House Resources Committee Rejects Wildlife Refuge Amendments

The Alaska House Resources Committee considered and rejected most amendments Friday to a sweeping bill reorganizing the state's conservation areas. The committee advanced the legislation on a 5-3 vote after hours of debate over habitat protections and public access.

The committee voted on more than two dozen amendments to House Bill 321. Most failed on 4-5 party-line votes. Two amendments were adopted. The bill reclassifies the state's game refuges and critical habitat areas as wildlife refuges while maintaining game sanctuaries as a separate category. It creates uniform definitions and management standards statewide.

Representatives Colon, Sadler, and others proposed amendments arguing the legislation would restrict public access to hunting and fishing areas. Representative Colon said the consolidation would impose stricter rules on areas currently managed as game refuges. "When you combine the two, if it's a game refuge now, it's getting stricter on use," she said. "If it's a critical habitat now, technically it could be getting a little looser on use."

The committee rejected Amendment 11, which would have removed language requiring notification to the state commissioner before the use, lease, or disposal of land under state jurisdiction within refuges. The amendment sought to delete references to private ownership from the notification provision. The amendment failed 4-5 after Representative Josephson said the bill actually narrows the focus to state-owned lands only, excluding private property from new restrictions.

Joe Meehan, a staff member working on the bill, said the legislation redefines existing refuges and critical habitat areas to include only state-owned land. "We purposely did that to exclude the authority of Fish and Game land management authority over private lands," he said.

The committee also defeated Amendment 17, which would have changed the bill's purpose statement from protecting and preserving habitats to conserving them. Representative Sadler argued the word "conserve" better reflects Alaska's mandate to use resources while protecting them. "There's a difference between conservation and preservation," he said. "A conservationist wants to use them while protecting them as well."

Meehan said the change would put public use on equal footing with habitat protection. "Changing protect and preserve to conserve does lower the intent of protecting, maintaining habitats, as opposed to conserve, which is a slightly lower bar for protecting habitats," he said.

Representative Josephson said the amendment would prioritize public use over habitat protection. "This amendment is more extreme than the previous amendment because it would put a protection of habitat and fish and wildlife populations secondary to public use," he said. "So public use would always come first, and protection of habitat second."

Amendment 18 sought to change "may allow" to "shall allow" for hunting, trapping, fishing and other activities in refuges. Representative Colon said the original language gave too much discretion. "When you move shall to may, that gives a lot of discretion for the department," she said.

Meehan said the word "may" gives the department necessary flexibility. "Hunting, trapping, fishing is at the discretion of the boards," he said. "The department cannot necessarily allow those activities if the board has prohibited them or otherwise regulated them."

The committee rejected Amendment 19, which would have required legislative approval before the state could add newly acquired land within refuge boundaries to those refuges. Representative Sadler said the legislature should maintain oversight of any acreage increases. "We as the legislature are collectively the stewards of our common land and water resources," he said. "It is our responsibility to decide whether increasing total acreage of a refuge or a sanctuary is good public policy or not."

Representative Josephson said the bill does not expand refuge boundaries but fills in gaps where the state already manages land as if it were part of the refuge. "The borders of these conservation units are not expanding," he said.

The committee adopted two amendments. Amendment 12 by Representative Colon passed after objection was removed. Amendment 25 by Representative Colon protects shooting ranges, shooting parks or similar facilities operated or sanctioned by the department within refuges. Meehan had helped draft the language for this amendment.

Representatives Colon, Sadler and Prox voted against moving the bill from committee. Representative Sadler said the bill contained some useful provisions but was too broad. "I think there is a couple good elements of legislation buried inside this 79 pages and 117 sections of law," he said. "There's a movie that I watched a lot of years ago called A Bridge Too Far, and I think this is just too much."

Representative Elam, participating remotely, said he would have voted no on moving the bill but could not vote on final passage from committee under legislative rules.

The bill passed 5-3 as amended with technical and conforming changes. Representative Prox said he expects continued opposition. "There is going to be many more objections," he said. "This is going to burn up a considerable amount of time."