 - barter, commercial fishing, and fish and game dependent uses. There are also definitions in the repealing sections that are being deleted - subsistence fishing, subsistence hunting, subsistence uses, and customary trade. Number 1104 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to page 17, line 21, and asked Mr. Utermohle whether fish and game dependent use must be both noncommercial "and" historical, or either. Number 1138 MR. UTERMOHLE replied it is the one use of fish and game that is noncommercial and historical. The terms "noncommercial" and "historical" both modify the term "uses." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Utermohle whether a new noncommercial use would not qualify. MR. UTERMOHLE replied, "Yes." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Utermohle to brief the committee members on "use" versus "users." Users are people that have constitutional rights, while animals do not. Therefore, a discrimination against the use of an animal is not nearly as troublesome in terms of the state constitution. MR. UTERMOHLE replied the state constitution protects the rights of a person, the user of a resource, which is why the term "users" of fish and game is so important. Number 1243 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Utermohle whether the new terminology "personal and family use" is defined in the proposed committee substitute. Number 1265 MR. UTERMOHLE replied it is not defined explicitly. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Utermohle whether it is more than subsistence, under the old definition. Number 1321 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Utermohle whether the language "personal and family use for sustenance" defines subsistence. It replaces it in the proposed committee substitute. Number 1350 MR. UTERMOHLE replied the common meanings of the terms will define it. They are generally well understood terms and the proposed committee substitute would not attach any technical or arcane meaning to it. Therefore, in the absence of such a meaning, the general definitions would apply. Number 1405 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to page 1, line 14, and asked Mr. Utermohle to explain the implications of interstate commerce. Number 1460 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied federal authority has been claimed under the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States. The intent is to make the proposed committee substitute bullet proof so that the federal government can not attack it. Number 1513 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated there has been an assertion that the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States applies because those that consume the resources are able to barter and trade them as well. There are some that say the subsistence economy is worth $240 million a year. The purpose of subsistence should never have been an economic one; it should have been one to sustain personal life. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked Mr. Utermohle for his time today. Number 1688 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called for a brief at east at 2:34 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 2:47 p.m. Number 1689 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced that Representative Masek has joined the meeting via teleconference. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked Co-Chairman Ogan what will be the process in regards to the proposed committee substitute after the meeting today. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied his door is open for suggestions and input. He plans to schedule a meeting with a lot of people in the legislature to discuss it. He announced there will be a meeting on Tuesday, February 24, 1998 to discuss it again; and on Saturday, February 28, 1998 for public testimony. There will also be a presentation by Gregory Frank Cook on Tuesday on the public trust doctrine. He suggested to the committee members to read their books titled, Putting the Public Trust Doctrine to Work - Second Edition. Number 1945 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON suggested giving copies of the proposed committee substitute to the Department of Fish and Game and to the members of the Governor's Subsistence Task Force and ask them to return any general or specific comments on any problems by Thursday. Number 1973 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated his committee aide will get it to as many people as relevant. Number 1994 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated, for the record, there is no way that the legislature can amend ANILCA, and there is no way that the legislature can fix the problems that exist. Thee legislature can only take care of subsistence through statute as suggested in McDowell. Therefore, the proposed committee substitute is an attempt to take care of the McDowell decision and the state constitution at the same time. Number 2037 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced he would like to hear from the Native community. "Let's all work together as Alaskans and resolve this and hopefully get appropriate changes to ANILCA, if we can come to a consensus, and get on into the next century as one people undivided." ADJOURNMENT Number 2089 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee meeting at 2:53 p.m.