SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE April 7, 1997 3:38 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Rick Halford, Chairman Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chairman Senator Loren Leman Senator Bert Sharp Senator Robin Taylor Senator John Torgerson MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Georgianna Lincoln COMMITTEE CALENDAR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 25(RES) "An Act relating to the issuance of hunting, trapping, and noncommercial fishing licenses, tags, and permits and to residency for fish and game purposes; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 25(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE SENATE BILL NO. 16 "An Act restricting the use of certain funds deposited in the fish and game fund; and relating to the powers and duties of the commissioner of fish and game." - MOVED SB 16 OUT OF COMMITTEE PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION HB 25 - No previous action to consider. SB 16 - No previous action to consider. WITNESS REGISTER Representative Scott Ogan State Capitol Bldg. Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 25. Mr. Wayne Regelin, Director Division of Wildlife Conservation Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, Ak 99802-5526 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 97-24, SIDE A HB 25 FISH & GAME:LICENSES & RESIDENCY Number 001 CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to order at 3:38 p.m. and announced HB 25 to be up for consideration. REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, sponsor, said he was inspired to introduce this legislation because of a situation regarding a neighbor of his who had never established residency in the State, but every year came up and hunted on a resident hunting and fishing license. He maintained what was called the current place of abode, a cabin and a post office box. After several discussions with Fish and Wildlife Protection he found he couldn't do anything about it. So HB 25 tries to fix that by changing the word "abode" to "domicile" as defined in Black's Law Dictionary. It also distinguishes that having an interest in a partnership or association of companies does not qualify a person as a resident. It prohibits persons who are claiming residency in another state, country or territory as qualifying as a resident. The bill adds members of the Coast Guard to the other military services, in terms of resident fishing licenses, because in the past they were considered sort of military, but this makes it clear. Number 72 SENATOR SHARP asked if we weren't giving the military as liberal benefits as in the Permanent Fund. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied no and they are only codifying what was current practice with the Coast Guard. They aren't touching the other military services at all. SENATOR TAYLOR said last year they adopted an amendment which precluded those people who are claiming residency status in another State for purposes of an economic benefit from receiving a residency hunting privilege and asked if that was in this bill. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied no. SENATOR TAYLOR asked why. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained that provision was problematic on the House floor last year. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thought that concept was included in the section on claiming residence in another state, territory or country on page 2, lines 4 and 31. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out that section had to do with remuneration for moving expenses and the concern on the House floor was that it could include oil executives whose houses are often bought if they move out-of-State. He said he had a legal opinion that said it was somewhat questionable whether or not it was constitutional. SENATOR TAYLOR said he thought there was a need to have different language and he thought the problem fell within the term of residency. He said there are all kinds of loopholes. He used the example of a federal employee who moves from Wisconsin to Alaska which is still treated like a territory by the federal government. The person is given a round trip air fare back to their "home" every two years. He said residency for voting is 30 days; residency for a hunting license is one year. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he was sympathetic to what Senator Taylor was trying to do, and he had the language he was looking for, but he thought the way its drafted it's arguable as to whether it's already in there. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he had a legal opinion from Tam Cook that suggested that amendment was unconstitutional. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thought the question should be heard out. He thought the bill before them was a significant step in the right direction and he didn't want to bog it down with anything restrictive. SENATOR TAYLOR said sooner or later we were going to have to figure out what it is to be an Alaskan resident. There was a definition set up for the Permanent Fund that was very specific and now they are trying to be specific here and the two don't match. SENATOR GREEN said she didn't understand what they are trying to do. CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained that they way the bill works, if you're claiming a benefit from a government outside of the State for residency within that government's jurisdiction, you can't get a benefit in this State. He thinks what Senator Taylor is saying is that if you're receiving a benefit for being a non-resident from any other entity (government or not), you can't turn around and claim residence and get the lower price license inside the State of Alaska. SENATOR TAYLOR said that is what he is saying. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the new section of the bill says that you have to be physically present in the State with the intent to remain indefinitely and make a home in the State. You have to maintain a domicile which means your main residence. CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented that the other bottom line is if you are on a two year rotation in Alaska, it's pretty hard to sign a statement that says you intend to remain here indefinitely. SENATOR TAYLOR added that you can never enforce that because it's prospective and they may intend, the day they sign it, to stay here for ever. SENATOR TAYLOR asked what other changes there were from last year's bill other than deleting that amendment. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied that the only changes they made was from "maintaining the person's domicile in the State for the preceding consecutive months" to "the twelve consecutive months immediately preceding" on the recommendation of the drafter. It also makes it clear that the definition of residency being established is solely for qualifying for hunting, fishing and trapping licenses, and adds territory to include such places as Guam and Puerto Rico. He noted that the Coast Guard was in last year's bill. SENATOR GREEN moved to pass CSHB 25(RES) from committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying $0 fiscal notes. There were no objections and it was so ordered. Number 340 SB 16 USE OF F&G FUND/COMMISSIONER'S POWERS CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 16 to be up for consideration. SENATOR TAYLOR, sponsor, read his sponsor statement. He said the ADF&G has adopted a philosophy which is now opposed to managing Alaska's wildlife for a return to abundance. Unlike all other state agencies however, the Division of Sport-fish and Game are funded solely by license sales, user fees ad self imposed taxes paid by consumptive users. This legislation would recognize the public trust for the use of these funds and prohibit the use of these funds for any activity other than projects which directly increase wildlife and sport fish populations or directly benefit license purchasers. He said there is documented misuse of these funds and the actual misappropriation of funds provided by the legislature during previous years. The department has violated the public trust by shifting $900,000 earmarked specifically for increasing wildlife populations under intensive management projects and improperly redirecting those funds for payment of employee salaries. Alaska license holders are further outraged by the department's adoption of a preservationist philosophy which opposes consumptive uses. At the fall 1995 Board of Game meeting, the department urged the board to close 236 square miles to Alaska's hunters. The department's biologists testified that there was no biological problem, nor justification nor actual conflict among user groups in the area. The department's director admitted that the only issue was one based solely on a misperception resulting from purposeful misinformation and disinformation promulgated by animal rights extremists. He concluded that this legislation would require that all money deposited in the Fish and Game Fund would be prohibited from any use other than reintroduction, restocking, transplantation, habitat manipulation, intensive management, predator removal, public access and the restoration of sport fish and game resources or other projects that directly benefit Alaska's consumptive users. CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that they had a statement from Dave Kellyhouse, former director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation, pointing out the difficulties in the bill. MR. WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, said this bill would have a profound negative affect on his division and would cause a lot of harm to the citizens of Alaska, especially to the hunters and trappers. Section 1 adds language requiring them to cooperate with sportsmen's organizations in efforts to increase game populations and they already do this. To add this section wouldn't have any impact, but to add it suggests that they aren't doing that now, and that's just not accurate. He said they work with numerous groups across Alaska to benefit wildlife and to increase hunting opportunities. They have cooperative projects with the Rough Grouse Society, The Foundation of North American Wild Sheep, Tanana Valley Sportsmen's Association, the Tok Shooters Association, the Safari Club, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. They also have an excellent working relationship with the Alaska Outdoor Council and all the different trapping organizations in Alaska. The only conflict that they have between the division and some minority interests in sportsmen's groups is related to their policy against the introduction of exotic species. He explained in Alaska we have suitable habitat for numerous species of birds and mammals that occur in other parts of North America or Europe or Asia and a lot of them would survive here, but would compete with our native species and they don't think it's wise to introduce them. So they don't. They do have a policy that allows transplantation of native species in the new areas of the State if they find that they don't harm anything and they have done so with transplants of rough grouse to Kenai and Palmer. They have transplanted caribou across the State. They have put musk ox on the North Slope and put goats on an island in Southeast. He said he thought they have a good record and their policy against introducing exotics is very reasonable. Section 2 would require separate appropriations for each project that the division would undertake including the Division of Sport- fish. Currently, in his division they have one BRU component, four components, and 17 very general projects. These 17 projects are very general administration and then each species of caribou or moose, but the intent of the bill is to have separate allocations (BRUs) for each individual project within each of these categories. They have 151 projects in the Division of Wildlife and 170 in the Division of Sport fish that they appropriate money to. These projects cost from $10,000 to $300,000. It would very difficult for them to track 151 budgets in their division. Their administrative managers said it would take two more full time administrative assistants to do this. They think this money would be better spent on biologists and technicians working in the field. Section 2 would restrict use of the Fish and Game funds to very specific activities, but provides for spending money on intensive management for maximum sustained yield for human harvest and a few other things. He said all funds must result in a direct benefit to hunters of fishermen that increase sport fish or game populations and increase human harvest or decrease predation. This bill expressly prohibits the expenditure of funds on projects other than those listed. Section 4 puts most of the same restrictions with a couple of minor changes, on the federal aid budget that is half of their funding. He explained that there are a lot of things they have done for a long time and are important for and popular with the public and necessary for the division that they wouldn't be able to do any longer. They would be unable to spend any money on hunting programs where they don't manage for maximum sustained yield such as their trophy areas for sheep in the Delta, Tok, and Anchorage areas, for trophy moose management they have in the Soldotna area and for brown bear management throughout the State. He explained they do not manage them for maximum sustained yield because it's not practical to do that in most of the State because it's too remote for hunters and trappers to harvest at that rate. Sport fisheries would be unable to have any trophy fish areas and catch and release programs because that wouldn't be maximum sustained yield. They would be unable to continue their wildlife education programs such as project wild and all the work they are doing with the different school districts in the State to promote hunting. They would not be able to issue predation permits to airports or other agencies that promote public safety. They would be unable to build new office buildings, like in Fairbanks, or maintain their other office buildings, unless they wanted to provide general funds for those purposes. He continued saying that they wouldn't be able to continue their planning effort in the Anchorage Bowl where they are working to solve the problems of too many moose, bears, and geese. His position and that of several of his staff people are funded from the general fund and he would be unable to respond to most legislative and public requests because he's not sure they would have any direct benefit to increasing the game population. Continuation of some of these programs would depend on how a judge, most likely, would interpret the intent of the words, "to provide a direct benefit to hunters by increasing game populations, increasing harvest or decreasing predation." They could probably interpret that to mean that their routine surveys and inventory work couldn't be done because that's more of a monitoring function than a direct benefit. He thought it would be left up to a judge to decide because section (g) of this bill would allow officials of the department to be sued in civil court if they didn't follow this bill. He said he didn't include the cost to the Department of Law to defend him, but it would be pretty high. MR. REGELIN said that Section 2 also repeals the language that prohibits diversion of hunting and fishing license fees for purposes other than fish and wildlife management. By taking that out of the statute, future legislatures could divert those funds and they could lose up to $17 million in federal dollars in the hunting and fishing area. Section (h) defines harvestable surplus, the high levels of human harvest, intensive management and maximum sustained yield and these definitions all tie back to section 2 that mandates funds shall only be used for projects that provide for intensive management and for maximum sustained yield. The harvest levels mandated by this wording is not possible to achieve for most species in Alaska over the long term. It would be unnecessary and cost prohibitive to do so. He said he doesn't support the bill, but he understands the frustration that some people have. He said we are never going to go back to the way it was in the 60s. Our human population is three times higher, demand for game is greater, and land ownership has changed. Most of it is off bounds for hunting and the federal government is right in the middle of management. In spite of these problems, most hunters are still pretty pleased with their efforts and support the Division. He thought this bill would make it impossible for them to do their job. He said he just attended a sportsman's show in Anchorage with 50,000 people. Those people are supportive of them. Number 480 CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that it repealed the Board of Game's authority to exempt water fowl tags from some areas and he asked if the Board ever used that authority. MR. REGELIN replied no. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thought the bill was drafted in frustration to some of the things the department has done with fish and game fund money and it might be more direct to list prohibitions instead of trying to list all the things that need to be done. He didn't think the legislature wanted to prohibit sex/age composition counts, etc. SENATOR TAYLOR explained that the reason the drafters went at it from the affirmative side instead of the negative is because it's difficult to draft in the negative tone and because primarily a good portion of the funds we receive in this State come from the federal government and they specifically listed those areas that monies could be spent upon. This legislation basically parallels that. He thought that an audit of federal funds would show that those funds are not being spent correctly. CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented that he thought the Department over the years has worked with the feds to get the regulatory definitions of their list broad enough to get the things they are talking about to still occur. He's sure the Department has regulatory authority to do their sex/age composition, management, stream surveys, with State/federal funds and he's sure those things would survive. SENATOR TAYLOR said he has difficulty with the testimony and the statement from Mr. Kellyhouse because they are testifying as though merely holding them to some standard from the people who are paying for all of their efforts will immediately cause them to cease doing all sorts of activities. That's baloney. He asked why they wouldn't do them, because they are necessary to manage the wildlife population that is their jurisdiction. He wanted to know what the fiscal note is on general funds they are going to need to replace these funds, should these funds be restricted. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that statement is strongly supported by the constituency and that's what they should be going after. SENATOR TAYLOR said he didn't know how to go about that - stating there is a trust relationship on these monies. SENATOR SHARP said he shares some of Senator Taylor's frustration and he gave the example of the Department using $300,000 of the $900,000 earmarked for intensive management to pay for a National Academy of Science Study, authorized by Tony Knowles. He said the methodology used to siphon money from ADF&G is highly suspect to benefit the users of the resource. MR. REGELIN said that they undergo an annual audit by federal agents and he also thought a number of years ago when they had a new administration some funds were moved around that shouldn't have been, but they haven't done that since. There have been no problems since then and they have worked with Senator Sharp on the budget. He said they would not stop doing the things they have to do, but the way the bill is drafted, it says they can only do those things for maximum sustained yield which is a very specific way of managing. It's a mathematical definition of managing at a certain level of carrying capacity of wildlife. He said he has been more than willing to work with them on this and he has worked with Senator Taylor and he is still willing to work with them on it. SENATOR TAYLOR said it seemed to him they should have a portion of general fund dollars if they wish to use them for general fund purposes. TAPE 97-24, SIDE B SENATOR TAYLOR said he thought if the Department has general concerns, they should bring them in and there ought to be a general fund portion of the budget for them. The last thing in the world they should do is expect people to pay for it out of the back pocket as a hunting license when they're going to use that money to prevent them from going hunting and prevent them from maintaining the game species that they'd like to hunt. To say that intensive management to the maximum sustained yield possible is somehow in opposition to trophy areas is an incredible statement. If you've decided the area is a trophy area, then the maximum sustained yield is the maximum number of trophy animals that can be taken from that area. MR. REGELIN explained that they have defined maximum sustained yield as being able to take one third of the reproduction each year. SENATOR TAYLOR retorted that the reproduction each year in those areas would be one third of the trophy bulls in that area. It wouldn't be one third of the total population and he thought they could do that by regulation very easily. Number 557 SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SB 16 from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered. CHAIRMAN HALFORD adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.