Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124

04/04/2016 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
Moved HCS CSSB 32(RES) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 266(RES) Out of Committee
           HB 266-BOARD OF GAME REGULATION PROPOSALS                                                                        
1:07:31 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TALERICO announced  that the first order  of business is                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 266,  "An Act  relating to  the authority  of the                                                               
Board of  Game to adopt,  amend, or repeal  certain regulations."                                                               
[Before the committee was the  proposed committee substitute (CS)                                                               
for  HB 266,  Version 29-LS1205\N,  Bullard, 3/31/16,  adopted as                                                               
the working document on 4/1/16.]                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK moved to adopt  the proposed committee substitute                                                               
(CS),  Version  29-LS1205\P,  Bullard,  4/4/16,  as  the  working                                                               
document.   There being  no objection, Version  P was  before the                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE  WILSON, Alaska  State Legislature,  as the                                                               
sponsor of  HB 266,  introduced Version P  and explained  the two                                                               
changes that  Version P makes to  Version N.  She  said the first                                                               
change  to Version  N is  on page  3, lines  17-19, which  state:                                                               
"(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".   Version  P  changes this  language to  read:   "(ii)  the                                                               
subject  matter of  the proposal  would not  be before  the board                                                               
during  the current  period  in which  the  board is  considering                                                               
proposals solicited under (c) of  this section, but for the board                                                               
member's proposal;  and".   She noted the  second change  is that                                                               
Version  P adds  subsection (m)  [to  Section 3].   However,  she                                                               
pointed out,  (m) is  not right  as written and  there may  be an                                                               
amendment through the committee to get it right.                                                                                
CO-CHAIR TALERICO  stated he has  a conceptual amendment  that he                                                               
plans to offer that would correct (m).                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON  explained subsection  (m) makes it  so the                                                               
Board of Game can amend a proposal, but only amend to clarify.                                                                  
1:09:47 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON drew attention to  Version P, page 3, lines                                                               
6-7,  which state  "at least  60  days' notice  before the  board                                                               
considers the proposal."  He asked  whether that 60 days would be                                                               
at all restrictive on the board's ability to do its work.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied that the  reason for the 60 days is                                                               
because there must be enough time  for [a proposal] to go back to                                                               
the  advisory councils  and  the  councils must  put  it out  for                                                               
public  comment before  the  councils have  their  agenda.   This                                                               
provision  would ensure  that the  councils are  not forced  into                                                               
having special meetings to be able to hear these proposals.                                                                     
1:10:45 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  TALERICO moved  to adopt  Conceptual Amendment  1 which                                                               
would  delete  the  language  on   page  3,  lines  27-29,  under                                                               
subsection (m) and insert the following language:                                                                               
     Nothing in this section restricts the board's ability                                                                      
     to amend language to clarify proposals noticed in the                                                                      
     same manner as provided under (c) of this section.                                                                         
CO-CHAIR TALERICO explained Conceptual  Amendment 1 would clarify                                                               
that  the board  would have  the ability  to improve  or amend  a                                                               
proposal live at its meeting.                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  objected to  the conceptual  amendment for                                                               
discussion purposes.                                                                                                            
CO-CHAIR TALERICO reiterated that  the conceptual amendment would                                                               
clarify for  the public and the  board that the board  would have                                                               
the ability to work on proposals.                                                                                               
1:12:09 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  posed a scenario  in which  five proposals                                                               
come to  the board  with varying  time and  varying numbers.   He                                                               
surmised  that as  Co-Chair Talerico  is interpreting  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1,  the Board of  Game could go anywhere  between those                                                               
numbers  and modify  a proposal  in that  way such  that it  is a                                                               
balancing  of several  proposals that  might have  come in  after                                                               
public  testimony, similar  to the  way things  are amended  in a                                                               
legislative committee.                                                                                                          
CO-CHAIR TALERICO believed that is  the intent.  Occasionally, he                                                               
said, proposals are  received that are not mirror  images of each                                                               
other  but address  the same  topics and  are very  close to  the                                                               
same.  This would give the  board the ability to address an issue                                                               
that is  included in  a multitude of  proposals and  massage that                                                               
into  one workable  proposal that  is moved  forward.   The board                                                               
would not be  "handcuffed" into voting a proposal up  or down; it                                                               
would  have the  ability to  amend some  language or  potentially                                                               
utilize one  section of one  proposal and insert it  into another                                                               
in an amendment form.                                                                                                           
1:14:30 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON,  regarding subsection (m)  as currently                                                               
written in  Version P, noted that  the focus is on  amendments or                                                               
clarification made to changes offered  by the board itself, which                                                               
is the  putative cause of  HB 266.   The amendment does  not talk                                                               
about  the   board's  own  proposals,  it   is  about  clarifying                                                               
proposals generally.   He  inquired as  to how  Co-Chair Talerico                                                               
perceives the difference there.                                                                                                 
CO-CHAIR TALERICO  replied he thinks  it is any  proposal brought                                                               
before  the board,  whether from  a board  member or  the public.                                                               
Occasionally board proposals and  public proposals cover the same                                                               
topics and  can be  very similar.   He said he  does not  want to                                                               
limit it or categorize the  proposals from particular user groups                                                               
or different  regions, so he  hopes the amendment will  work with                                                               
all proposals.                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  related that  in a  memo or  email from                                                               
Matt Gruening  it appears the  deputy commissioner of  the Alaska                                                               
Department of Fish  & Game (ADF&G) has worked  with Mr. Gruening.                                                               
He surmised  [ADF&G] wanted  subsection (m) to  be as  written in                                                               
Version P to give the board  some liberty to, at a board meeting,                                                               
make changes on  its own initiative, which is  a very contentious                                                               
thing for  the board to do.   He asked whether  ADF&G would still                                                               
be satisfied if subsection (m) [is amended].                                                                                    
KEVIN BROOKS,  Deputy Commissioner,  Office of  the Commissioner,                                                               
Alaska   Department  of   Fish  &   Game  (ADF&G),   offered  his                                                               
appreciation  to the  sponsor for  allowing  the opportunity  for                                                               
some  interaction on  the  language  of the  bill  to  make it  a                                                               
workable  product for  the board  and get  to the  intent of  the                                                               
sponsor.   He explained that the  intent of subsection (m)  is to                                                               
recognize that a  call for proposals is identified  in Section 2,                                                               
which is why  this subsection references AS  16.05.255(c).  These                                                               
proposals have  been properly noticed  and lots of  time provided                                                               
for folks  to weigh in.   Under subsection (m) the  department is                                                               
trying to  have the board members  retain an ability to  take all                                                               
of those  properly noticed proposals and  wordsmith them, combine                                                               
them, and make improvements, as  is the board's custom and common                                                               
practice now; the understanding being  that the sponsor is trying                                                               
to identify something that is new  that no one has had any chance                                                               
to  see  from  just  getting  dropped   in  and  acted  on.    It                                                               
distinguishes  all the  other proposals  that have  been properly                                                               
noticed  and  allows  the  board   to  work  on  those  and  make                                                               
improvements as the board sees fit.                                                                                             
MR. BROOKS,  in response to  Representative Tarr,  clarified that                                                               
he was referring to Version P, subsection (m) within Section 3.                                                                 
1:19:02 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON removed  his  objection.   There being  no                                                               
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                          
1:19:29 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  stated  he cares  greatly  about  this                                                               
issue.   He  said he  listened to  the Board  of Game  hearing on                                                               
Proposal 19  that Representative  Wilson brought forth  and heard                                                               
most  of that  testimony, including  advice offered  by assistant                                                               
attorney general Cheryl  Brooking on the question  of moving from                                                               
30 days' notice to 60 or 65 days.   He has talked about this with                                                               
a Board  of Game member  and a big  game commercial guide  and he                                                               
has  read Mr.  Ted  Spraker's  letter that  was  provided to  the                                                               
committee today.  His sense of  the history of this is that there                                                               
was more  than a lot of  public opportunity and in  this instance                                                               
there really was  60 days' notice in 2015.   The testimony before                                                               
the Board  of Game  was that  it was brought  up in  January, the                                                               
board took comments in January  and February, this was an ongoing                                                               
issue raised repeatedly,  the board bringing up  proposals on its                                                               
own  has  not  been abused,  and  it  has  had  four in  a  year.                                                               
Chairman  Spraker  notes the  board  has  done  it this  way  for                                                               
decades.   Something  unique is  that there  was a  sheep working                                                               
group to  which just about everybody  was invited and he  is told                                                               
that  a  majority  of  the  sheep  working  group  wanted  to  do                                                               
something  about aerial  hunting.   So, he  sees this  bill as  a                                                               
contest over  the efficacy of  aerial hunting and the  concern is                                                               
that aerial hunting is very effective.                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON continued,  stating  that he  is not  a                                                               
champion of the Board of Game  and is someone who scrutinizes the                                                               
board's work and he  does not think it is a  diverse body.  There                                                               
is  a  dispute now  about  that  very  issue between  guides  and                                                               
whether there are too many guides  and others.  Mr. Spraker notes                                                               
that the  people who were  really hurt  by Proposal 207  are non-                                                               
residents and  their guides who  fly more.   Some people  play by                                                               
one rule out  of a sense of  duty and other people  play by other                                                               
rules.  Representative  Josephson posited that the  Board of Game                                                               
acted  properly  and  got  it  right.   His  sense  is  that  the                                                               
committee is going  to move the bill and he  will not object, but                                                               
he will  vote "do not pass".   He added that  there was testimony                                                               
about whether  sheep populations are  healthy and he  is reminded                                                               
that in  the western Brooks  Range the populations  are decidedly                                                               
not healthy.   There is also concern about  taking full-curl rams                                                               
and what that does to the genetics of the future population.                                                                    
1:23:21 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON  said  that  the  adoption  of  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment  1 makes  it clear  that  amendments can  be taken  and                                                               
proposals can  be massaged  by the  board so  that the  board can                                                               
then function in  its duties.  Without that he  could not support                                                               
moving  the  bill  forward  and   therefore  he  is  pleased  the                                                               
amendment was unanimously adopted.                                                                                              
1:23:47 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  NAGEAK moved  to report  the  proposed CS  for HB  266,                                                               
Version  29-LS1205\P,   Bullard,  4/4/16,  as  amended,   out  of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
fiscal  notes.   There  being  no  objection, CSHB  266(RES)  was                                                               
reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.                                                                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HCS CS SB 32 Ver N.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
CS SB 32 Support Letter.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
CS SB 32 Briefing Paper.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
CS SB 32 Letter of Support 1.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
CS SB 32 Letter of Support 2.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
CS SB 32 Letter of Support 3.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
CS SB 32 Letter of Support 4.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
CS SB 32 Letter of Support 5.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
CS SB 32 Letter of Support 6.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
CS SB 32 Letter of Support 7.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
CS SB 32 Resolution.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
CS SB 32 Sectional Analysis.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
SB0032B(1).PDF HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
SB32CS Fiscal Note.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
HB 112 ver P (RES draft CS).pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 112
HB 112 Sponsor Statement Ver P.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 112
HB 112 Sectional P.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 112
HB 112 Explanation of Changes W to P.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 112
CSHB 266N 4-1-16.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266
CSHB 266 explanation of changes.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266
HB 266 Supporting Document - Letter of Support Resident Hunters of Alaska.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266
CSHB112 ver P 4.3.16 CFEC opposing letter.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 112
SB 32 LOS Denali Log.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
HB 112 Oppose -UFA Hse Resources 040416.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 112
HB 112 Support LB&A CFEC Audit.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 112
CSSB 32-RDC Support.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
SB 32
HB 266 Opposing Written Testimony.pdf HRES 4/4/2016 1:00:00 PM
HB 266