Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124

04/01/2016 01:00 PM House RESOURCES

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Delayed to 2:00 p.m. Today --
Moved CSHB 274(RES) Out of Committee
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Moved HCS CSSB 125(RES) Out of Committee
           HB 266-BOARD OF GAME REGULATION PROPOSALS                                                                        
2:56:25 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  TALERICO announced  that  the final  order of  business                                                               
would be  HOUSE BILL NO. 266,  "An Act relating to  the authority                                                               
of  the  Board  of  Game  to  adopt,  amend,  or  repeal  certain                                                               
2:56:38 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska  State Legislature, as prime                                                               
sponsor of HB  266, noted she attended the Board  of Game meeting                                                               
a  few weeks  ago wherein  "Proposal 19"  came before  the board.                                                               
The  board  chose  to  reject  Proposal  19;  therefore,  she  is                                                               
presenting HB 266.                                                                                                              
2:57:22 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took an at-ease from 2:57 p.m. to 2:59 p.m.                                                                       
2:59:10 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK moved to adopt  the proposed committee substitute                                                               
(CS) for  HB 266, Version  29-LS1205\N, Bullard, 3/31/16,  as the                                                               
working  document.   There  being  no  objection, Version  N  was                                                               
before the committee.                                                                                                           
2:59:34 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  advised that  the  changes  are based  on                                                               
discussions  during the  Board of  Game meeting,  and the  Alaska                                                               
Department of Fish  & Game's concerns.  She  paraphrased from the                                                               
sponsor statement,  which read  as follows  [original punctuation                                                               
     The  clear intent  of  our  constitutional framers  and                                                                    
     early  legislators was  to include  the  public in  the                                                                    
     process of managing and  allocating our game resources.                                                                    
     Alaska  is unique,  for example,  among all  states for                                                                    
     operating a system of game advisory committees (ACs).                                                                      
     Unfortunately, this intent  toward public participation                                                                    
     has in  recent years  been frustrated by  a commingling                                                                    
     of  the  functions  of  the  board  of  game  with  the                                                                    
     Department of  Fish and Game,  the result of  which has                                                                    
     been public exclusion.                                                                                                     
     The legislature is  empowered in Art. 8, Sec.  2 of the                                                                    
     Alaska  Constitution with  managing and  allocating all                                                                    
     resources, including game. The  legislature has in turn                                                                    
     statutorily  delegated  that  management  authority  by                                                                    
     creating  the  Department  of  Fish  and  Game  in  the                                                                    
     executive branch to manage fish and game resources.                                                                        
     The   legislature   also   delegated   the   allocation                                                                    
     authority by creating  the Board of Game,  but they did                                                                    
     not put this board in  the executive branch, but in the                                                                    
     legislative branch.                                                                                                        
     Current  statute and  regulation require  proposals for                                                                    
     the allocation of  game resources to be  submitted by a                                                                    
     published  deadline before  the board  meeting. Members                                                                    
     of   the   public,   advisory  committees   (AC),   the                                                                    
     department, and  the board  can submit  such proposals.                                                                    
     Typically, these proposals are  published well ahead of                                                                    
     the meeting  for the  interested public  to scrutinize,                                                                    
     and if they deem necessary, offer input.                                                                                   
     The  problem  that has  developed  is  that the  board,                                                                    
     using  department  staff  for support,  are  developing                                                                    
     proposals   outside  of   the  public   purview.  While                                                                    
     individual members  of the public  and ACs  must submit                                                                    
     their  proposals  in  advance of  board  meetings,  the                                                                    
     board  and  department  staff   can  work  on  proposal                                                                    
     language with  no notice to  the public.  This language                                                                    
     is  often  adopted  as  board  regulation  without  the                                                                    
     public   having   opportunity    to   engage   in   its                                                                    
     HB 266 will solve this  problem and put the public back                                                                    
     in control  of the  process of managing  and allocating                                                                    
     our game resources just as our framers intended.                                                                           
3:01:42 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON outlined the changes to the original bill                                                                 
made by Version N, and paraphrased the following sectional                                                                      
analysis, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                
     Sec. 1-  AS 16.05.255 (a):  In the original  version of                                                                    
     the bill, (a)(8) of the  current statute was amended by                                                                    
     removing  "prohibiting  the live  capture,  possession,                                                                    
     transport,  or  release of  native  or  exotic game  or                                                                    
     their eggs"; this language was  added back into the CS,                                                                    
     resulting  in no  change to  the  current AS  16.05.255                                                                    
     Adding back in  the language was made in  response to a                                                                    
     concern by the department.                                                                                                 
     Sec. 2- AS  16.05.255 (c): In the CS,  the frequency of                                                                    
     the requirement  that the Board  of Game  shall solicit                                                                    
     proposals to  amend, adopt,  or repeal  regulations was                                                                    
     changed to "at least once  a year" from "at least twice                                                                    
     a  year" in  response to  a concern  by the  department                                                                    
     that doing so twice per  year would result in increased                                                                    
     Sec. 3- AS  16.05.255: In the CS,  several changes were                                                                    
     made to the requirements for  public notice for a board                                                                    
     member's proposal as follows:                                                                                              
          • The requirement for public notice of a board                                                                        
     member's proposal was lowered from 65 days to 60.                                                                          
          • A new subsection (B) was added to allow an                                                                          
     exemption to the 60-day requirement  if the board finds                                                                    
     in  writing that  a board  member's proposal  to adopt,                                                                    
     amend,  or repeal  a regulation  is  necessitated by  a                                                                    
     court  ruling or  order. This  exemption  was added  in                                                                    
     response to  concerns raised by the  Department of Law,                                                                    
     as well as the Chairman  and other members of the Board                                                                    
     of Game  regarding the  board's flexibility  to respond                                                                    
     to court decisions.                                                                                                        
     Additionally, language  changes were made in  the CS to                                                                    
     section (l) for  clarification purposes: no substantive                                                                    
     changes  were made  with the  new language.  Several of                                                                    
     the language  changes were made  at the request  of the                                                                    
3:02:50 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON related that Section  3 is an issue in that                                                               
the  advisory committee  contains people  from "your  community."                                                               
People are  elected during a  meeting of their peers,  they serve                                                               
on these  boards, listen  endlessly during  all of  the different                                                               
board  meetings, weigh  in on  the packets  of which  are usually                                                               
over 100 different  proposals from all over the  state, and offer                                                               
their  opinion as  to  how it  would or  would  not affect  their                                                               
areas.   In order to  testify during  the Board of  Game meetings                                                               
the  person must  appear  in person  because  they cannot  appear                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON referred  to Section 3, page 3,  line 4, of                                                               
Version  N, and  she advised  the bill  discusses proposals,  and                                                               
stressed that  it would be able  to take care of  anything coming                                                               
from the  courts.  She said  she understands that 60  days is the                                                               
norm for other  proposals, so the proposed  language would change                                                               
that from  65 days to 60  days.  She highlighted  that the 60-day                                                               
notice requirement  would not apply  if the  following exceptions                                                               
exist [as written on lines 9-25, which read as follows]:                                                                        
               (1) at least three members of the board                                                                          
     support the proposal and the board                                                                                         
                    (A) provides advisory committees and                                                                        
     interested    person    the   opportunity    to    make                                                                    
     recommendations or comment on the proposal; and                                                                            
                    (B) makes written findings that                                                                             
                         (i) the proposal requires the                                                                          
     board's    expedited     consideration    because    of                                                                    
     conservation   concerns   or   significant   regulatory                                                                    
                         (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                                                                     
                         (iii) the proposal is in the best                                                                      
     interests of the public; or                                                                                                
               (2) the proposal is to                                                                                           
              (A) adopt an emergency regulation or                                                                              
     order under AS 44.62.250; or                                                                                               
            (B)   adopt,   amend,    or   repeal   a                                                                            
         regulation that the board finds in writing is                                                                          
     necessitated by a court ruling or order.                                                                                   
3:05:11 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TALERICO turned to Section  3, page 3, and surmised that                                                               
there is  a mechanism for the  board if it does  bring a proposal                                                               
within less  time than the  60 day notice requirement,  such that                                                               
three board  members must sign off  having provided opportunities                                                               
for  the  advisory  committees  and  interested  people  to  make                                                               
recommendations.  Thereby, he said,  allowing the board to review                                                               
a proposal in less than the 60 day notice requirement.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON agreed.                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  asked Representative Wilson  to explain                                                               
Proposal 19.                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  explained that  Proposal 19  "pretty much"                                                               
mirrors this  bill.   She related that  the proposal  was brought                                                               
before the Fairbanks Advisory Council,  it was taken to the Board                                                               
of Game, she testified in support  of the proposal, and the Board                                                               
of Game decided against because it  did not want to tie their own                                                               
hands and rejected the proposal.                                                                                                
3:06:39 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON inquired  whether part  of the  impetus                                                               
for  HB 266  was a  response to  Proposal 207,  regarding scoping                                                               
sheep from the air.  He advised  he has seen emails from the Mat-                                                               
Su  Local  Advisory Council  and  emails  regarding the  upcoming                                                               
confirmation  hearings relative  to the  Board of  Game's concern                                                               
about people doing same day  [hunting] or locating sheep en route                                                               
to a hunting site.                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  responded,  "That   was  what  broke  the                                                               
camel's back."   She  stated there  were previous  proposals, but                                                               
that was  probably one of  the most contentious proposal.   Also,                                                               
she  related, since  that time  a "sheep  working group"  was put                                                               
together behind closed doors until  enough people found out about                                                               
it  and  they  tried  to  make  it  a  regular  committee.    She                                                               
reiterated  that the  concern is  about taking  Alaskan resources                                                               
and  making  sure  there  is  a process  that  everyone  must  go                                                               
through, and not just the public.                                                                                               
3:07:52 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked the reason  the Board of Game offered                                                               
for refusing to adopt the proposal.                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  related one reason was  because "we didn't                                                               
do the same  to the Board of Fish," although  there is a proposal                                                               
before the  Board of Fisheries.   Also,  the Board of  Game asked                                                               
that  next time  the boards  meet jointly,  so they  included all                                                               
relevant proposals.  The Board of  Game did ask her, at the board                                                               
meeting, whether she would be  replacing them if "we went forward                                                               
with  this,"  and  she  advised  she  would  give  the  Board  of                                                               
Fisheries the  same opportunity as  was given the Board  of Game,                                                               
she said.   The other reason was that the  Board of Game received                                                               
comments from  the Department  of Law and  others, asking  why it                                                               
would want  to, basically,  narrow the scope  of things  it could                                                               
and could not  do.  Honestly, she opined, the  answer should have                                                               
been that the Board of Game  goes through the same public process                                                               
as everyone else.  She  advised there is actually an [agreement],                                                               
not as tight  as this is, between the two  boards.  Although, she                                                               
commented, even with  the agreement between the  boards that they                                                               
wouldn't have board generated proposals,  Proposal 207 came after                                                               
that and they didn't abide by their own rules.                                                                                  
3:09:13 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  HERRON  noted  that  the  board  decided  not  to                                                               
consider the proposal,  and asked whether the practice  is to, at                                                               
least, give  a cursory reason.   He asked  whether Representative                                                               
Wilson did  not receive  a reason  other than  the Board  of Game                                                               
didn't like it.                                                                                                                 
3:09:38 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  answered that after she  testified she did                                                               
not receive  a communication  back from  the board,  although the                                                               
proposal was  from the Fairbanks  Advisory Council.   She offered                                                               
that after she  testified at the meeting, there  was a discussion                                                               
about some  type of amendment  but no amendments were  offered at                                                               
that time, and the proposal was rejected.                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  HERRON inquired  as to  whether there  is, or  is                                                               
not, a mechanism where any proposal  brought to the Board of Game                                                               
can be set aside without explanation.                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON replied  that  the board  did discuss  it,                                                               
similar  to legislative  committee  meeting  discussions, and  it                                                               
voted the proposal down and it did not provide findings.                                                                        
3:10:35 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  related he  has attended Board  of Game                                                               
meetings and  testified many times, and  offered appreciation for                                                               
the  essence  of  Representative Wilson's  testimony  [today]  in                                                               
terms  of compliance  with transparency  and open  meetings.   He                                                               
then used  the example of  freedom of association such  that four                                                               
likeminded people in  Fairbanks meet at a coffee  house to hammer                                                               
out  ideas on  the regulation  of  black bear  baiting, he  asked                                                               
whether the public should be privy to their latte.                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  responded  that  if the  members  of  the                                                               
board,  whatever amount  it  is  so they  don't  get into  ethics                                                               
violations,  or  individuals want  to  meet,  which is  what  the                                                               
advisory  councils  do, and  come  up  with  a proposal  that  is                                                               
absolutely fine.   The issue here,  she pointed out, is  when the                                                               
proposal does  not come up,  and it's not  in the book  that goes                                                               
out months prior  so everyone has time to send  comments in or to                                                               
testify.   When something comes up  in the board meeting  with no                                                               
way of any type of public  comment and it is passed, depending on                                                               
the cycle, it could  be a year or so before  anything can be done                                                               
opposing  it  because  it  cannot   be  done  immediately.    She                                                               
explained that  this legislation is  about making sure  the board                                                               
conducts its  system in the  same manner as an  advisory council,                                                               
or as  a legislator  submitting a proposal.   She  expressed that                                                               
the board needs to follow the process also.                                                                                     
3:12:25 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  clarified that  he didn't  mean members                                                               
of  the Board  of  Game,  he meant  citizens,  and surmised  that                                                               
Representative Wilson's  intent was not to  prohibit lay citizens                                                               
or say they cannot collude to fashion a proposal.                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  WILSON  answered  absolutely not,  they  have  to                                                               
follow the  process now and submit  the proposal to the  Board of                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether  things are dropped on the                                                               
table in  addition to  the proposal packet  by, for  example, the                                                               
Alaska Department  of Fish &  Game or  working groups.   He asked                                                               
whether she was discussing issues  not vetted and that the public                                                               
was not privy to 30 days in advance.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  replied that  from what  she has  seen and                                                               
heard, it is taking a proposal  and changing it to such an extent                                                               
it  is no  longer recognizable  as  the original  proposal.   She                                                               
continued  that the  Board of  Game  doesn't actually  put a  new                                                               
proposal in.  The Board  of Game substantially changes a proposal                                                               
that people testified  on, and rather than voting it  up or down,                                                               
the board take  a proposal that has been submitted  in that area,                                                               
she explained.                                                                                                                  
3:13:50 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  surmised that in one  sense the discussion                                                               
has been about  a proposal made in the booklet,  and in the other                                                               
sense the Board  of Game amends, adopts, or  repeals a regulation                                                               
without 60 days' notice.   He asked Representative Wilson that if                                                               
the  board takes  a proposal  on the  table that  has had  public                                                               
testimony,  and amends  that proposal  to  a significant  degree,                                                               
that she intends this bill to  read that the board cannot pass it                                                               
because  it  wouldn't have  had  60  days  on a  board  generated                                                               
amendment proposal.                                                                                                             
3:15:09 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded correct,  the board would have to                                                               
take that proposal  back to the advisory councils and  have it go                                                               
through the same process as any other proposal would.                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked  the clear boundary of  the extent to                                                               
which a submitted published proposal  can be amended by the Board                                                               
of Game  before it falls into  the parameter that it  isn't quite                                                               
enough of  what was  in the  proposal book  on the  same subject,                                                               
without going back through another  60 day process and hearing it                                                               
the next year.                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON deferred to the witnesses.                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  clarified that he is  trying to understand                                                               
the boundary of the amount  of modification the language proposes                                                               
in  this  bill;  the  legal  bounds  of  amending  before  it  is                                                               
considered a new proposal.                                                                                                      
CO-CHAIR TALERICO advised  there are people in  the audience from                                                               
the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  noted  the bill  sponsor  provided  an                                                               
Alaska  trial  court  summary  judgment  decision  under  Kenneth                                                             
Manning  and The  Fish and  Wildlife Conservation  Fund v.  State                                                             
Department of Fish  & Game and Ahtna Tene Nene,  Case No. 3KN-09-                                                             
178CI, pages  14-16, and  he pointed to  the list  of authorities                                                               
outlining the amount of deviation  that can be taken before there                                                               
is not sufficient notice.                                                                                                       
3:18:13 PM                                                                                                                    
GLENN HAIGHT, Executive Director,  Boards Support Section, Alaska                                                               
Department  of Fish  &  Game (ADF&G),  explained  that while  the                                                               
Boards  Supports Section  works closely  to facilitate  the board                                                               
process,  it is  the  section's  job as  well  to  make sure  the                                                               
advisory committees  can complete their  jobs.  When  an advisory                                                               
council has concerns  about the process their  concern matters to                                                               
the section of which it works on regularly.                                                                                     
3:18:18 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HAIGHT thanked the sponsor  for changing the fiscal note from                                                               
two  calls  to  one  call which  effectively  reduces  the  extra                                                               
expense, and  advised a  revised fiscal  note will  be submitted.                                                               
He  explained there  are  four different  ways  for which  boards                                                               
accept and  develop proposals [in-cycle proposals,  agenda change                                                               
requests,  emergency petitions,  and board  generated proposals].                                                               
He referred  to the  "in-cycle proposals"  and advised  that both                                                               
the Board  of Game  and Board  of Fisheries are  on a  three year                                                               
cycle, they  take the  same region  and species  on a  three year                                                               
cycle.   For example, he said,  next year the Board  of Fisheries                                                               
will  take on  Upper Cook  Inlet, Lower  Cook Inlet,  Kodiak, and                                                               
statewide King and Tanner crab, and  the public gets used to that                                                               
pattern.    Prior to  that  time,  the  board  opens a  call  for                                                               
proposals and people  have a deadline to submit  and, he offered,                                                               
the deadline  for next  year is  in two  weeks for  the following                                                               
meetings cycle.   He  continued that the  proposals come  in, the                                                               
section reviews  the proposals and  has them published  timely to                                                               
meet the legal requirements of  the Administration Procedures Act                                                               
(APA)  which  factors  into  all   of  the  proposal  procedures.                                                               
Subsequently,  he  said,  the proposals  are  scheduled  for  the                                                               
meeting cycle and then heard.                                                                                                   
3:20:17 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HAIGHT  explained that a  common manner to submit  a proposal                                                               
to the board  is through "agenda change requests."   He described                                                               
the three year  cycle as fairly clunky and it  doesn't let urgent                                                               
issues  come before  the board  quickly.   Therefore, there  is a                                                               
mechanism for  people to bring  requests and essentially  ask the                                                               
board to take up an  out-of-cycle subject during the next meeting                                                               
cycle because it  is urgent.  The boards have  criteria to review                                                               
and should the  board determine it does meet  that criteria, they                                                               
will schedule it for a meeting, and  that is done in time to meet                                                               
the 30 day legal notice requirement in the APA.                                                                                 
MR.  HAIGHT  advised there  are  also  "emergency petitions"  and                                                               
compared   these   to   emergency   regulations   seen   in   the                                                               
Administration  Procedures  Act  (APA),   anyone  can  submit  an                                                               
emergency petition  at any  time under  strict criteria,  such as                                                               
conservation concerns  or potential loss of  significant economic                                                               
MR. HAIGHT  related that  the fourth  manner is  "board generated                                                               
proposals"  which are  essentially proposals  adopted at  a board                                                               
meeting.  He  explained it is not essential that  it comes from a                                                               
board member, but  that it deals with subjects  not considered or                                                               
thought  about  beforehand.    He   noted,  it  may  create  more                                                               
opportunity, deal  with an enforcement  issue, or  a conservation                                                               
concern, but  it is an  issue the board  feels is urgent  to take                                                               
up.   Mr.  Haight  stated  there a  policy  within the  committee                                                               
packet that  boards need to  consider when  they take up  a board                                                               
generated proposal.                                                                                                             
3:21:56 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HAIGHT  pointed to the  fourth item the board  must consider,                                                               
which read,  "Will there be  reasonable and  adequate opportunity                                                               
for  the public  to comment,"  and the  board must  consider that                                                               
before taking  up the  issue.  In  terms of  characterizing board                                                               
generated  proposals, he  said, some  subjects are  technical and                                                               
simple and  not controversial, and  some are important.   A board                                                               
can recognize this  and know it needs to allow  for extended time                                                               
for  review and  comment, and  this is  a decision  a board  must                                                               
weigh when  faced with these.   He suggested another way  to look                                                               
at this is that some board generated proposals are taken in-                                                                    
cycle; the  board will pick  up a  subject that is  currently in-                                                               
cycle  but has  not  been  proposed.   When  a  board does  that,                                                               
legally a board  can take action on it at  that meeting, although                                                               
it then comes back to whether  it is technical or substantial, he                                                               
said.  In the event it is a  big deal, a board will typically not                                                               
take  action  and will  extend  the  time  out depending  on  the                                                               
subject.  In  the event a board  takes up a subject  that is out-                                                               
of-cycle, meaning it hasn't noticed it,  they do need to meet the                                                               
Administration Procedures  Act (APA) requirements, go  out for 30                                                               
days and  schedule it at a  later meeting.  The  board can't take                                                               
action  on an  out-of-cycle proposal  that has  not been  legally                                                               
noticed, he said.                                                                                                               
MR.  HAIGHT addressed  Representative  Seaton's earlier  question                                                               
and  noted the  discussion  was  regarding, when  a  board has  a                                                               
proposal  and amends  it, sometimes  it  will provide  substitute                                                               
language.  He continued that  sometimes proposals are conceptual,                                                               
sometimes  they  are  in  regulation but  are  not  complete,  or                                                               
sometimes the board hears something  from the public and wants to                                                               
amend  the  proposal,  and  the   board  will  create  substitute                                                               
language.  He  agreed it is concerning if [the  process] got to a                                                               
point  where the  board was  not able  to amend  the proposal  in                                                               
front of them  and pass it, and  the public would see  a delay of                                                               
many proposals, which is an issue.                                                                                              
3:23:57 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. HAIGHT  offered examples of  some of these things  in action,                                                               
as  follows: In  2015, at  the  Southeast Fin  Fish meeting,  the                                                               
section's  regulation   specialist  noted  a   bankrupt  hatchery                                                               
operator was specifically named  in regulation and; therefore, no                                                               
one else could come in and  perform enhancement work in the area.                                                               
The  issue  was  noted,  discussed, and  the  board  generated  a                                                               
proposal to put  a generic firm in [regulation]  so any qualified                                                               
operator could  work in the  area.   There was no  controversy at                                                               
the meeting and it appeared important  to do, so the board passed                                                               
it there, he  said.  That is  an example of efficient  use of the                                                               
board process  in that it saw  the problem, solved it  there, and                                                               
did not wait three years.   Mr. Haight then offered an example of                                                               
a  proposal  taken  out-of-cycle  such that,  last  year  at  the                                                               
Southeast  Shell  Fish meeting  in  Wrangell  the board  proposed                                                               
changes  for method  and  means for  Kuskokwim  Upper River  fish                                                               
wheel  handling.   He said,  it was  not in-cycle,  so the  board                                                               
scheduled it  for the March  statewide meeting where  more people                                                               
from that area could come in and participate.                                                                                   
3:25:32 PM                                                                                                                    
KRISTY  TIBBLES,  Executive  Director,   Board  of  Game,  Alaska                                                               
Department of  Fish & Game  (ADF&G), commented that  Proposal 207                                                               
was one  of four  board generated proposals  that came  up during                                                               
the  last meeting  cycle, two  others  were the  result of  court                                                               
decisions.  She explained that  Proposal 207 was a compilation of                                                               
ideas concerning sheep hunting that  Chairman Ted Spraker brought                                                               
forward at the  board's January 8, 2016 work session.   She noted                                                               
the  board had  expected to  deal with  numerous sheep  proposals                                                               
that meeting cycle.  The board's  meetings for that year were one                                                               
day work  session the day  prior to its Southeast  region meeting                                                               
in January.  Approximately one  month later the board had another                                                               
regulatory meeting for the Central  Southwest region, and a month                                                               
later had its South Central  region meeting which, she noted, was                                                               
fairly  condensed  and that  within  60  days  it had  its  three                                                               
meetings.  In  order to make a  decision of the board  it must be                                                               
made  at  their  meeting.     Chairman  Spraker  brought  forward                                                               
Proposal 207 and  asked whether the board would  like to schedule                                                               
the proposal as  a board generated proposal  to solicit comments.                                                               
Issues were included that were  not on the proposals before them,                                                               
but it was all concerning sheep  hunting.  The board did schedule                                                               
the proposal  for consideration at  the February meeting,  and 30                                                               
day public  notice was  provided for  that meeting  in accordance                                                               
with  the APA.   Subsequently,  she advised,  the board  received                                                               
public  comments and  seven advisory  committees, and  noted that                                                               
the board  also scheduled the  proposal for the March  meeting to                                                               
continue public  comment, where  it took its  final action.   She                                                               
explained that during this meeting  cycle the board had one board                                                               
generated proposal,  an issue Bruce  Weyrauch brought  forward to                                                               
the  board through  the agenda  change request  policy concerning                                                               
the  ability   to  take  Eurasian  Collared-Doves.     The  board                                                               
discussed  that issue  in a  teleconference and  felt it  did not                                                               
meet the standard for the  agenda change request policy, but that                                                               
it needed  to be addressed  this year.  This  year it had  just a                                                               
single meeting,  it was 60  days prior  to the time  of receiving                                                               
that  agenda  change request  so  it  created a  board  generated                                                               
proposal to act on that topic.                                                                                                  
3:28:28 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. TIBBLES  related that the year  prior, the board had  a board                                                               
generated  proposal  wherein  the Wildlife  Troopers  wanted  the                                                               
board to  address the potential problem  of the use of  drones to                                                               
spot  big game.    The  board passed  the  agenda change  request                                                               
process  and believed  it could  do a  board generated  proposal,                                                               
schedule it 30  days to give public notice, and  then take action                                                               
on the proposal.                                                                                                                
3:29:10 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON drew  attention  to Manning  and State  v.                                                           
First Nat'l  Bank of Anchorage,  660 P.2d 406, 425  (Alaska 1982)                                                             
wherein the  court held that the  informative summary requirement                                                               
was satisfied where  the notice consisted merely  of broad topics                                                               
that  would be  considered.   In  the event  the  topic of  sheep                                                               
hunting is  noticed, and the  courts found that that  is adequate                                                               
notice to  amend proposals,  he asked whether  that is  what this                                                               
bill will  change.  For  example, he  queried, if the  topics are                                                               
listed, such as  king salmon fishing on the  Kuskokwim River, the                                                               
board meets  and wants to  talk about  methods and means  of king                                                               
salmon fishing on  the Kuskokwim River which is  a broader topic.                                                               
He asked whether  this legislation would prevent  that from being                                                               
a  board generated  proposal because  it is  amending beyond  the                                                               
exact topic as was advertised.   He reiterated that he would like                                                               
to know  the parameters  of amendments that  can be  there, under                                                               
the language of the bill and not the intent.                                                                                    
3:31:01 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  HAIGHT  answered  that in  reading  the  proposed  committee                                                               
substitute  [Version  N],  it  appears  there  is  one  provision                                                               
wherein  the  proposal  is  not   required  to  meet  the  notice                                                               
requirement  if three  members support  it.   He  surmised it  is                                                               
possible  to  take  up  some  board  generated  proposals  fairly                                                               
quickly,  as  long as  they  are  not  conservation issues.    He                                                               
referred to  the aforementioned Section  3, on page 3,  lines 14-                                                               
19, of  Version N, to  the proposed subsection  (l),(1)(B)(i) and                                                               
(ii),  [which  would  amend  AS  16.05.255]  and  which  read  as                                                               
                         (i) the proposal requires the                                                                          
     board's    expedited     consideration    because    of                                                                    
     conservation   concerns   or   significant   regulatory                                                                    
     problems; and                                                                                                              
                         (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                                                                     
MR. HAIGHT  related that the  subject matter would not  be before                                                               
the board  so the  board could not  take in-cycle  proposals with                                                               
this bill, and stressed he could be incorrect.                                                                                  
3:31:59 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted  the requirement that it  is sent out                                                               
to the advisory committees.                                                                                                     
MR. HAIGHT  agreed, and referred to  AS 16.05.255(l)(1)(A), which                                                               
                    (A) provides advisory committees and                                                                        
     interested    person    the   opportunity    to    make                                                                    
     recommendations or comment on the proposal; and                                                                            
MR.  HAIGHT pointed  out  that  [AS 16.05.255(l)(1)(A)]  suggests                                                               
there is a  notice, but he was unsure how  that would actually be                                                               
implemented, and  was unsure what  opportunity means.   He opined                                                               
it probably  has a lot to  do with how difficult  the issue being                                                               
addressed  is  in  terms  of providing  opportunity  and  how  to                                                               
implement that.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related that his  intent is to ensure there                                                               
is  good public  notice,  but also  to ensure  the  board is  not                                                               
handcuffed  and cannot  act on  proposals other  than the  strict                                                               
proposal before it.  He related  that it appears it is illegal to                                                               
amend if  it does not  have the  support of three  board members,                                                               
but  it  becomes  legal  if  there  are  three  or  more  members                                                               
supporting it.                                                                                                                  
3:33:39 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  HAIGHT referred  to  the  open meetings  act,  which is  the                                                               
majority or more than three.  As  a rule of thumb, he said, there                                                               
cannot be four board members  working on something and discussing                                                               
it as  it needs to  be an  open meetings, although  three members                                                               
3:33:58 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON concluded that  the discussion is not about                                                               
being at a  meeting, amending a proposal that has  the support of                                                               
at least  three members of the  board.  He related  that he could                                                               
understand some  of the  language if a  proposal is  generated to                                                               
send off to the  public, but if the members are  at a meeting and                                                               
the notice does  not apply ... he said he  needs more information                                                               
on how the provision is read.                                                                                                   
MR. HAIGHT opined  there is a difference in  terminology and that                                                               
a board  generated proposal  is not an  amendment to  an existing                                                               
proposal.  In the event that is  going to be what it is, it needs                                                               
to be defined because if that is  the case, what is the degree to                                                               
which something switches  from an amendment to  a board generated                                                               
proposal is important  to capture.  By way of  example, he noted,                                                               
at  the   Upper  Cook   Inlet  meeting   the  board   dealt  with                                                               
controversial issues, having received  upwards of 10-15 proposals                                                               
on an issue, and these proposals  were not in agreement with each                                                               
other.   In working  through the public  process and  through the                                                               
committees it came  up with a solution not  to everyone's liking,                                                               
and  it wasn't  like the  proposal  in front  of them,  it was  a                                                               
combination of  things.  He noted  that it is quite  possible, in                                                               
this  context, if  that  becomes a  board  generated proposal  it                                                               
wouldn't   be  acting   on  that   amendment  at   that  meeting.                                                               
Currently, it is called "substitute  language" but they would not                                                               
be allowed to act on that at that meeting, he said.                                                                             
3:36:07 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested  clarification whether Mr. Haight                                                               
meant that under this language the  board wouldn't be able to act                                                               
on it  at that  meeting, or  rather does he  mean that  under the                                                               
current  way  it  works  it  wouldn't  be  able  to  act  on  the                                                               
substitute language.                                                                                                            
MR.  HAIGHT  clarified that  it  is  under  the language  of  the                                                               
proposed committee substitute, although that  is his sense and he                                                               
could be wrong.                                                                                                                 
3:36:28 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON asked  what  merit Mr.  Haight and  Ms.                                                               
Tibbles find in  HB 266 relative to questions of  due process and                                                               
MR. HAIGHT responded  a policy has been in place  for a couple of                                                               
years, put  together by  the joint boards,  due to  concern about                                                               
board  generated proposals  due  to a  controversy over  previous                                                               
actions.  In  terms of a position, he commented  that Ms. Tibbles                                                               
and he  will remain neutral  on these type  of things, this  is a                                                               
public  process, the  board process  is public,  and that  is the                                                               
correct avenue  to develop  these things.   He  said he  can only                                                               
offer examples of how it works,  and the cases before them, since                                                               
this policy  has been in  place, appears there has  been adequate                                                               
time for  advisory committees  to respond.   He pointed  out that                                                               
the  sheep  proposal   is  a  big  issue   here,  seven  advisory                                                               
committees  responded and  provided on  time written  comments to                                                               
the meetings before the proposals were acted upon.                                                                              
3:38:19 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  noted  a  lot  of  press  around  mass                                                               
resignations from  local [committees] due to  frustration because                                                               
they   put  a   lot  of   hard  work   into  proposals,   make  a                                                               
recommendation, and  the board rejects the  recommendation saying                                                               
"we're  outta  here."   Not  that  that  happened every  day,  he                                                               
clarified,  and  quiered  whether  there  was  something  to  the                                                               
assertions this bill  speaks to, or whether that is  just the way                                                               
it has to be.                                                                                                                   
MR.  HAIGHT  answered he  has  reviewed  reports from  the  board                                                               
dating back to the early  1980s, and the advisory committees have                                                               
always  felt they  haven't been  listened to.   He  opined it  is                                                               
something that  needs to be  addressed, be cautious of,  and make                                                               
certain the advisory committees  have adequate resources and time                                                               
to respond.   The example Representative Josephson  cited was the                                                               
Anchorage Advisory Committee and, he  opined, the same feeling is                                                               
consistent    with    the     Fairbanks    Advisory    Committee.                                                               
Interestingly,  with those  committees, unlike  others, they  are                                                               
within an urban population with  representative users that go all                                                               
over the  state, and are  providing comments  and recommendations                                                               
for places outside  of their area, he explained.   Oftentimes, by                                                               
that very  nature, a board may  be addressing an issue  and there                                                               
will be  dueling advisory  committee responses.   He  recalled at                                                               
the  Upper  Cook  Inlet   meeting  approximately  eight  advisory                                                               
committees responded  to that meeting  and on most  subjects were                                                               
split 4  to 4.  He  said he does not  know what a board  is to do                                                               
other than  take all  of the  good advice it  can and  attempt to                                                               
reach a  conclusion, and  this is always  a concern  for advisory                                                               
committees.     These  advisory  committees  do   work  hard  and                                                               
sometimes fairly do not feel appreciated, he acknowledged.                                                                      
3:40:32 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted that  within Board of Game packets                                                               
published  there are  Alaska  Department of  Fish  & Game  (ADFG)                                                               
proposals,  and   asked  whether  any  of   those  proposals  are                                                               
impromptu, last minute, presented  with insufficient notice, lack                                                               
of due process,  or questionable amendments going  far beyond the                                                               
scope of the original idea.   He asked whether there has not been                                                               
any criticism  on the presentation  of ADFG's own  proposals, and                                                               
not the merits of the proposals.                                                                                                
MS. TIBBLES replied that the  department submits proposals by the                                                               
proposal  deadline, it  utilizes the  change request  policy, and                                                               
attends the  meetings to assist  with substitute language  at the                                                               
meeting.   Although, there may  be occasions during  the meetings                                                               
where  the  department brings  up  an  issue  to the  board,  but                                                               
nothing  comes to  mind,  she said.   With  regard  to the  board                                                               
generated proposals, those are bigger  issues and the recent ones                                                               
were not at all brought forward  by the Alaska Department of Fish                                                               
& Game during the last few years, she said.                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR TALERICO opened public testimony.                                                                                      
3:42:39 PM                                                                                                                    
WAYNE HEIMER related that he  worked for the Alaska Department of                                                               
Fish  & Game,  in  Dahl  Sheep specifically,  for  25 years,  and                                                               
within the  last 20  years has observed  and participated  in the                                                               
Board of Game's  business as a civilian.  Over  his many years of                                                               
observation, he concluded that the  Board of Fisheries process is                                                               
creeping into  the Board of  Game, and  commented that it  may be                                                               
appropriate in  fisheries management  for the Board  of Fisheries                                                               
to be  the manager, but game  are not fish and  the process needs                                                               
to be  a bit different.   He said, it appears  everyone wants the                                                               
ability to  manage things as though  it had instream salmon.   In                                                               
speaking to his  many years working within  the Alaska Department                                                               
of  Fish  & Game  he  could  not recall  any  issue  that was  so                                                               
important it couldn't  have waited and gone  through the process,                                                               
he remarked.  Although, there was  a time or two when the caribou                                                               
were about  to be eaten by  the wolves and they  couldn't get the                                                               
commissioner to declare an emergency  so the divisions could work                                                               
on it.   As far as Section  3, AS 16.05.255(l) [page  3, lines 3-                                                               
25],  he opined  that the  answer to  all of  the concerns  about                                                               
amendments and  when to  alter a proposal  could be  simply dealt                                                               
with by telling  the Board of Game it does  not need to introduce                                                               
anything, it doesn't  need to amend anything, it can  act on what                                                               
has come  to them through proper  channels and that will  solve a                                                               
lot of problems.                                                                                                                
3:44:30 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  referred  to  Mr.  Heimer's  statement                                                               
regarding not  amending anything,  and remarked that  it appeared                                                               
stifling.    He offered  a  scenario  of  the board  having  near                                                               
consensus with  the need  to tweak something,  and asked  what he                                                               
meant by not amending something.                                                                                                
MR. HEIMER responded, "Exactly that"  because he could not recall                                                               
any  situation in  his experience  that has  been so  critical it                                                               
couldn't have  waited.   He then  opined that  the Board  of Game                                                               
does not  need the authority  to amend a proposal  because issues                                                               
are  not ever  that  critical.   An example  might  be taking  an                                                               
action  to prohibit  the threat  of  the possible  use of  drones                                                               
which  would  affect  conservation and  development  of  wildlife                                                               
resources, which is the Board of Game's job, he said.                                                                           
3:45:51 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON  surmised that  if  there  are four  quite                                                               
different proposals  dealing with sheep, Mr.  Heimer's suggestion                                                               
is that if the board does not  see a proposal it likes exactly as                                                               
written without an amendment, it  should put off any action until                                                               
it next considers that topic.                                                                                                   
MR. HEIMER responded that is his suggestion.                                                                                    
3:46:22 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TALERICO noted that he  believes he is familiar with Mr.                                                               
Heimer and that he was a sheep biologist over 25 years.                                                                         
MR. HEIMER said, "That's correct."                                                                                              
3:46:49 PM                                                                                                                    
MARK RICHARDS,  Executive Director,  Resident Hunters  of Alaska,                                                               
advised he  was speaking for  the Resident Hunters of  Alaska and                                                               
would like  to get the  committee back  on track about  what this                                                               
bill  does  and   does  not  do,  and  why  it   was  posited  by                                                               
Representative Wilson.   He referred  to the 3/23/16  letter from                                                               
the  Resident  Hunters  of  Alaska,  and  noted  that  it  offers                                                               
background on  why this legislation  is necessary.   He explained                                                               
that  during the  January  15, 2015  work  session, Chairman  Ted                                                               
Spraker  and   Vice  Chairman  Nate  Turner   posited  two  board                                                               
generated  proposals (Proposals  207  and 208)  related to  sheep                                                               
hunting  that  contained  ideas never  before  expressed  by  the                                                               
public.    The  next  month there  were  approximately  30  sheep                                                               
proposals  before them.    He reiterated  that  the joint  boards                                                               
developed  four  criteria  for   board  generated  proposals  and                                                               
Proposals 207  and 208 did not  meet any of the  four criteria as                                                               
they  were outside  the public  process  and disenfranchised  the                                                               
public.    One month  later  at  the  Region  4 sheep  town  hall                                                               
meeting, 167  members of  the public were  present and  given the                                                               
opportunity  to  testify  except,   he  said,  before  testifying                                                               
Chairman  Spraker advised  the public  to  focus their  testimony                                                               
specifically on board generated Proposals  207 and 208.  Thereby,                                                               
he said, the board generated  proposals completely discounted all                                                               
public proposal  before the  board that  came through  during the                                                               
correct  process.   He pointed  out that  Representative Wilson's                                                               
legislation will  have absolutely  nothing to  do with  the board                                                               
making  amendments  to  proposals  before them  as  that  is  the                                                               
board's purview.   A member can offer an amendment  and the Board                                                               
of Game votes  on it, and the Resident Hunters  of Alaska have no                                                               
problem with that.   Although, the Resident Hunters  of Alaska do                                                               
have  a problem  with the  board generating  proposals that  fall                                                               
outside of  its own  criteria, subverts  the public  process, and                                                               
disenfranchise the  public.  He  explained that  this legislation                                                               
is an  unfortunate necessity due to  the Board of Game  going out                                                               
of  control and  attempting to  do things  outside of  the public                                                               
3:49:56 PM                                                                                                                    
KAREN GORDON  spoke in support  of HB 266  and advised she  is in                                                               
agreement with the previous testifier.   The committee substitute                                                               
is necessary to  provide needed parameters for the  Board of Game                                                               
to maintain its  statutory role as regulator and not  try to be a                                                               
manager as that job belongs to  the department.  She related that                                                               
the  board  failed to  abide  by  its  own criteria  in  creating                                                               
Proposals  207 and  208, against  overwhelming  testimony by  the                                                               
advisory committees and the public  on those proposals.  Yet, she                                                               
commented,  the Board  of Game  pushed them  anyway and  when the                                                               
board chooses  to create its  own proposals it takes  the process                                                               
out  of  the hands  of  the  public.   The  board  needs to  take                                                               
proposals and not  make them and for that reason,  she asked that                                                               
Section 3,  AS 16.05.255(l)(1),  page 3, line  9 be  changed from                                                               
three members  of the board  to unanimous consent.   She referred                                                               
to language  in Section 2,  [which would amend  AS 16.05.255(c)],                                                               
on page 2, lines 28-31, which read:                                                                                             
     If  the board  [BOARD  OF GAME]  denies  a petition  or                                                                
     proposal to  amend, adopt, or repeal  a regulation, the                                                                    
     board,  upon  receiving  a  written  request  from  the                                                                    
     sponsor  of   the  petition  or  proposal,   shall,  in                                                                
     addition to  the requirements of AS  44.62.230, provide                                                                
     a  written explanation  for the  denial to  the sponsor                                                                    
     not later than 30 days after the board                                                                                     
MS. GORDON paraphrased  that if the board does not  agree or does                                                               
not  adopt a  proposal provided  by  the public  or the  advisory                                                               
committee  it is  required  to  provide a  written  reason.   She                                                               
commented  that to  her knowledge  the  board has  not done  that                                                               
ever.   In general, she  related, she is against  board generated                                                               
proposals in that  the board does not seem to  abide by them even                                                               
when it has criteria.   She said she appreciates this legislation                                                               
with the one change regarding unanimous consent.                                                                                
3:52:39 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON recalled that  recently Proposal 207 was                                                               
affirmed by  the board  because recently the  board was  asked to                                                               
reconsider,  voted  to reconsider  the  proposal,  and the  board                                                               
reaffirmed  that proposal.   He  asked  whether that  information                                                               
helps  her  to   feel  better  that  the   board  revisited  this                                                               
contentious issue.                                                                                                              
MS. GORDON answered  no, because the board  created this proposal                                                               
against overwhelming  public testimony.   She  opined that  it is                                                               
important  and  incumbent  upon  the  board  to  take  that  into                                                               
consideration, it  didn't do  that, and  it ignored  both written                                                               
and public testimony on both proposals.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  referred to  her comment  regarding the                                                               
need for unanimity  on page 3, line 9, and  advised the board can                                                               
only  act  on  a  proposal in-cycle  and  that  wildlife  changes                                                               
vastly, and he  asked whether the board needs to  intervene in an                                                               
emergency.   He asked whether the  board should be allowed  to do                                                               
that even when there is not unanimity.                                                                                          
MS. GORDON replied that this  is not about emergencies but rather                                                               
board generated proposals, proposals  the board thinks up itself,                                                               
and she pointed  out that that question is not  pertinent to this                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON clarified that it  appears that it is at                                                               
page 3, line 22.                                                                                                                
3:55:35 PM                                                                                                                    
MIKE TINKER  noted he is  speaking on  behalf of himself,  he has                                                               
been  with the  Fairbanks  Advisory Committee  for  well over  20                                                               
years,  and he  has worked  on  this issue  for many  years.   He                                                               
related that  on and  off there have  been similar  problems with                                                               
the boards, and  in the event the Board of  Game had followed its                                                               
written  procedure there  would  not  be this  issue  today.   He                                                               
pointed to page 2 page 15,  and deleting the words "sport hunting                                                               
and  subsistence" thereby  moving solely  to regulating  hunting,                                                               
and noted  there is  no definition in  statute on  sport hunting.                                                               
He said there are separate  procedures for emergencies, are taken                                                               
up separately, and  do not get into the  board generated proposal                                                               
arena at  all.  He related  that the real dichotomy  here is that                                                               
the  public and  the  volunteer advisory  committees  put a  huge                                                               
amount of  emphasis on the  process.   The board does  not accept                                                               
anything  unless the  procedure is  followed to  the letter,  and                                                               
supporters  of the  legislation are  asking that  the board  hold                                                               
itself to the same standard.                                                                                                    
3:58:10 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TALERICO  offered his understanding that  the department                                                               
has the ability to have emergency regulations.                                                                                  
MR.  TINKER replied  absolutely.   These  emergencies  are a  bit                                                               
different with fish  and game than they are in  statute as far as                                                               
holding  them to  a minimum  like that.   Although,  he explained                                                               
when a  conservation concern comes  up for an  individual species                                                               
or in  a given area, there  are four or five  avenues where those                                                               
concerned  can  ask  for  emergency   consideration.    There  is                                                               
criteria to  meet, the data is  provided, and the board  is asked                                                               
to take it up as an  emergency situation.  He asked the committee                                                               
to  keep in  mind  that,  as in  other  regulatory processes,  an                                                               
emergency order is only good for a few months.                                                                                  
3:59:34 PM                                                                                                                    
AL BARRETTE noted he is a  long time advisory committee member in                                                               
Fairbanks, in a short  period of time he will be  a Board of Game                                                               
member, and  that he has  a lot of expertise  in this field.   He                                                               
attended the  2013 joint board  meeting wherein the  joint boards                                                               
created  four criteria  to  ensure the  public  and the  advisory                                                               
committees that the boards would  not generate a proposal without                                                               
going through  the process steps.   That  only lasted one  or two                                                               
years  on the  Board of  Game side  with Proposals  207 and  208.                                                               
Furthermore,  he opined,  the board  believed Proposal  207 would                                                               
help do things.   Except, he commented, the Board  of Game didn't                                                               
allow enough  vetting of that  proposal to understand  that there                                                               
are  at least  eight  resident sheep  hunts  ending after  August                                                               
10th, wherein  a person  is lawfully allowed  to use  an aircraft                                                               
for spotting sheep.  The Board  of Game then passed a sheep youth                                                               
hunt this  year that starts  before August  10, 2016, and  use an                                                               
aircraft for spotting  sheep, he said.  Now,  he commented, there                                                               
is a certain time an aircraft  cannot be used for spotting sheep,                                                               
and a certain time a person can  and still harvest the sheep.  He                                                               
related that that  is the problem with trying to  push things too                                                               
fast, not vetting,  and not understanding the effects  of what is                                                               
being attempted.                                                                                                                
4:01:59 PM                                                                                                                    
STEVEN  FLORY advised  he is  a  former member  of the  Anchorage                                                               
Advisory  Committee,  and  a  former member  of  the  Wild  Sheep                                                               
Chapter in Alaska.   He advised he has been  involved in the crux                                                               
of a lot  of this, including the resignation of  seven members of                                                               
the Anchorage Advisory Committee over  actions taken by the Board                                                               
of Fisheries,  followed one year  later by six  resignations from                                                               
advisory committees  due to actions of  the Board of Game.   This                                                               
legislation is  sorely needed, it  doesn't go far enough,  and it                                                               
doesn't  address  enough issues,  which  is  the House  Resources                                                               
Standing Committee's  job, because the legislature  has authority                                                               
over fish and game resource  policies.  Previous legislatures set                                                               
up a working system but  the system was subverted, destroyed, and                                                               
distorted and  it no  longer functions  as it  was intended.   He                                                               
described this as the first step in fixing a broken system.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON  referred  to   prior  testimony  and  the                                                               
suggestion  that  the board  only  take  proposals from  advisory                                                               
committee and the  public, the board should not be  able to amend                                                               
the  proposals in  any  manner, and  in the  event  that was  not                                                               
sufficient the board should do it  at the next meeting.  He asked                                                               
whether his  position is  that the  board should  not be  able to                                                               
amend proposals that come before them in the booklet.                                                                           
4:04:15 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. FLORY replied he does not  believe HB 266 does that, although                                                               
he  does believe  there  is nothing  so pressing  in  any of  the                                                               
regulations that  they must go  in immediately, and in  fact most                                                               
of the time they don't go into effect  for a full year later.  In                                                               
fact,  he  remarked,  if  the  Board  of  Game  wishes  to  amend                                                               
something it should  send it back to the  advisory committees for                                                               
additional  recommendations,  and  he  noted  that  the  advisory                                                               
committees  are there  to give  [recommendations]  to the  board.                                                               
The  problem,  he pointed  out  is  that  the  Board of  Game  is                                                               
functioning as  its own advisor  and the board is  not interested                                                               
in what the advisory committees or public has to say.                                                                           
4:05:49 PM                                                                                                                    
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska  Outdoor Council, advised he                                                               
represents  the   statewide  Alaska   Outdoor  Council   with  48                                                               
individual  clubs,   and  it  supports  this   legislation.    He                                                               
commented that within his 35 years  of policing the Board of Game                                                               
he  has never  seen so  much strife  specifically among  hunters,                                                               
specifically, being  divided over the  issue of the way  this has                                                               
proceeded on  Dahl sheep  proposals.   The board  packet contains                                                               
all of  the proposals,  of which there  were 35  sheep proposals,                                                               
and  he  stressed  that  it  is important  the  public  take  the                                                               
proposals in their  entirety.   When the chairman  came to Juneau                                                               
for the  work session  and proposed these  two proposals,  it set                                                               
back   the   entire   process   of   the   advisory   committee's                                                               
participating  in  the process  and  coming  up  with a  plan  to                                                               
address the  35 proposals.   It is  a continuing problem  and, he                                                               
stated,   the   advisory   committees  and   public   are   being                                                               
disenfranchised   because   currently   the  board   is   heavily                                                               
influenced by  commercial users, as  well as trophy  hunting non-                                                               
governmental organization (NGO).   Previously, he said, the board                                                               
was  more  balanced  with  more  representatives  addressing  the                                                               
Alaskan public, and because sheep  is a trophy issue this problem                                                               
has elevated as high  as has.  In the event  the board had looked                                                               
at it and  addressed its policy, this legislation  would not have                                                               
been necessary  because the  policy is clear  on the  criteria it                                                               
jointly  developed with  the Board  of  Fisheries for  developing                                                               
board generated  proposals.  The  purpose of this  legislation is                                                               
to have it in statute in  the event there is recourse should this                                                               
issue arise again, he said.                                                                                                     
4:09:41 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  requested a  summary of the  four criteria                                                               
and Mr. Arno handed him a copy.                                                                                                 
CO-CHAIR TALERICO noted it appears  Mr. Arno is the historian for                                                               
the  Board  of Game  meetings  and  asked  for a  description  of                                                               
changes he has seen.                                                                                                            
4:10:25 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  ARNO specified  that on  the hunting  side of  the Board  of                                                               
Game,  not the  Board  of Wildlife,  the regularly  participating                                                               
individuals in  the process have  better harvesting  and clearly,                                                               
are not  worried about the  conservation.   This is about  who is                                                               
harvesting  the  resource  and the  availability  of  harvestable                                                               
resources, wherein  the Board of  Game directs the  managers that                                                               
it  needs  more harvestable  surplus  and  directs them  to  more                                                               
actively manage.  Looking at it  with those players on that, what                                                               
happens  is  when  commercial  interest gets  so  strong  on  the                                                               
members of  the board there is  a slant and that  slant is always                                                               
away from the advisory committees,  he said.  Particularly on the                                                               
issue of  Proposal 207, in  that there were three  board meetings                                                               
and overwhelmingly  the testimony  opposed Proposal 207,  and the                                                               
reason being that there was  not a conservation problem and, that                                                               
the FAA  already made what Proposal  207 did illegal.   The added                                                               
stipulations  put  on  that  only  negatively  affected  resident                                                               
hunters because  commercial hunters  have the  opportunity, time,                                                               
and wherewithal to  get their camps out and know  where the sheep                                                               
are.  Nonetheless, he noted, a  resident hunter may only have two                                                               
weeks off  to plan that time,  and if they have  an aircraft they                                                               
would  go out  and  search for  an  area to  hunt  sheep.   Those                                                               
Alaskan residents were more negatively  affected by this than the                                                               
commercial user, and they were not  being heard by this board.  A                                                               
situation has  been created  that is causing  more than  just the                                                               
policy the joint boards adopted in 2014, he said.                                                                               
4:12:51 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  referred to testimony stating  that the                                                               
board's  ruling was  against a  great number  of testifiers,  and                                                               
related he  has seen this  happen frequently in  the legislature.                                                               
He offered a  scenario of 90 percent of the  public testifying on                                                               
behalf of  "X" issue, and the  powers that be going  in the other                                                               
direction.   He quiered  Mr. Arno  as to whether  it is  his view                                                               
that that action  is prohibited or whether the Board  of Game can                                                               
disregard the great propensity of  the testimony and determine it                                                               
sees  the issue  in a  different way.   Representative  Josephson                                                               
asked whether that is the issue.                                                                                                
4:13:57 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. ARNO responded, "No, that's not the issue."                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  advised that when he  reviewed Proposal                                                               
207, there  was a description  regarding out-of-state  versus Mr.                                                               
Arno's constituency  parallel, except,  Mr. Arno  testified there                                                               
really   isn't   a   sheep  conservation   issue.      Even   so,                                                               
Representative Josephson  stated he has repeatedly  read there is                                                               
a huge statewide  sheep conservation issue and  asked whether the                                                               
state has a bounty of sheep with no issue.                                                                                      
MR.  ARNO responded  that the  Alaska Department  of Fish  & Game                                                               
advised there was  not a conservation problem with  Dahl sheep in                                                               
Alaska, because  the department has repeatedly  specified at each                                                               
meeting,  including  the March  meeting,  that  there was  not  a                                                               
conservation concern.                                                                                                           
4:15:11 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  surmised that  the first  consideration is                                                               
whether it  is in the public's  best interest.  He  asked whether                                                               
Mr. Arno was saying that the  Board of Game did not address that,                                                               
or that Mr. Arno just disagreed  with the board's finding that it                                                               
was in the public's best interest.                                                                                              
MR. ARNO answered  that the Board of Game did  not address any of                                                               
the  four   [criteria]  when  it  adopted   its  board  generated                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON further  surmised that  the Board  of Game                                                               
did not  look at  the urgency, the  current process,  or anything                                                               
like that.                                                                                                                      
MR. ARNO replied correct.                                                                                                       
4:16:02 PM                                                                                                                    
RON SOMMERVILLE advised that he  worked for the Alaska Department                                                               
of Fish  & Game (ADF&G) as  a biologist for 25  years, and served                                                               
on the  Board of Game  for 6 years.   Alaska has  frequently been                                                               
touted as  having the most  democratic regulatory process  in the                                                               
United States  because its citizens  have a phenomenal  amount of                                                               
influence  on  the  regulatory  process  with  80  plus  advisory                                                               
committees.   He expressed concern that  the testimony previously                                                               
offered is  the result of major  changes, the point is  that both                                                               
fish and wildlife have gone to  three year cycles and the results                                                               
are now  being seen.   The advisory committees are  upset because                                                               
they are not only not being  heard, and are only heard once every                                                               
three years  on issues important to  them.  Speaking as  a Juneau                                                               
resident, he  said he  is a member  of the  Territorial Sportsman                                                               
and previously they commented on  issues in the Brooks Range, but                                                               
now it avoids  statewide issues because it doesn't  have the time                                                               
or manpower  to deal with it.   His perspective, he  said, having                                                               
served on  the Board of  Game, the board  can set its  own agenda                                                               
and even  though it has a  three year cycle, it  can throw things                                                               
into the middle  of an agenda anytime it believes  there is a big                                                               
issue.   He then  related a  classic example,  "Cook Inlet  ... I                                                               
mean it is three cycle Cook Inlet?   Never happen.  If it doesn't                                                               
come  up every  year everybody  gets upset  including legislators                                                               
because of their constituents are beating up on them."                                                                          
4:18:53 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SOMMERVILLE  advised   he  is  on  a   sheep  working  group                                                               
attempting to come  up with a unanimous decision  that might help                                                               
the  board,  and  when  reviewing a  proposal  he  asked  himself                                                               
whether it does harm, and noted  it does not affect the boards or                                                               
departments  emergency   authority,  which  is  spelled   out  in                                                               
statute.   This  proposal  has  to do  with  transparency and  he                                                               
related  that when  people get  upset with  the process  then the                                                               
product becomes secondary, and opined  that is not being attacked                                                               
here just  because people did  not like  the product.   The issue                                                               
here is that from the  beginning people became angry because [the                                                               
board]  was not  following the  rules, and  speaking as  a former                                                               
board member,  and chairman, board  members always try to  do the                                                               
best  they can  to make  sure the  public is  satisfied with  due                                                               
process, he explained.  He said  he does not agree that the board                                                               
should not  be allowed  to amend  regulations because  when going                                                               
through  all  of  the  proposals, there  may  be  8-10  proposals                                                               
dealing  with  one subject  and  they  will  be combined  into  a                                                               
particular  proposal  with  bits   and  pieces  of  possibly  all                                                               
proposals.    He reiterated  that  to  have  a proposal  go  back                                                               
through a  three year  cycle again would  be unreasonable  and he                                                               
disagrees with some of the previous testimony on that issue.                                                                    
4:20:48 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  said he  agrees with  Mr. Sommerville's                                                               
statement that when  people feel the process  has been interfered                                                               
with,  the  product does  not  merit  the  same attention.    Mr.                                                               
Sommerville  stated he  is on  the  sheep working  group and  the                                                               
documents  say that  that  working group  has  been under  attack                                                               
because  it  acted  similar  to   a  subcommittee,  there  wasn't                                                               
sufficient transparency, and it was working behind the scenes.                                                                  
MR. SOMMERVILLE advised  he has not attended all  of the meetings                                                               
but did  go to the last  meeting, and offered that  the moderator                                                               
tried to get to some consensus  points they could agree upon, and                                                               
almost everyone agreed there is  no conservation problem.  Alaska                                                               
has a  declining sheep population  but that is not  necessarily a                                                               
conservation problem, except in  the area of subsistence, hunters                                                               
are only  harvesting full curl rams.   The state does  not have a                                                               
conservation problem  although it may have  an allocation problem                                                               
and that is what is driving this.   He related that the state has                                                               
a situation  wherein non-residents want  to hunt sheep and  if it                                                               
is  determined to  be  one  sheep every  four  years, it  doesn't                                                               
affect the  non-residents but it  does affect  Alaskan residents.                                                               
The process has become so  convoluted that people no longer trust                                                               
the Board of  Game and he worries because Alaskans  have tried to                                                               
build a  system that  will withstand  a long  period of  time, he                                                               
4:23:18 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, with regard to  the complexity of the issues                                                               
and the inability to participate  outside of a person's immediate                                                               
region, offered  an idea  of separating  the jurisdiction  of the                                                               
board and asked whether that would be a useful exercise.                                                                        
4:23:52 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SOMMERVILLE replied  that  he  would have  to  look at  that                                                               
because some  issues must  be addressed on  a statewide  basis in                                                               
that  consistency is  part  of it.   For  example,  he said,  the                                                               
intensive management  program established  four or  five criteria                                                               
when it  first started in  "19," recognizing that many  people in                                                               
the state were  opposed to it as  well as in support  of it, such                                                               
as a reasonable chance of  success, reasonable amount of money to                                                               
operate the program, members must  be able to follow through, and                                                               
other criteria.   He  stressed that  it should not  be done  on a                                                               
case-by-case basis  and should be  applied on a  statewide basis.                                                               
There have been  proposals to break up the Board  of Fisheries or                                                               
the Board of  Game into regions or whatever and,  he pointed out,                                                               
some of that would work but  this probably isn't the best time to                                                               
talk about  spending that kind of  money.  He reiterated  that he                                                               
worries  about the  three year  cycles,  and that  the staff  has                                                               
explained to him all  of the reasons for it and  it kind of makes                                                               
sense,  but   he  believes  they   will  alienate   the  advisory                                                               
committees and  they will start to  fade away.  Even  though they                                                               
complain about dealing  with fish and wildlife at  the same time,                                                               
when you do it  over a three year period some  of the people will                                                               
disappear, he related.                                                                                                          
4:25:20 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON   noted  he  did  serve   on  an  advisory                                                               
committee  in  Homer  for  years  and  understands  the  advisory                                                               
committee's  frustrations with  the  boards  not following  their                                                               
directions, especially when the harvest  is in the local area and                                                               
the  board considers  all of  the  advisory committees'  opinions                                                               
across the  state.   He surmised that  there were  three meetings                                                               
about 30 days  apart, and asked whether there  was not sufficient                                                               
public notice in  that timeframe, and whether  the seven advisory                                                               
committees sent  in their  written comments timely.   He  said he                                                               
would like to  determine if that notice process over  a series of                                                               
meetings  is  inadequate  because   he  was  unsure  whether  the                                                               
discussion is about  process.  It appears, he  noted, that people                                                               
are unhappy  with the decision  and the lack of  consideration of                                                               
the responses the advisory committees produced to the board.                                                                    
MR. SOMMERVILLE deferred to Mr. Arno for an answer.                                                                             
4:27:14 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. ARNO  stressed the need  to look at  all of the  proposals in                                                               
total.    He  reiterated  that the  advisory  committees  started                                                               
deliberating  on  the proposal  during  fall.   Then  during  the                                                               
January work  session and  30 days before  the meeting,  a notice                                                               
was sent  out by  board support advising,  "Here, we  got these."                                                               
He   remarked,   "But  that   threw   their   whole  process   of                                                               
participation.      So,   that   was   the   part   about   being                                                               
disenfranchised."  He said subsequently  the chairman advised, on                                                               
the record,  that guides  called and  asked for  these proposals.                                                               
He pointed  out that is the  issue of being disenfranchised.   He                                                               
quipped  that if  he had  known of  the loophole,  he would  have                                                               
called the chairman and told him what  he wants put in.  The last                                                               
time [the advisory  committee] deliberated on Proposal  207 was a                                                               
year  later.   The  people of  Alaska who  are  elected to  those                                                               
advisory  committees  feel  disenfranchised by  the  process,  he                                                               
4:28:48 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON concluded  that the  timing of  the notice                                                               
was  not  the   problem,  but  rather  there   was  not  adequate                                                               
consideration  of   the  proposals   that  had   originally  been                                                               
published and the comments from the advisory committees.                                                                        
MR. ARNO  responded yes,  to the point  that the  individuals who                                                               
put  comments  in and  participated  in  the advisory  committees                                                               
looked at the  issue of the board not going  through the criteria                                                               
for  the generated  proposal.   He remarked  that it  wasn't that                                                               
there  was an  insufficient  way  to deal  with  the concerns  of                                                               
conflict  between  users,  they   had  all  submitted  their  own                                                               
proposals  to  go  into  the   packet  for  everyone  to  review.                                                               
Subsequently, when it got to the  end of it they commented on not                                                               
only their  proposals but other  people's proposals as to  how to                                                               
relieve  the  conflict.     He  related  that   by  putting  this                                                               
legislation into statute it will  give the public a bigger hammer                                                               
to point  out whether  or not  the board  looked at  the criteria                                                               
before choosing to submit a board generated proposal.                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in referring to  the 60 day notice instead                                                               
of 30 day notice, he remarked  that when doubling the notice time                                                               
it  could  affect the  process  that  would  go forward,  and  it                                                               
appears that other  elements need to be corrected  other than the                                                               
30- to 60-day notice.                                                                                                           
MR. ARNO agreed that that is one piece of it.                                                                                   
4:31:10 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TALERICO held over HB 266.                                                                                             
CO-CHAIR  TALERICO commented  that over  the years  he has  dealt                                                               
with  the frustrations  of the  Middle Nenana  River Fish  & Game                                                               
Advisory Committee  in that it  sometimes has been told  it needs                                                               
to comply with  three other advisory committees in  order to make                                                               
a decision to  move forward with board proposals.   An adjustment                                                               
to policy is not placing blame  on the department or anyone else,                                                               
it is  something the committee  needs to determine as  to whether                                                               
or not that would be the best direction to move forward.  The                                                                   
bill would be heard at the next committee meeting, he advised.                                                                  
[HB 266 was held over.]                                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
CS SB 125 Version (G).pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 125
SB 125 Legal Memo, 3-31-16.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 125
HB0274 Ver. E.PDF HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 274
HB 274 E.1 Amendment.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 274
HB 274 Fiscal Note.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 274
HB 274 Supporting Documents - Repealers.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 274
HB274 Sectional Analysis Ver. E.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 274
HB274 Sponsor Statement Ver. E.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 274
HB274 Supporting Documents-Letters of Support.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 274
HB274 Supporting Documents-Parks Div Briefing on Point Bridget.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 274
HB274 Supporting Documents-State Land Exchanges Fact Sheet.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 274
HB274 Supporting Documents-Trust Land Exchange.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 274
HB 266 hb103 Letter of Opposition - Alaska Chapter SCI 3-3-2015.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 103
HB 266
HB 266 BOG Sponsor Statement.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266
HB 266 Fiscal Note 2.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266
HB 266 Fiscal Note.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266
HB 266 Support Document - Order Decision Cross-Motions Summary Judgment.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266
HB 266 Supporting Document - Article VIII Natural Resources.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266
HB 266 Supporting Document - Criteria for Board-Generated Proposal.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266
HB 266 Supporting Document - Decision on Summary Judgement Manning.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266
HB 266 Supporting Document - Sheep Working Group email.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266
HB 266 Supporting Document - Sheep Working Group email.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266
HB 266 Supporting Document - Understanding the Advisory Committee Process.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266
HB 266 Supporting Document- History of the Board Process.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266
CSHB 266N 4-1-16.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266
HB 266 Supporting Document - Letter of Support Resident Hunters of Alaska.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266
HB 266 Testimony Barrette.pdf HRES 4/1/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266