Legislature(2003 - 2004)

05/19/2003 10:35 PM RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
     CSHB 24(JUD)-AGREEMENTS ON MANAGEMENT OF FISH AND GAME                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE  WEYHRAUCH, sponsor  of HB 24,  told members                                                               
HB 24  follows on  the heels of  legislation introduced  by Chair                                                               
Ogan that said the state will  in no way cooperate or spend funds                                                               
on  the Glacier  Bay  lawsuit.  He explained  that  in the  early                                                               
1980s, in  the Alaska Wildlife  Alliance versus Jensen  case, the                                                               
District Court  of Alaska and  the Ninth Circuit  Court indicated                                                               
that ANILCA  did not prohibit  commercial fishing in  Glacier Bay                                                               
but  that  the  National  Park   Service  could  prohibit  it  by                                                               
regulation.  Thereafter,  the  National   Park  Service  began  a                                                               
process  of promulgating  regulations  to  prohibit and  restrict                                                               
commercial  fishing in  Glacier  Bay National  Park. Senator  Ted                                                               
Stevens  then  introduced  legislation, which  Congress  adopted,                                                               
that said  commercial fishing should  be closed in  certain areas                                                               
of the  park and restricted to  those who have a  lifetime access                                                               
permit for the  tanner, halibut and salmon  troll fisheries. That                                                               
is  the status  of  fishing  in Glacier  Bay  now. Congress  also                                                               
established a compensation program  related to those closures and                                                               
restrictions.   Senator    Frank   Murkowski    then   introduced                                                               
legislation, S 501,  which Congress adopted, that  said the State                                                               
of  Alaska and  the National  Park Service  shall enter  into co-                                                               
management agreements  on the management of  commercial fisheries                                                               
in the outside waters of Glacier Bay National Park.                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  WEYHRAUCH  told  members  HB  24  was  originally                                                               
introduced to  prohibit the  State of  Alaska from  entering into                                                               
any  co-management agreement  with  the federal  government or  a                                                               
sovereign  entity. If  it did  enter into  those agreements,  the                                                               
legislature  would  have to  review  the  agreements. During  the                                                               
hearings  in  the House,  it  became  apparent that  certain  co-                                                               
management agreements  between the federal and  state governments                                                               
benefit the  State of Alaska,  such as the management  of bowhead                                                               
whales or  waterfowl, so the  House did  not want to  prohibit or                                                               
require legislative review of  all co-management agreements. CSHB
24(JUD)  now says  the  State of  Alaska may  not  enter into  an                                                               
agreement that cedes jurisdiction to  the federal government.  He                                                               
     You do not  want to have any  state...public servant or                                                                    
     bureaucrat, having  a co-management agreement  with the                                                                    
     federal   government   that   cedes   jurisdiction   by                                                                    
     contract,  which   we  can't  do  by   Constitution  or                                                                    
     statute.  And, tactically,  the reason  you want  to do                                                                    
     that is  because eventually  if the  federal government                                                                    
     says   we  have   management  jurisdiction   over  this                                                                    
     resource, and  you agreed to  that in a  contract, then                                                                    
     that may  undermine any argument that  says no, federal                                                                    
     government,  you  don't  have  management  jurisdiction                                                                    
     over our resources  - the State of Alaska  does. So, by                                                                    
     passing this statute, tactically,  you can say if there                                                                    
     were   a   co-management   agreement   and   it   ceded                                                                    
     jurisdiction  of management  over a  fishery, it  would                                                                    
     have been  void as against  public policy of  the State                                                                    
     of Alaska.  And I think  that's, sort of as  a tactical                                                                    
     reason,  why  this  was   introduced,  to  prohibit  by                                                                    
     contract  what we  can't do  by statute  or regulation,                                                                    
     the  secession of  our management  and jurisdiction  of                                                                    
     our resources to the federal government.                                                                                   
CHAIR OGAN said he toured the  Situk River in Yakutat a few years                                                               
ago, an  area with some  conflicts. A federal permit  is required                                                               
to float a state river. He said  he got an earful from the locals                                                               
in  the  area and  had  to  hold  his  tongue while  the  federal                                                               
officials  were checking  everyone's  permits. He  asked if  this                                                               
legislation will deal with that problem.                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH  said it  would if  the State  of Alaska                                                               
and the  National Park  Service said  the federal  government has                                                               
jurisdiction to manage  the [riverbed] on behalf of  the state or                                                               
if [the state] cedes jurisdiction  of fish and game management on                                                               
that  river. It  is narrow  on  those issues.  It arguably  could                                                               
address  the co-management  agreement between  the National  Park                                                               
Service and the state if the  state, by management agreement or a                                                               
memorandum  of  understanding,  says  it will  give  the  federal                                                               
government  the  authority to  do  so,  whether  or not  that  is                                                               
allowable under the Alaska Constitution.  He said the legislation                                                               
is  intended to  make  any admission  by the  state  void if  the                                                               
federal government intends  to use it against the  state later in                                                               
CHAIR OGAN  asked a  representative of the  Department of  Law to                                                               
comment on the  legislation and describe its  application "in the                                                               
MR. STEVE  WHITE, Assistant Attorney  General, Department  of Law                                                               
(DOL), told members  he talked to staff at  the Alaska Department                                                               
of Fish  and Game (ADF&G)  who could not identify  any agreements                                                               
this legislation  would apply  to at  this time.  HB 24  would be                                                               
preventive  for  future  agreements. He  said  as  Representative                                                               
Weyhrauch said, the  intent is not to interfere  with the state's                                                               
interaction   with   the   federal  government   on   cooperative                                                               
management that does  not give away the state's  authority in any                                                               
manner.  For  example,  the state  cooperates  with  the  federal                                                               
government to implement fishery  management plans under the North                                                               
Pacific  Fisheries  Management  Council and  it  shares  research                                                               
information  for subsistence  management  on  federal lands.  The                                                               
state  and federal  governments  also  have agreements  involving                                                               
migratory waterfowl.  In those  situations, the  state cooperates                                                               
with the  federal government,  which was  given the  authority by                                                               
Congress  through  the Supremacy  Clause,  to  regulate in  those                                                               
areas.  The  state  assists  to   make  sure  its  interests  are                                                               
MR.  WHITE said  if  ADF&G  attempted to  give  away the  state's                                                               
management  authority, the  contract  would be  subject to  being                                                               
voided by the  courts because it would be outside  of the state's                                                               
authority to do so.                                                                                                             
CHAIR OGAN  said he  begs to differ  that no  existing agreements                                                               
have  given  away authority.  He  said  a  recent ruling  by  the                                                               
federal  subsistence board  for subsistence  fishing for  rainbow                                                               
trout  in   western  Alaska  is  egregious,   according  to  some                                                               
biologists.  He  also   referred  to  the  20   halibut  per  day                                                               
subsistence catch  established by the federal  subsistence board.                                                               
He  said  he  is  concerned   that  while  the  state  might  not                                                               
technically  be ceding  its  authority,  the federal  subsistence                                                               
board  does not  have a  mandate to  manage for  sustained yield.                                                               
Therefore,  the  state  is allowing  the  federal  government  to                                                               
manage  its resources  in  state waters  and  submerged lands  by                                                               
doing nothing, which is ceding by default.                                                                                      
SENATOR  SEEKINS asked  if the  state has  cooperative agreements                                                               
with the  federal government for  the management of fish  for any                                                               
purpose within  the navigable  streams or  within three  miles of                                                               
the coastline of the state at this time.                                                                                        
MR. WHITE said  he is personally not aware of  any. He noted that                                                               
Mr. Williams of ADF&G was shaking his head "no."                                                                                
SENATOR SEEKINS  asked, if the  federal government claims  it has                                                               
management authority over fish for  subsistence uses in the Yukon                                                               
River, whether ADF&G recognizes that  claim and enters into a co-                                                               
management agreement.                                                                                                           
MR. WHITE  said the  situation on  subsistence is  very difficult                                                               
because  the federal  government  has  management authority  over                                                               
some navigable waters but not all.                                                                                              
SENATOR SEEKINS  said in  the Totemoff  case, the  Alaska Supreme                                                               
Court said that is not true.                                                                                                    
MR. WHITE agreed.                                                                                                               
SENATOR SEEKINS  asked if Mr.  White is saying the  Totemoff case                                                               
is tolled so that the state can have these agreements.                                                                          
MR. WHITE replied,  "No. The Ninth Circuit ruled  contrary to the                                                               
state supreme court on the Totemoff case."                                                                                      
SENATOR SEEKINS  disagreed. He said  the Totemoff case  was never                                                               
brought  to the  Ninth Circuit  Court. The  Alaska Supreme  Court                                                               
said, in  the Totemoff  case, that  the State  of Alaska  did not                                                               
have to recognize the federal claims.                                                                                           
CHAIR  OGAN clarified  the decision  said that  is the  situation                                                               
unless the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.                                                                                 
SENATOR SEEKINS again  asked if the state is now  involved in any                                                               
co-management agreements  in violation  of the  Totemoff decision                                                               
made by the Alaska Supreme Court.                                                                                               
MR. WHITE said  he does not believe the state  has any agreements                                                               
along  those  lines.  ADF&G  is   closely  watching  the  federal                                                               
government's  exertion over  subsistence management  and, if  the                                                               
federal  government goes  beyond  what ANILCA  allows, the  state                                                               
would challenge.                                                                                                                
SENATOR SEEKINS said  that is his concern. He again  asked if the                                                               
state  is  complying, via  contract,  or  spending any  money  to                                                               
assist the federal government to  exert management authority over                                                               
fish on the state's submerged lands.                                                                                            
MR.  WHITE said  he does  not believe  the state  has any  formal                                                               
agreements. He  said the  state shares  research and  comments on                                                               
proposals,  such  as the  subsistence  halibut  fishery. He  said                                                               
ADF&G  objected   to  a  recent   proposal  before   the  federal                                                               
subsistence board to  allow for customary trade.  He told members                                                               
to the  extent the  federal subsistence  board is  taking action,                                                               
ADF&G is commenting  to protect the state's interests  but it has                                                               
not entered into any agreements to assist the federal board.                                                                    
CHAIR OGAN  stated, "I'd like  to add  a comment. I  can't resist                                                               
taking the  bait. You  said they  were just  watching it  and the                                                               
department just  sat back  and watched  while the  feds undermine                                                               
the sovereign  rights of  our state to  manage our  resources and                                                               
the Governor rolled over - the  last Governor rolled over and, in                                                               
my opinion, violated his oath in the process...."                                                                               
SENATOR SEEKINS  said he  was just  curious whether  any existing                                                               
contracts would violate HB 24, if it is enacted.                                                                                
MR. WHITE again said no existing contracts would.                                                                               
SENATOR  WAGONER  asked   Representative  Weyhrauch  whether  the                                                               
lifetime permits in  Glacier Bay include the  halibut fishery and                                                               
whether  they  are  transferable  or restricted  to  the  current                                                               
owners.  He questioned  whether [Congress]  made a  withdrawal so                                                               
that the  state will never again  be able to go  into Glacier Bay                                                               
and harvest its resources.                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE  WEYHRAUCH  said  the congressional  action  means                                                               
that no  more commercial  fishing operations  will take  place in                                                               
Glacier  Bay.  Sport  fishing,  charter  fishing,  cruise  ships,                                                               
kayaking and hiking,  among other activities, will  be allowed in                                                               
Glacier Bay.                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  BEN STEVENS  said he  believes the  permit holders  were                                                               
compensated as well.                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  WEYHRAUCH  told  members  that  $23  million  was                                                               
awarded  to people  who made  claims for  compensation under  the                                                               
portion  of  the congressional  act  that  closed and  restricted                                                               
commercial  fishing in  Glacier Bay.  Those commercial  fishermen                                                               
who  received  lifetime  access  permits  may  or  may  not  have                                                               
received  compensation; they  could have  applied. Some  lifetime                                                               
access permit  holders applied but  were denied  either initially                                                               
or because they  initially obtained money but  were then reversed                                                               
to  zero on  appeal because  the National  Park Service  tinkered                                                               
with the numbers for the compensation program.                                                                                  
SENATOR  BEN STEVENS  stated, "If  the federal  government had  a                                                               
clause like  this in  their law,  the FMPs  [Fisheries Management                                                               
Plans] and North Pacific and  civil co-management agreements that                                                               
we manage for the feds now would not be able to exist."                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE   WEYHRAUCH  said   outside   of  the   three-mile                                                               
boundaries, those  could still exist,  particularly for  the crab                                                               
FMP  in  the  Bering  Sea.   The  State  of  Alaska  and  federal                                                               
government could still enter  into those co-management agreements                                                               
because that  is a federally  managed resource. The intent  of HB
24  is to  address state  waters and  to say  if a  co-management                                                               
agreement  cedes  management   or  jurisdiction  unauthorized  by                                                               
statute or  the Alaska  Constitution, an  agreement could  not be                                                               
made by contract.                                                                                                               
SENATOR BEN STEVENS said if the  table was turned and the federal                                                               
government could not cede management  authority to the state, the                                                               
state  could  not enter  into  a  management agreement  with  the                                                               
federal government.                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  WEYHRAUCH  said the  state  could  enter into  an                                                               
agreement with the federal government  if the State of Alaska had                                                               
a claim  over the management  and jurisdiction  by constitutional                                                               
right.  That   jurisdiction  would  exist  no   matter  what  the                                                               
management  agreement  said.  The  jurisdiction  and  management,                                                               
whether federal or  state, still exist. If the state  has a claim                                                               
on  the management  and jurisdiction  over  those fishing  rights                                                               
under law, it could not give those away by contract.                                                                            
SENATOR  BEN STEVENS  asked  if  the state  could  not give  away                                                               
management by contract.                                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH replied:                                                                                               
     It can't  give it away -  it can't say we  give you the                                                                    
     right  to  have  management  and  jurisdiction  of  our                                                                    
     resources by  contract because  if that  was prohibited                                                                    
     by Constitution or statute, the  state couldn't give it                                                                    
     away  by   contract.  The  state  couldn't   cede  that                                                                    
     jurisdiction by contract what it  can't cede now by law                                                                    
     or Constitution.  So, by entering into  a co-management                                                                    
     agreement, or - if you  want to call it a co-management                                                                    
     agreement -  an agreement  with the  federal government                                                                    
     of  federal  fisheries,  the  state  isn't  ceding  any                                                                    
     jurisdiction over  those fishery resources  because the                                                                    
     state  by Constitution  doesn't have  jurisdiction over                                                                    
     those resources. It's a federal resource.                                                                                  
SENATOR BEN  STEVENS said  he was suggesting  a role  reversal so                                                               
the federal government could not  cede its authority to manage to                                                               
the  state.  The  state manages  federal  resources,  in  certain                                                               
instances, but the state would not be able to cede to them.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH  said the state could  allow the federal                                                               
government  to manage  the resource  in the  state. CSHB  24(JUD)                                                               
would  prohibit any  assertion that  the state  has given  up its                                                               
management and jurisdiction over  those resources by contract. If                                                               
the state has a dispute with  the federal government over who has                                                               
the right,  the federal  government could not  claim it  in court                                                               
via  the  contract.  The contract  cannot  override  the  state's                                                               
plenary  ability  to  manage  and   have  jurisdiction  over  the                                                               
resources and nothing by contract diminishes the legal argument.                                                                
SENATOR  SEEKINS  said  he  believes  Representative  Weyhrauch's                                                               
argument parallels  a decision in  an early 1990s case  named New                                                               
York  State  versus  United  States  of  America.  That  decision                                                               
basically said  a sovereign cannot  realign the  boundary between                                                               
these  sovereigns by  agreement.  It  would have  to  be done  by                                                               
constitutional amendment.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  WEYHRAUCH added,  "Or  to say  that  we have  the                                                               
legal authority to do that - nothing diminishes that."                                                                          
SENATOR SEEKINS agreed and said  CSHB 24(JUD) is a restatement of                                                               
that decision. He said he likes  that approach because it is also                                                               
consistent with the  Dinkum Sands case. He asked if  the State of                                                               
Alaska is  involved in a [U.S.]  Supreme Court case right  now on                                                               
the ownership of the submerged lands in Glacier Bay.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH  said that case is  Alaska versus United                                                               
States, which is  a quiet title action filed in  the U.S. Supreme                                                               
SENATOR  SEEKINS  asked  if  CSHB 24(JUD)  merely  says  that  no                                                               
agreement the state enters into affects its sovereign control.                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said that is  correct. He noted that Mr.                                                               
Somerville  has provided  him  with several  examples  of how  it                                                               
works with the federal fisheries.                                                                                               
SENATOR  SEEKINS maintained  that CSHB  24(JUD) will  not prevent                                                               
the  state  from  entering  into  a  contract  with  the  federal                                                               
government. It  just allows the  federal government to  manage if                                                               
it has  the manpower  and will  but it  retains ownership  by the                                                               
CHAIR OGAN said  his concern in the past has  been that the state                                                               
has been  terribly inconsistent with assertion  of sovereignty on                                                               
navigable waters. He commented:                                                                                                 
     We're saying on one hand  we want to assert sovereignty                                                                    
     in Glacier Bay  because we all agree on  that one. But,                                                                    
     losing  by  default by  not  appealing  to the  Supreme                                                                    
     Court,  we  gave up  sovereignty  of  the rest  of  the                                                                    
     submerged  lands -  it's a  pretty schizophrenic  state                                                                    
     position  and   set  a  terrible  precedent   and  it's                                                                    
     probably one of the reasons we're here now.                                                                                
SENATOR  BEN  STEVENS  pointed  out  that  the  reference  to  AS                                                               
16.20.010, on page 2, line  5, relates to legislative recognition                                                               
of  a  state  game  refuge.   [Section  1]  says  the  state  has                                                               
jurisdiction over all fish and game  in the state except in those                                                               
areas where it has assented to  federal control but the state has                                                               
not assented to control of fish  and game in Glacier Bay National                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH  asked that Mr. Somerville  address some                                                               
of the federal issues that Senator Stevens raised.                                                                              
MR. RON  SOMERVILLE, advisor  on natural  resource issues  to the                                                               
House  and Senate  Majorities, told  members that  the state  has                                                               
concurrent jurisdiction  but it can adopt  regulations within the                                                               
regulations  adopted by  the federal  agencies related  to marine                                                               
mammals, waterfowl, and halibut. In  other cases, such as federal                                                               
jurisdiction  beyond the  state's  waters,  the federal  agencies                                                               
delegate authority to  manage those areas; they do  not cede that                                                               
authority to the  state. The federal government  allows the state                                                               
to  manage  halibut  under  the  treaty, but  it  has  not  ceded                                                               
authority to the state.                                                                                                         
CHAIR  OGAN remarked,  "In  other  words, we  roll  over but  not                                                               
without kicking a little bit."                                                                                                  
MR. SOMERVILLE  said that is one  way of putting it  but, in some                                                               
cases, such  as with  marine mammals, the  state is  preempted so                                                               
anything  it   gets  at  the   preemption  process   the  federal                                                               
government can delegate back to the state.                                                                                      
SENATOR  SEEKINS  asked if  the  supremacy  clause overrides  the                                                               
state in the management of fish and game in state waters.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said  the State of Alaska  came into the                                                               
Union with the promise that it  would be on an equal footing with                                                               
other states. That  was affirmed in a Utah lands  case before the                                                               
U.S. Supreme Court.  The state was in a constant  battle with the                                                               
federal government to  assert that it should be  on equal footing                                                               
with the  other states and  colonies and that Alaska  should have                                                               
control and  management over  its submerged  lands and  waters at                                                               
statehood.  That  has  been  a defining  moment  in  the  state's                                                               
history  and the  dispute will  continue of  who should  control,                                                               
own,  manage and  have use  of  lands in  the state.  He said  he                                                               
cannot answer Senator Seekins' question  but he is very concerned                                                               
about the issue.  He repeated that the intent  of the legislation                                                               
is to  make it clear that  no agent of  the state, who is  not an                                                               
elected  official,   or  through  constitutional   and  statutory                                                               
amendment,  is   allowed  to  diminish   our  ability   to  claim                                                               
management and jurisdiction of our resources.                                                                                   
CHAIR OGAN  commented that the  state not only gained  control of                                                               
submerged lands [at statehood] but  it also gained title to those                                                               
submerged  lands. The  equal footing  provision was  specifically                                                               
included  in  the  Statehood  Act:  the  quitclaim  of  title  to                                                               
submerged lands  and with it  the right  to control not  only the                                                               
lands but the water columns and fish and game in it.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH clarified that  title case is before the                                                               
U.S. Supreme Court's master at this time.                                                                                       
CHAIR OGAN  stated, "But  the goofy ruling  of the  Ninth Circuit                                                               
saying  the  reserved  water  rights   doctrine  -  because  this                                                               
molecule of water  ran across federal lands somehow  gets them to                                                               
control all of the fishing  downstream, is what the last Governor                                                               
dropped the ball on."                                                                                                           
SENATOR  SEEKINS asked  if the  Statehood Act  provided that  the                                                               
State of Alaska  was the beneficiary of the  1953 Submerged Lands                                                               
Act in equal footing with all other states.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said he could not answer that question.                                                                
SENATOR SEEKINS said it is his understanding that it did.                                                                       
SENATOR BEN STEVENS asked why  AS 16.20.010 is referenced on page                                                               
2 since it has no definition of management.                                                                                     
SENATOR SEEKINS pointed  out the words, "added by Sec.  1 of this                                                               
Act." follow.                                                                                                                   
SENATOR  BEN STEVENS  said his  point  is that  the language  [in                                                               
Section 1] is restricted to  AS 16.20.010, which pertains only to                                                               
Glacier Bay.                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  WEYHRAUCH  said  he  continually  queried  George                                                               
Utermohle,  who  drafted  the  legislation,  about  Sec.  2.  Mr.                                                               
Utermohle said  Sec. 2  was necessary  as a  transitory provision                                                               
for existing agreements  and was "phase-out" language  to put the                                                               
agencies  on notice.  He said  the "meat"  of the  legislation is                                                               
Sec.1, which addresses management.                                                                                              
SENATOR BEN  STEVENS said the  way he reads the  bill, subsection                                                               
(c) only applies to AS 16.20.010.                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said that is correct.                                                                                  
SENATOR BEN  STEVENS said then all  of the talk about  other fish                                                               
and  game on  state lands  does  not apply  because AS  16.20.010                                                               
applies  only to  Glacier Bay  National Park,  bird and  national                                                               
wildlife  refuges or  navigable  waters within  or adjoining  the                                                               
park and preserve.                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH replied:                                                                                               
     ...what  happened  in  this committee  is  exactly  the                                                                    
     dynamic that happened in  House Judiciary, where people                                                                    
     wanted to  make it  very broad  and the  discussion got                                                                    
     very  broad and  philosophical and  you bring  in every                                                                    
     agency  and every  agreement. But  the  intent of  this                                                                    
     bill was  to deal with the  co-management agreements in                                                                    
     Glacier Bay  National Park and  S 501 by  Senator Frank                                                                    
     Murkowski,  which   required  co-management  agreements                                                                    
     between the state and federal government.                                                                                  
MR.  SOMERVILLE  said Senator  Stevens  is  correct in  that  the                                                               
sponsor's intent was to cover Glacier Bay and the mandatory co-                                                                 
management agreements.   The  request of  the House  committee to                                                               
expand it to include all state  lands and waters should have been                                                               
placed in a separate section.                                                                                                   
SENATOR BEN STEVENS said that is what he was trying to clarify.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE   WEYHRAUCH   told   members  that   the   [House]                                                               
committees wanted to make the  bill apply to every agreement with                                                               
every agency.  However, that  would have  made the  bill unwieldy                                                               
and  could  have  harmed  some   of  the  potentially  beneficial                                                               
ministerial contracts  the state  has entered  into. He  said the                                                               
focus was  on Glacier Bay  because of  S 501, which  mandated co-                                                               
management  agreements with  the  state. He  believes the  Alaska                                                               
Department  of  Fish  and  Game   should  never  cede  management                                                               
jurisdiction that  might somehow decrease the  state's ability to                                                               
defend it later in court.                                                                                                       
SENATOR  DYSON  said he  appreciates  the  sponsor's efforts  and                                                               
believes the legislation  is narrowly aimed and  well crafted. He                                                               
said his  last comment characterized the  feelings of legislators                                                               
in that they  would all like to expand the  legislation but it is                                                               
inappropriate to do  so at this time. He then  moved CSHB 24(JUD)                                                               
out  of committee  with individual  recommendations and  its zero                                                               
fiscal note.                                                                                                                    
CHAIR OGAN announced that without  objection, the motion carried.                                                               
He then announced an at-ease.                                                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects