Legislature(2017 - 2018)CAPITOL 106

03/31/2017 01:00 PM 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

Audio Topic
01:05:13 PM Start
01:06:18 PM Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board|| Alaska Board of Game
05:33:02 PM HB134
06:01:02 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Recessed to 5:00 PM --
-- Location Change from Barnes 124 --
+ Confirmation Hearings: TELECONFERENCED
AK Big Game Commercial Services Board
-- Public Testimony --
AK Board of Game
-- Public Testimony --
+= HB 129 FISH & GAME: OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES TELECONFERENCED
Scheduled but Not Heard
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 134 BOARD OF GAME MEMBERSHIP TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 134(RES) Out of Committee
**Streamed live on AKL.tv**
                HB 134-BOARD OF GAME MEMBERSHIP                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
5:33:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON announced  that  the next  order of  business                                                               
would be HOUSE  BILL 134, "An Act relating to  the composition of                                                               
the Board of Game."                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR TARR  moved to adopt  the proposed  committee substitute                                                               
(CS) for  HB 134, Version  30-LS0473\J, Bullard, 3/28/17,  as the                                                               
working document.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
5:33:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON explained  that  the  original bill  proposed                                                               
there be two  members other than the general  category of members                                                               
on the  Board of Game  - one a dedicated  tourism seat and  one a                                                               
dedicated nonconsumptive  seat.   He said  Version J  reduces the                                                               
number of dedicated  seats from two to one,  removes the language                                                               
that there shall  be a tourism seat, and adds  the language, "One                                                               
member  shall   be  appointed  whose  predominant   use  of  game                                                               
resources  is  nonconsumptive  and  who is  actively  engaged  in                                                               
wildlife conservation."                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER  recalled that a public  hearing was held                                                               
on the  original bill  and surmised that  a public  hearing would                                                               
not be held on Version J [if adopted as the working document].                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied correct.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   RAUSCHER   asked  whether   the   aforementioned                                                               
explanation of Version J is the only difference.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON responded correct.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
5:35:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON  removed  his  objection.    There  being  no                                                               
further objection, Version J was before the committee.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
5:35:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH   offered  [Conceptual  Amendment   1]  as                                                               
follows:  Page 1, Section 1,  line 13, delete "shall", and insert                                                               
"should".                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
5:36:03 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR TARR stated that either  "shall" or "may" is the typical                                                               
language  that is  used,  rather than  "should",  when wanting  a                                                               
provision to  be either prescriptive  or permissive.   Therefore,                                                               
she  would leave  it  up  to the  drafters  at Legislative  Legal                                                               
Services, Legislative  Affairs Agency,  to determine  whether the                                                               
word should be changed from "shall" to "may".                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TUCK agreed  with Co-Chair  Tarr and  pointed out                                                               
that  page 1,  line  7, states  the governor  "shall".   He  said                                                               
"shall" and "may"  constitute the standard language  that is used                                                               
throughout the state's statutes.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said the  committee needs to know whether                                                               
"shall" or "may" agrees with the  sponsor of the bill because, in                                                               
her opinion, "should" sounds permissive.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER requested the  sponsor to give an example                                                               
of someone who would fit the description in the bill.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON replied  that this  person shall  reflect all                                                               
the uses of game in the  state by residents.  In further response                                                               
to  Representative  Rauscher  he  clarified  that  he  reads  the                                                               
language to mean the appointee  should reflect these user groups,                                                               
not  necessarily  that   the  appointee  must  be   a  sport  and                                                               
subsistence hunter, trapper, and tourist all at the same time.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER requested the  sponsor to give an example                                                               
of a person who can fill  this, such as whether this person would                                                               
be someone  like a wildlife  photographer or someone  involved in                                                               
conservation who has  been involved in all  these different types                                                               
of situations.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON  noted that two different  sentences are added                                                               
in  Version J  and he  thought that  Representative Rauscher  was                                                               
addressing the  second, but it seems  the first one is  now being                                                               
addressed.  He maintained that  the current language on diversity                                                               
on page 1, line 9, is not  reflected in the makeup of the current                                                               
board.  He  recalled Mr. Spraker, chairman of the  board, and who                                                               
has been  on the board  since 2002, definitively  stating earlier                                                               
that a  nonconsumptive user is needed  on the board.   He further                                                               
recalled Mr.  Spraker stating that  someone like  Ben Grussendorf                                                               
was  the kind  of  person who  is  needed because  nonconsumptive                                                               
users thought that Mr. Grussendorf heard them.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
5:40:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  spoke further  on Conceptual  Amendment 1.                                                               
He said the current language  in Version J is strictly permissive                                                               
and  the proposed  language change  is  aspirational rather  than                                                               
prescriptive  or permissive.    The proposed  language would  say                                                               
this is  the goal rather  than something  that shall be  done and                                                               
that failing to do  so would be a violation of  statute.  He said                                                               
he  thinks it  is  best  to have  the  language  speaking to  the                                                               
[legislature's]  purpose and  he thinks  it  is best  to leave  a                                                               
degree of flexibility in it.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON  asked whether  it is  Representative Parish's                                                               
preference to persist with the proposed language of "should".                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH  responded  yes,   subject  to  review  by                                                               
Legislative Legal Services.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER  stated he  is not  speaking in  favor of                                                               
the bill,  but is speaking in  favor of the amendment  because he                                                               
understands what  the maker  of the amendment  is trying  to say.                                                               
He said the  amendment looks like the question  he had previously                                                               
asked because  he is  unsure this  provision could  really happen                                                               
and then when it didn't it would be a violation of statute.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK  offered his understanding that  the maker of                                                               
the amendment  believes "should" would be  permissive rather than                                                               
mandatory.   He  asked whether  the bill  sponsor's intention  is                                                               
that it be mandatory.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON answered that, as  stated by Co-Chair Tarr and                                                               
Representative Tuck,  "may" or "shall"  are consistent  with what                                                               
he has read.   There is no  doubt, he continued, that  there is a                                                               
distinction between these two words.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
5:44:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll call vote was  taken.  Representatives Rauscher and Parish                                                               
voted  in  favor  of Conceptual  Amendment  1.    Representatives                                                               
Talerico,  Tuck (alternate),  Drummond,  Johnson, Josephson,  and                                                               
Tarr voted against it.   Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 failed                                                               
to be adopted by a vote of 2-6.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON  said she  received a suggestion  which is                                                               
that a definition  of nonconsumptive should be  included into the                                                               
bill.  She requested the sponsor's thoughts on this suggestion.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON  replied that thought  was given to  that very                                                               
thing, which  is why [Version J]  describes it as someone  who is                                                               
actively  engaged  in wildlife  conservation.    For purposes  of                                                               
making a  record for posterity, he  said it would be  someone who                                                               
generally  speaking, isn't  necessarily going  to be  inclined to                                                               
not vote  for hunting    that  is not  what is  intended.   It is                                                               
someone who  has some belief  that wildlife is also  for watching                                                               
and  viewing,  particularly  when there  are  contentious  issues                                                               
involving methods and means.   For example, he continued, Dr. Van                                                               
Daele talked  about his preference  that bears not be  trapped or                                                               
snared, which  is a minority  opinion on  the board, and  that is                                                               
the sort of diversity that a nonconsumptive user could bring.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TUCK  (alternate)  offered his  appreciation  for                                                               
Representative Johnson's question.   He pointed out  that what is                                                               
not being  said by  Version J  is someone who  just goes  out and                                                               
shoots  game  and  doesn't  eat  it.    What  the  bill  says  is                                                               
"predominant  use of  game resources  is  nonconsumptive", so  he                                                               
would read this as excluding  professional hunters.  He noted the                                                               
language goes on  to state, "who is actively  engaged in wildlife                                                               
conservation."  Many professional  hunters are also into wildlife                                                               
conservation, he continued, so the CS  puts a balance in there to                                                               
demonstrate that  these are not necessarily  nonhunters, but that                                                               
they are  not predominantly for  consumptive use as would  be had                                                               
in a profession.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH related  that  consumptive  is defined  in                                                               
Dictionary.com  as   pertaining  to  consumption  by   use,  when                                                               
something is  consumed it is  used up.  Therefore,  he concluded,                                                               
when  a  person  takes  pictures of  wildlife,  wildlife  is  not                                                               
necessarily  damaged   in  the  process,  thereby   making  it  a                                                               
nonconsumptive use.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND commented she  has heard a nonconsumptive                                                               
user described as someone who only  takes a photo from the field,                                                               
the animal is not taken.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
5:48:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  RAUSCHER posited  that nonconsumptive  could mean                                                               
conservation, and that could be  management but not utilizing any                                                               
of it for a refrigerator.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON  ascertained  no  one else  wished  to  offer                                                               
additional amendments  and announced  the committee is  now under                                                               
discussion of the proposed CS.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TALERICO  stated  he  is  not  in  favor  of  the                                                               
proposed CS  as written, nor  the amendment.  After  reciting the                                                               
proposed new language,  he said Representative Tuck  brought up a                                                               
good point.   He  stated he  considers himself  to be  a wildlife                                                               
conservationist because he invests  financially every year in the                                                               
conservation  of game  via  the purchase  of  a hunting  license,                                                               
which goes towards game conservation.   He said he also regularly                                                               
goes out  to view  animals with  a spotting  scope and  does more                                                               
viewing than actual  taking of game.  Therefore,  he posited, his                                                               
predominant use  could very well be  described as nonconsumptive.                                                               
He noted that  current statute states, "with a  view to providing                                                               
diversity of interest and points of  view in the membership."  He                                                               
further noted that it is the  governor at the time that makes the                                                               
appointments to the  Board of Game and because of  the wording in                                                               
current  statute  it   is  really  the  choice   of  the  state's                                                               
administrator  at that  particular time.   He  predicted a  bumpy                                                               
road ahead  [if the bill is  passed] that could result  in coming                                                               
to a  point of having  to determine what  every seat will  be and                                                               
what the  requirements will  be for each  seat, such  as wildlife                                                               
biologist or guide, along with a definition of consumer.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
5:52:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON addressed  Representative Talerico's point                                                               
by posing  a scenario in  which someone is a  nonconsumptive user                                                               
by virtue of  snapping pictures and watching grouse  but who also                                                               
goes hunting occasionally.   She asked whether  this person would                                                               
be excluded from appointment to the nonconsumptive seat.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON  replied that a  lot of thought went  into how                                                               
to craft  something like this  and the  history of the  bill will                                                               
reflect, starting with the invited  testimony, what was trying to                                                               
be  achieved.   He  said a  court  would look  at  this and  say,                                                               
"They're trying to do something  different in this sentence, this                                                               
is different - this is different  than the other six spots."  The                                                               
court would have to make that determination, he maintained.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
5:53:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  RAUSCHER  said  it   is  his  understanding  that                                                               
whatever is talked  about in this committee on this  side when it                                                               
goes to  court will be  used as the  intent of what  was intended                                                               
here.  So,  when it does go to court  committee members will need                                                               
to define  in their conversation  the intent of what  the sponsor                                                               
is trying to get across here.   He requested the sponsor to state                                                               
his intent.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON remarked:                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     This seat would be held  by someone who does not oppose                                                                    
     hunting,  but who  opposes the  methods and  means that                                                                    
     I've seen employed  in the last 15 years  that are very                                                                    
     unusual.   And  these  include things  like gassing  of                                                                    
     wolf pups and bear snaring  and bear trapping and same-                                                                    
     day  airborne,  and  land  and  shoot  at  wolves,  and                                                                    
     intensive  game management  which didn't  exist before,                                                                    
     or at  least wasn't implemented  prior to 2002.  ? They                                                                    
     would  have to  follow the  law.   I'm not  saying they                                                                    
     wouldn't follow the  law.  So, if there  was a proposal                                                                    
     for  intensive game  management they'd  have to  follow                                                                    
     that  law.   But  they would  give a  voice  to the  85                                                                    
     percent  of  the  people who  don't  have  hunting  and                                                                    
     trapping licenses.  That's who  they'd give a voice to.                                                                    
     That's the plan.  That's the goal.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH recited the  current statute, which states,                                                               
"The governor shall appoint each  member on the basis of interest                                                               
in public affairs,  good judgment, knowledge, and  ability in the                                                               
field  of action  of  the board,  and with  a  view to  providing                                                               
diversity  of interest  and points  of view  in the  membership."                                                               
Referring to today's  testimony by the Board  of Game appointees,                                                               
he noted  that Mr. Spraker  has a great  deal of reason  to know,                                                               
that Dr.  Van Daele recognized  the importance  of nonconsumptive                                                               
use, and  that Ms.  Linnell referenced  the importance  of having                                                               
resources  available  for  all  the  user  groups  including  the                                                               
nonconsumptive.   However, he continued,  his impression  is that                                                               
the status  quo isn't,  and hasn't been,  working quite  right in                                                               
that [the Board of Game] does  not have the diversity of interest                                                               
and points of  view that are really representative  of the Alaska                                                               
population as  a whole, and that  failure is what this  bill aims                                                               
to address.   The  word nonconsumptive  is someone  whose primary                                                               
use is  nonconsumptive, although this person  can still certainly                                                               
be a hunter so  long as his or her primary use  is elsewhere.  He                                                               
offered his support  for the bill, but said he  cannot promise he                                                               
won't  ask  Legislative  Legal   Services  about  the  difference                                                               
between "should" and "shall".                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
5:57:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR TARR  pointed out that  the Board  of Game and  Board of                                                               
Fisheries statutes were written at  the time of statehood.  Since                                                               
then the  state has grown quite  a bit, she continued,  and there                                                               
are now  many more stakeholder  groups.   She said she  sees this                                                               
process as  being a maturing and  evolving of the state  and that                                                               
considering the  viewpoints of  a variety  of interest  groups is                                                               
what is  bringing things to this  point, and which is  why she is                                                               
supporting the bill.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
5:58:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER  stated that  naming a definition  of one                                                               
particular seat  is inconsistent with  the other six seats.   For                                                               
this  reason alone,  although he  doesn't think  a nonconsumptive                                                               
seat should not  be on the board, he offered  his belief that the                                                               
bill seeks to  dictate the definition of one of  the directors on                                                               
this  board but  not the  other six.   This  is not  in the  best                                                               
interest, he  posited, because  it could  lead toward  naming the                                                               
definition and dictating belief systems  when the way it has been                                                               
done to  date has  been fair.   Therefore, he  said, he  would be                                                               
voting no on the bill.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
5:59:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  TARR  moved to  report  the  proposed  CS for  HB  134,                                                               
Version  30-LS0473\J, Bullard,  3/28/17,  out  of committee  with                                                               
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
6:00:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote was  taken.  Representatives  Tuck (alternate),                                                               
Drummond,  Parish, Tarr,  and  Josephson voted  in  favor of  the                                                               
bill.   Representatives  Johnson,  Rauscher,  and Talerico  voted                                                               
against  it.   Therefore,  CSHB 134(RES)  was  reported from  the                                                               
House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5-3.                                                                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
Henry Tiffany IV_Redacted.pdf HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board
Adam Trombley 2015_Redacted.pdf HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board
James Atkins 2016_Redacted.pdf HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board
Thomas Sullivan Jr._Redacted.pdf HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board
Karen Linnell_Redacted.pdf HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Game
Thomas Lamal_Redacted.pdf HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Game
Ted Spraker 2016_Redacted.pdf HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Game
Lawrence Van Daele_Redacted.pdf HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Game
Tom Lamal -BOG- Letters of Support 3.28.17.pdf.pdf HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Game
HB 134 vers J.pdf HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 134
Linnell Support 3.31.17.pdf HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
Board of Game
HB 134 vers J.pdf HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 134
HB 134 Opposition Document - Note in Opposition Harpster 3.31.17.pdf HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 134
HB134 Fiscal Note DFG-BBS 3.17.17.pdf HRES 3/31/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 134