This page is no longer used please use
21st Legislature(1999-2000)

Committee Minutes

Mar 29, 2000

CO-CHAIR HUDSON announced that the first order of business was CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 267(FIN), "An Act relating to management of

Number 0176

SENATOR PETE KELLY, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SB 267,
indicated the issue is the pressing matter of predator control in
Alaska; more specifically, it is wolf control. He explained that
a number of circumstances have occurred in the state, resulting
in a situation where the state is no longer able to manage many
of its renewable natural resources. He referred to the 1996
ballot initiative; he said the voters could not have foreseen
that as a result of that vote, people in rural Alaska would have
their dogs taken off of their front porches and eaten by wolves.
Nor could they have foreseen mothers in rural Alaska being afraid
for their children who were coming and going from school, because
the wolves were no longer confining themselves to the area
outside of the village. Nor could they have foreseen that people
in rural Alaska would be stalked by wolves, which are becoming
more bold. The wolves have eaten the resources, which rural
Alaskans depend upon, to the point where they are cannibalizing
themselves. He stressed that there is great fear among rural
Alaskans that one of their children is going to be killed.

SENATOR KELLY further stated that the reason he brought forth
this legislation is that he thought reasonable people could agree
that the 1996 initiative was written in such a way that it
prohibited the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) from
carrying out its duties to manage for a sustained yield, if not
to manage for public safety in this case. He said that he
thought by changing the language of that initiative, ADF&G could
do its job. He said he thought the department was sincerely
unable to do its job because of that initiative, yet the
Administration has no intention of doing any lethal wolf control.
He indicated he had gone to McGrath and had come back with even
greater zeal, because those people in rural Alaska are truly
afraid. He pointed out that it has become a nutritional issue.
He explained that in McGrath there is a [moose] herd that was at
a traditional high of somewhere around 5,000; however, that herd
was at around 1,400 when the most recent count was done. After
this past winter, the people in McGrath believe that the herd may
even be below 1,000.

SENATOR KELLY said the most critical "crash" in the population
has been under this Administration, because of Governor
[Knowles'] internal policy not to do lethal predator control.
This bill says, "All right, Governor, ... you've made it very
clear, no matter what the circumstances are, you're not [going
to] do it." He pointed out that the people need to be able to do
this on their own if the Administration simply won't do it. The
Board of Game needs to identify areas for predator control and
allow the hunters to do it. He explained, "This statute, this
bill, does not roll back the initiative, because it so confines
an area where this statute will actually be enacted."

SENATOR KELLY urged the committee to pass the legislation, vote
for it on the floor, and vote for a veto override. He stressed
that initiatives have a two-year lifespan for a reason - in case
they don't work. He concluded:

That initiative does not work, and whereas I am
completely willing to refrain from rolling back that
initiative completely, we do have to tweak it, because
we have to do something before some kid in rural Alaska
dies; and the blood will not be on the hands of this
committee if that happens.

Number 0808

REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
which read:

Page 1, line 6, following "population":
Insert "by establishing a wolf control program"

REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE requested confirmation that the
amendment will only apply when a problem has been identified.

REPRESENTATIVE BARNES replied, "That's correct."

SENATOR KELLY noted that in the current bill version, it says
"intensive management". The amendment takes it one step further
by establishing a wolf control program by the Board of Game.

CO-CHAIR HUDSON asked if there was any objection to the adoption
of the amendment. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was


There is a river out of Big Delta, and I don't recall
the name. Recently my two sons were up there and came
back and told me ... that in the area where they were
at, that the wolves were so heavy that they had
encircled the moose, and that there were so many of
them that there was just this huge pack - a circle -
and that there were animals [lying] slaughtered all
over the place, that they had even killed a wolverine.
... Have you ever heard of wolves killing a wolverine?

SENATOR KELLY responded:

No, I haven't, but it is an interesting thing that you
say, because in the incident where Mr. and Ms. Fleagle
had their two dogs taken off their porch, Mike [Mr.
Fleagle] - he's a Board of Game member - trailed them
out this slough, where they killed the larger dog, and
then followed the pack. He was going to go try and get
the pack. ... They'd just killed two dogs and eaten
them, and then on the way, they'd killed another wolf
and eaten him. They're cannibalizing now, because they
don't do management. They just eat until there's
nothing left. Now, the area that your talking about is
probably the Clearwater. I know there's a good-sized
pack there.

SENATOR KELLY, in response to a restatement by Representative
Barnes, continued:

You bring up a point that I think is interesting,
because we talk about the management of the issue and
how we should be allowing our department to manage for
abundance. But we're going to have more than just a
management issue on our hands. We're going to have a
sociological problem on our hands, because in my area,
where you have 85,000 people, you have the Tanana Flats
area and Unit 13, where both Anchorage and Fairbanks
hunt out of a lot.

A lot of people ... have a boat and maybe they're not
tremendously serious, but they want a chance of getting
a moose; they'll go to those areas or over to Unit 13 -
you have a higher level of success. As the wolf eat
those moose and caribou, they're going to be pushed
further and further out into rural Alaska, and then
we're going to have competing needs between humans, and
we don't want that. If we just manage reasonably, like
our constitution calls us to do, we can avoid some of
these problems, but I see that as being the next
problem, and it will be wrapped up into other debates
that I don't want to get into now. But you're going to
have people from urban Alaska saying, "The areas where
we used to hunt the moose have been fed to the wolves,
so we're going further and further up river."

Number 1202

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS wondered if SB 267 will force the
Governor's hand - if it is passed by the legislature and if it in
fact overrides the Governor's veto - to implement a wolf control
management plan.


It will take it out of his hands, somewhat, in the
areas where the board has declared an area for predator
control. The reason it will take it out of his hands
is it'll be using one of the acceptable methods and
means, which, by the way, you can use for deer; I just
learned before this meeting that it is okay in the
state of Alaska to land and shoot deer on the same day,
but you can't land and shoot wolves. So, ... that
method that we can use for deer you can now use for
wolves in areas where the Board of Game has said, for
predator control. The only thing you have to have is a
hunting or trapping license; therefore, the department
is removed from it.

Senator Bert Sharp started years ago trying to get the
department - and it wasn't just this governor, don't
get me wrong, it's been other people too - trying to
get the department to do reasonable management when it
comes to predator control. He tried a number of
different bills; most of them failed ... because we
ultimately come to a separation-of-powers issue.

Senator Sharp's bills, and some of mine that I've put
in, in years past, have come to -- the statute has
basically said, "Thou shalt implement predator
control." Well, essentially what you're telling the
commissioner to do is, "Because of this statute, you
have to disobey your boss." So if the governor says,
"Don't you dare do predator control," but the statute
says that the legislature says you do, we can't make
him do that. That's where our power ends. I've just
thought about it long and hard and came up with the
idea that if we put it into the hands of the people who
actually live in McGrath or live in the area, if they
just had [a] hunting license or a trapper's license,
they could go out and implement this program without
the department there.

Number 1358

REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "The Senator said something that I
find most interesting." She responded:

That I certainly do not agree with, and so, wherefore,
I would not wish the record to stand unchallenged, by
at least me. When the legislature establishes a policy
or places a law on the book, it is the legislature that
establishes the policy. We're the ones under the
constitution that are deemed managers of the fish and
wildlife on a sustained yield principle, and that's not
a governor's function.

We, in fact, delegate a portion of our responsibilities
to the Board of [Fisheries] and to the Board of Game.
We don't delegate all of it. We don't delegate the
powers to make laws. We don't delegate the power to
pass budgets. We delegate specific ... powers, and I
believe, unlike you, that it is incumbent upon that
board - makes no difference what the governor says -
as the board, that we're delegating a specific amount
of our powers to manage, in our stead, the fish and
wildlife, according to the constitution, on a sustained
yield principle. If we can't do that, then they need
to come and resign, because it is not up to the
governor to establish policy. It is up to the
Administration to carry out the policy established by
the legislative branch. And for someone to say
differently, I have to have them show me in the
constitution where it says that somebody else has that

Number 1467

CO-CHAIR HUDSON indicated he has heard Representative Barnes make
that point several times. He said he agrees with her, but it is
an argument for another day.

Number 1519

JOEL BENNETT, Representative, Defenders of Wildlife, came before
the committee to testify. A 32-year state resident and active
hunter, he told members he'd served on the Board of Game for 13.5
years under four different administrations, and has been involved
with this issue for nearly every year that a form of wolf
management came before the board.

MR. BENNETT informed members that he thinks [Amendment 1] is a
good modification of the bill. He is still troubled, however, by
the sponsor's strong statement indicating he wishes to preserve
the spirit of the initiative and does not wish to authorize an
unsportsmanlike method of hunting, which land-and-shoot is
universally acknowledge to be. He said he is sorry that the
amendment does not further tie the practice of land-and-shoot to
some official relationship with the ADF&G. Without that
relationship, there is an open-ended method of hunting by anyone
who holds a hunting and trapping license, which cannot be
controlled effectively by the state.

MR. BENNETT noted that in years past there have been some serious
abuses of game regulations in Alaska that revolve around land-
and-shoot hunting; an example is the Jack Frost case in
Anchorage. This issue has also gone way beyond landing and
shooting wolves; it has gone to landing and shooting fox and
geese. It has also gone to herding animals with planes, using
radio communications, and shooting animals for bait and then
returning to shoot the bears for fur that came to feed on the
bait. He noted that cases in the Bethel area and the Arctic have
produced an atmosphere such that the board has had to address the
legality, acceptability and advisability of land-and-shoot
hunting, which played prominently in the 1996 initiative. One
could say that the key provision of the initiative was to get at
the past abuses, he added.

MR. BENNETT further stated, in reference to the amendment and the
bill, that unless there is a requirement for a relationship
between the airplane hunters and ADF&G, the legislature will be
on record as endorsing an unsportsmanlike method of hunting - a
method of hunting that no sport group established in this country
believes is a fair chase. This is not talking about wolf
control, although that is the expressed purpose; this is talking
about authorizing regular hunters who have hunting and trapping
licenses. He is sympathetic to problems in the Bush, where he
has worked and traveled extensively. He knows that there are,
and always will be, hardships in the Bush; however, those can be
addressed without authorizing a practice that is condemned by so
many people.

MR. BENNETT reported that he had flown to McGrath two weeks ago
to look over the situation. He spent seven hours flying over
Game Management Unit 19D and looking at the moose habitat. He
won't go into what he believes to be low-density moose habitat,
he said. However, he doesn't think that country can support
4,000 to 6,000 moose, as has been indicated, although he thinks
it can support more than the actual number of moose present -
1,000 to 2,000. His conclusion is based upon the experts that he
was with, Mr. Bennett noted, not upon his own opinion. He
further stated that the inflammatory suggestion that wolves are
at people's doorsteps is uncalled for. There isn't a documented
case of a non-rabid wolf attacking a human being, although many
people are killed by domestic dogs in rural Alaska every year.
The wolves have a "pretty darn good" record for human safety, he

Number 1937

REPRESENTATIVE MARY KAPSNER asked Mr. Bennett to expound on some

MR. BENNETT replied that for McGrath and other areas which have a
limited number of people, a creative solution would be to
transport individuals to an area where there are caribou to take
the necessary amount of meat needed. Wolf control, as everybody
knows, is a serious business that requires weighing the
advantages against the costs. In the event of a true emergency
in a village situation, he doesn't think that anybody would
oppose a state wolf control effort.

Number 2018

CO-CHAIR HUDSON commented that in listening to individuals from
McGrath at a recent joint meeting, he was moved by their sincere
fear of losing their domestic animals. It seems that when a
population is in dire need, there has to be some management
flexibility for those involved in predator populations to
respond, yet the entire Board of Game feels that their hands are
tied. This bill doesn't totally amend the initiative, he
concluded; it authorizes ADF&G to identify and participate in
land-and-shoot as a solution to problems like those in McGrath.

Number 2156

REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER remarked that subsistence is not welfare
or a handout. The men in her family felt proud about shooting a
moose, bringing it back home, and letting the women take care of
it. She is not comfortable with the thought of giving her
younger brother a free ride to get a caribou as a handout, as Mr.
Bennett has suggested. It is similar to how ADF&G addressed the
fish disaster a couple of years ago in Western Alaska; in that,
it was a thoughtful and a well-intended gesture, but they handed
out Yukon salmon, which is the same as the government handing out
bulk cheese. Although it may be an acceptable alternative for
Mr. Bennett, it is not an acceptable alternative for her.

Number 2230

MR. BENNETT stated that is just one possible solution. In the
case of McGrath, a far more successful solution would be to take
30 wolves and transplant them into the Koyukuk Mountains where
there aren't any villages. That would mean consigning them to
death from other wolves, but it would be a more feasible solution
financially than a department-conducted program, which can cost
more than a thousand dollars per wolf. Furthermore, believing
that these land-and-shoot wolf hunters are going to stay in one
area shows a lot of faith, for that isn't what they have done in
years past. They fly to where it is easiest to get the wolves.
They don't necessarily stay within the borders of the control
program, and there is no way for the department to know.

Number 2294

REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked Mr. Bennett whether there is anything
"on the books" that prohibits the ability to transplant animals;
if not, why hasn't something like that been done before so that
there isn't a problem?

MR. BENNETT replied there is a wolf control program being
conducted now in the Fortymile area, which involves transplanting
wolves around the Interior, parts of the subarctic, and even as
far as Kenai. The program is oriented around sterilization and
caribou, not moose, which is why ADF&G feels that a sterilization
program wouldn't be as appropriate. Mr. Bennett further stated
that a transplant program has merit and wouldn't involve the
controversy associated with the reauthorization of a land-and-
shoot program for wolves.

Number 2353

REPRESENTATIVE BARNES commented that from everything she has seen
and heard, there is a serious wolf problem in the state. There
have been two occasions in the district that she represents where
wolves have been spotted on Campbell Airstrip Road, in the heart
of Anchorage. It seems that they are losing their fear. She
remembers the wolf that was transplanted to Kenai; although she
had sympathy for that wolf, she doesn't have a lot of sympathy
for the wolves that are killing people's dogs. Representative
Barnes said she was astounded to hear Mr. Bennett indicate that
people could be transported to another area to get food for their
tables. She stated:

We, as human beings, have to recognize that all
creatures have a place, but when those creatures - like
the wolves in this state - are getting to be
overabundant, we've got a problem. And everybody knows
I don't have Muffin anymore, but if I had Muffin and
one came a little further down Campbell Airstrip Road
and decided to have her for dinner, I wouldn't have to
ask anybody about killing that wolf, because I would in
a heartbeat.

I think we've got a problem. I think we have to
address the problem. We've got a serious problem
because I have heard the parents now out in McGrath
that are walking their kids back and forth to school.
My sons didn't make up the fact that [in] this huge
area up in the Delta area ... there was animals, blood
everywhere, even a wolverine killed. That tells you
that we're getting too many wolves. I don't think we
can just pick them up and transplant them, because
[they will] just keep multiplying.

Number 2491

REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN said he doesn't support those who land
and kill foxes, for it is against the law. But in relation to
wolves, it is not an isolated case. The wolves are coming into
town. For example, in a village last summer eight dogs were
eaten in a matter of weeks, which also indicates that [the
wolves] aren't afraid of man. He wishes that the state could
transplant all the wolves to New York, for example, where they
want them, but that isn't going to happen. The bill is the most
cost-effective means, even though there will be abuse because
somebody will always break the law.

Number 2593

REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER noted that there are a lot of wolves in
the Nushagak region as well, and villages surrounding Dillingham
have had a high rate of wolves eating dogs.

Number 2608

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY asked Mr. Bennett how many incidents
of a wolf's attacking a person it would take for him to change
his mind on this issue.

MR. BENNETT replied that of course there is a potential for
animals to injure humans, but that is more true for bears than
wolves. There is a law that allows a person to shoot an animal
to defend his or her life and property. That is what is used to
take care of bears that come into a village or town, but bears
aren't killed on a large scale because of that. It is a fact of
life in Alaska. He noted that there are accounts of rabid wolves
attacking people in India; by and large, however, it is not a
problem with a healthy wolf.

MR. BENNETT responded to a comment by Representative Morgan,
saying there are those in Alaska who believe that land-and-shoot
cannot be practiced legally, given how the pilot positions the
animal into a place where the plane can land so that the pilot
can take an effective shot. It is against the federal Airborne
Hunting Act to use a plane in that way.

Number 2732

REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN wondered how those in Arizona can shoot
from a plane, given that there is a federal law.

Number 2810

DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
informed members that the AOC strongly supports the bill and the
amendment, which provide a means of dealing with the problem in
the proper context. The Board of Game has found that there is a
management problem, and the data has been collected. The
solution is control. As a former ADF&G biologist, he can attest
that the problem will not self-correct within a reasonable amount
of time. He wants to make it clear that the AOC supports the
legislation as a complement to a management program that
addresses a serious imbalance between predator and prey, for it
is pretty clear that after the events of this winter, there is
only stonewalling by the Administration.

TAPE 00-28, SIDE A
Number 0001

GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, came before the committee to
testify. He noted that in addition to the issue of same-day-
airborne land-and-shoot methods for wolves, which the bill
directly addresses, the bill is also a tool for predator control.
Acknowledging the widespread concern regarding the
appropriateness and the opportunity for abuse, Mr. Bruce
specified, "The department is concerned about this because, to
the extent that the non-hunting public views a hunting practice
negatively, ... we believe it damages the public support for
hunting and could have some negative consequences for hunting
opportunities in the future."

MR. BRUCE noted that same-day-airborne land-and-shoot is more
effective in certain terrain than in others. The Board of Game
and the department have discussed this issue in relation to
McGrath, where the area of concern is heavily wooded; the
department has determined that this method will not be effective
tool - in the particular area in which it is suggested as being
the most necessary - for reducing the wolf population and
thereby, hopefully, increasing the moose population. Therefore,
he indicated, ADF&G would be back [before the legislature] in the
future looking at another tool to accomplish this.

CO-CHAIR HUDSON asked how far in the future.

MR. BRUCE estimated two or three years.

SENATOR KELLY responded that Mr. Bruce is assuming that the
department will not utilize any means to do predator control
there. Senator Kelly said:

I've been told by many biologists that if the
department would go in there and use the means that
they have available to them, which is either aerial
wolf control or land-and-shoot, and they could bring
the wolf population down significantly, then the people
of McGrath could use the land-and-shoot to maintain the
[wolf] population at an acceptable level and bring that
moose herd back up. So, what you said assumes the
department will do nothing and, frankly, that's why
we're here, because the department has done nothing.

Number 0610

MR. BRUCE noted that the amendment narrows the scope of the bill,
which addresses more than merely the McGrath area. He believes
that the Board of Game has identified four areas in regulation in
which there are predator control programs in place. He recalled
that Nelchina had been added to the list.

MR. BRUCE expressed concern in regard to the Fortymile [caribou]
herd. Currently, there is an experimental control program for
nonlethal control, involving sterilization of the alpha pair in a
number of packs and transplanting the young wolves out of that
area. The hope is that the alpha pairs would maintain their
territory, which seems to be the case, thereby stabilizing the
wolf population and reducing predation so that the caribou
population would increase. This bill would authorize land-and-
shoot methods in the area, and it is possible that those alpha
pairs that have been sterilized will be taken. If that is the
case, then non-sterilized pairs will replace them, and the wolf
population will begin to reproduce again; that entire program
will be undermined. Perhaps that is something that [the
committee] may want to address regarding that one area, Mr. Bruce
concluded. In response to Co-Chair Hudson, Mr. Bruce said he
believes that both the male and female are sterilized.

Number 0748

DAVID HAEG testified via teleconference from Kenai. He informed
the committee that he is a big-game guide who has operated 100
miles southeast of McGrath for the past 14 years; he employees
ten other Alaskan residents during the hunting season. Mr. Haeg
voiced strong support of SB 267, which he believes would help
curb a large and increasing wolf predation problem in Interior
Alaska. In Unit 19, the McGrath area, Mr. Haeg feels this
problem has reached epidemic proportions. If no immediate action
is taken, he said, fish and game biologists state that it may be
decades before there is a healthy and huntable moose population
in the area. Such a situation would put guides out of business
and would be catastrophic for rural residents who depend on moose
to survive.

MR. HAEG pointed out that wolf populations have remained healthy
through various control methods utilized in the past; those
include poisoning, shooting from helicopters, killing of pups
while in the den, and shooting from airborne airplanes. Landing
and shooting is one of the least effective methods and will never
threaten the species, although it may be enough to reverse the
exploding population. He commented that this problem arose only
after numerous years in which there was no effective wolf

MR. HAEG said, "I think it obvious that when we had land-and-
shoot of wolves, we had a healthy balance. Now that we don't,
look at the problem we have created." He continued by saying
that he did not advocate killing all wolves, but he did advocate
keeping the wolf [population] in check in order to continue to
have healthy game populations. If the wolf species were being
decimated to extinction when land-and-shoot was in place, why are
there now so many wolves? Mr. Haeg added that land-and-shoot is
not sporting but is a method of control. He pointed out that in
several units land-and-shoot hunting of caribou occurs, as is the
case, he believes, with deer in most of Alaska.

Number 0964

ROD ARNO testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su Valley. He
informed the committee that he has been working as a wilderness
guide - or for one - for the past 35 years. He further noted
that he has been publicly working for the last ten years in order
to get "anti-hunters" to understand what is going on. Mr. Arno
stated his support for passage of SB 267, noting that it was fine
as amended. He indicated that its passage is a job for the
legislature in order to place control back with the legislature
in order that "we can have our constitutional mandate under
Article VIII, Section 4, implemented." Mr. Arno expressed
amazement regarding how people do not have a problem with fish
management for abundance. He said as long as Alaska has a
governor who his headed on a "new era" of game management, broad
public support will not be achieved.

MR. ARNO turned to the issue of where predator control could be
implemented. He believes that this legislation will help
guarantee that the state does [get] to choose implement predator
control on state lands. He noted that the federal subsistence
board had banned land-and-shoot methods in April 1994. At that
time, seven of the ten regional councils supported the ban; that
represents about 60 percent of the state, and therefore he doubts
whether land-and-shoot would ever be possible in the future.
However, he hopes that Native lands can be managed for abundance,
which he believes many are trying to achieve.

Number 1198

REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move CSSB 267(FIN), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note; she asked unanimous consent. There
being no objection, it was so ordered and HCS CSSB 267(RES) was
moved from the House Resources Standing Committee.


Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission

CO-CHAIR HUDSON announced that the next order of business was the
confirmation hearing of Ms. Marlene A. Johnson to the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. Co-Chair Hudson noted
that she was being recommended for reappointment to the

Number 1253

REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move the reappointment of
Ms. Marlene A. Johnson from the House Resources Standing
Committee. There being no objection, the confirmation was

Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

CO-CHAIR HUDSON announced that the next order of business was the
confirmation hearing of Mr. Daniel Taylor Seamount, Jr. to the
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Co-Chair Hudson
noted that he was being recommended for reappointment to the

REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move the reappointment of
Mr. Daniel Taylor Seamount, Jr., from the House Resources
Standing Committee. There being no objection, the confirmation
was advanced.


CO-CHAIR HUDSON announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 333, "An Act relating to the accounting for and
appropriations of the dive fishery management assessment; and
providing for an effective date." Co-Chair Hudson asked
Representative John Harris to speak to the bill as co-chairman of
the House Special Committee on Fisheries.

Number 1405

REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS explained that the bill reauthorizes the
dive fishery to collect and deposit fees into the state treasury.
In that way, the fees collected can be expended in accordance
with the annual oversight provided by the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G).

CO-CHAIR HUDSON remarked that the bill is long overdue.

Number 1452

REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move HB 333 out of
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
notes; she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, HB
333 moved from the House Resources Standing Committee.


There being no further business before the committee, Co-Chair
Hudson adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee meeting
at 3:50 p.m.