it is a real symbol of modern alaska and many ways. -- in many ways. state culturally and economically. as part of our year-long 50 capitals tour, the c-span bus recently made a long journey to juneau, alaska, state. of the on this weekend, we will feature our stops across alaska, showing you the state's natural beauty. we will delve into alaska's unique history and literary culture. as part of our alaska weekend here on the c-span networks, we are talking about hunting regulations in alaska, and across the country. joining us for that is michael doyle of e&e news. joining us is michael doyle.

let me just speaking with this from nbc news. a years old conflict has pitted andstate against the feds, conservationists against preservationists and people who feed their families by stocking him in theking wilderness against those who see certain types of hunting as inhumane. this is part of the proposal to undo obama era rules restricting controversial hunting methods on federal land in alaska. what is the history of the site? what happened in 25th -- of the fight? what happened in 2015 and now? entangleds a long history. in may, the national park service and trump administration proposed rescinding obama administration rules that had been imposed in 2015. those roles restricted or prohibited certain hunting practices on preserve land, which are managed by the national park service is three practices include using eight to

kill black and brown bears, killing black bears in been -- in dan's using dogs, killing caribou in motorboats and other things. those were banned by the obama administration and the trump administration proposed reinstating those tactics. the open comments or was originally scheduled to file -- was really scheduled to and on monday, but has been extended to september. there is clearly a lot of public interest. host: we have divided the lines regionally, if you live in the eastern or central part of the , on the (202) 748-8000 ,ountainside, (202) 748-8001 and if you're from alaska for independents -- and if you're from alaska (202) 748-8002. we spoke with jim adams at the

national parks conservation association and here is what he had to say about these hunting restrictions. >> the state of alaska has been engaged in an escalating twenty-year effort to restore populations across much of the state, these extreme sports hunting methods are just the most extreme version of it. the problem is that the state is aiming to turn 20 million acres of our national parkland, to essentially a glorified game farm. host: what are these hunting methods? guest: there are four or five tactics that are prohibited under the obama administration. the use of bait for black and brown bears, the use of dogs, the use of artificial light to kill animals, using motorboats to kill swimming caribou, and a few other provisions. the national parks and conservation association has rallied against this. public comments have been

aired in many of those come from , who isse of the npca taking this on full force. the department of fish and game -- alaska maintains very few occasionally bears will be hunted using these tactics, but the impact is relatively small. host: uses these tactics? and why? used by thert it's native people of alaska who is taking the game is considered to be subsistence hunting. why? it is effective. if you can use baits to draw the that's angunsight, effective way of hunting. but the position among the alaska department of fish and game is that relatively few cases will be affected by this. host: why is that? how often are these tactics used? they are not seen often,

but how often is hard to tell. i urge viewers to look at the department of fish and game website. it shows a number of hunting licenses and their tags --bear tags. as i recall, on the order of 5200 bear tags registered in the year. of those, how many would be a spec -- affected by these tactics? i don't know. host: i want to show our viewers this map of alaska. at this take a look map, the colored areas indicate , bureau ofernment indian affairs, bureau of land management, fish and wildlife services, national park service, for services, and the response -- forest services, and the responsibilities for these areas have been shared. right, a point often made

by alaska residents is that 61%, give or take of alaska's land, is owned and administered by the federal government. 224 million acres. that's a huge percentage. the apparatus some resentment among state officials and residents that people in washington, d.c. -- that builds some resentment among residents that people in washington, d.c. make the law. there is an important mom called the national interest -- alaska national interest in land confirmation act that set aside tens of millions of acres for refuges and parks, but also directed authority to the state. one of the legal and political there is athat conflict between the states authority and federal responsibility. host: i'm curious from viewers

outside of alaska, what it is like where you live? it's not just alaska, the federal government owns land across the country. guest: one of the arguments made by the congressional delegation, who are among the big opponents of the obama era rule, is that this goes beyond alaska. if you allow the federal government based in washington, -- staterestrict they authority in alaska, neck they will be coming for california, next they will be coming for california or nevada. once youent goes that allow the federal government to restrict hunting, they will be more restrictive on mining, grazing, or public use. and generalpecific fight, the specific fight is over hunting regulations and the

general fight is over who controls public land. host: we have a call from wyoming, let's go to tracy. i will begin with you this usning, good morning, tell your thoughts as we discuss hunting restrictions in alaska. i think this is a states rights issue, all states are supposed to be equal, they entered into the union with the same rights. the states maintain the rights of their pop -- wildlife population and water, and the reason the federal government is trying to control this is because water moves and animal moves off of federal lands on to state lands and those regulations that come with those animals and that water. the reason i started to regulate and you straight right is trying to control individuals on their private

land. they should not have any rights to do anything that was reserved by the states when they entered into the union. they should be able to control those resources, and not pick and choose which is states they want to usurp their loss. caller is right this is a states right issue. that is why people out of alaska would do well to pay attention. the caller is right, there are common areas in state and states -- authorities over managing fish and wildlife. alaska is unique. i look forward to hearing from the guests on c-span to explain laws arels of how the uniquely tailored for alaska. latecame a state in the 1950's, in the course of that there were tens of millions of acres of federal land to carve

up and allocate administrative responsibilities for. to a degree are not entirely cognizant of, alaska is a unique state. the caller has put his finger on it, this is a states rights issue, for good or ill. host: what has a relationship in like between the federal government and alaska? and that shared responsibility? guest: a blend of dependence and resentment. alaska depends upon federal policy, and largess to some degree. and there is a commensurate resentment over the federal hold. for instance, last year in the tax bill, senator murkowski, and senator sullivan got a provision that would mandate the bureau of land management to open up oil and gas leasing on the arctic

national wildlife refuge. that is something that had been opposed in washington, d.c. for years, and it had been sought by the state. there has been for years, resentment by state officials that the efforts to develop state resources have been stymied. anytime you have more than half of your state owned by the federal government you are going to have a complicated relationship which speaks to the significance of the alaskan delegation because of the role the government plays. host: how has it changed under the trump administration? guest: the president will sign the bills that the congress passes. the obama administration, consistent with democratic environmental positions, the arctic national wildlife refuge drilling had been opposed. and the president would have the don't provisions. president trump was not particularly aware of the details, but it was something important to senator murkowski and others and he signed this is

part of the tax bill. which is the centerpiece of his legislative agenda. has, you mightka say, a friend in the white house. and it is seen in these hunting regulations. made a policy of expanding those opportunities which laid the groundwork. host: what is the interior secretary doing in other states on hunting? guest: expanding it. year, thehe last interior secretary, and outdoorsman and hunter himself, and he's very proud of that fact, signed orders intended to expand or pursue expansion of hunting opportunities. the issue rules earlier this year and fish and wildlife refuges that expanded the number of refuges where it could occur. establishednke

does canoe bodies, one concerns international wildlife conservation, and so what is happened in alaska is part and parcel of a larger picture. the administration would like to expand hunting opportunities. we want to hear from our guests about changing hunting research across the country, nancy is in north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. sir, it is nice to speak with you. yesterday when i was watching the news it brought up the fact that the epa has removed the protections on endangered species act -- the endangered species act. which sent me into tears. that would also include bald eagles, the california condor, bighorn sheep in colorado.

would be able to go hunting you 70, yellowstone, and , andld -- in yosemite yellowstone. i'm very upset about this. the caller's omission of being upset reflects that there is widespread -- admission of being upset and flex at widespread impact of rules. second, no one is proposing hunting in national parks, that's not under consideration. the caller makes a point, the protect -- the fish and wildlife services did propose some pretty significant regulatory changes to the endangered species act. , butuld remain in effect it has excited controversy, even more so than hunting regulation. the trump administration maintains that the esa needs to be updated.

the regulations have been out of date for years. andhey are streamlining, changing how critical habitat is designated. those will also be open to a public comment. -- comment period and it will get a lot of high-profile commentary. host: a member of congress who was still in congress and was in congress in 1973 when the endangered species act is don young, from alaska. we sat down with him and here's what he had to say about it. >> it affects alaska more so, because we are a smaller number a people and we have such massive amount of federal lands and special interest groups establishing species i do not think our endangered. i will be the last congressman to ever vote for the endangered species act. people do not remember when it was proposed and passed

overwhelmingly. it has its tigers and lions and exotic species. e did not expect snails, bugs, and grasses and these other things. misused by then environmental group that tries to stop any man development. i disrespect them for that because that was not the intent of the act and i have always said show me one species that has been reclaimed by the endangered species act, and they say the eagle, it's not true. the eagle was reclaimed because of stopping the use of ddt. it serves a purpose if followed as written. by regulations passed, i say subverted because it makes me very upset. i know the intent of the law. young, ofgressman local and some would say a cantankerous defender of alaska

been aand issues, he is longtime critic of the way the esa has been implemented and its affect on private property in particular. i think there have been defenders of the current act with -- who would say there have been a number of species that have been restored and recovered. right now there is a proposal to take off be kurtins warbler, and the california condor has been recovered. the congressman makes a great point, the esa did not remove the ddt from the ecosystem that caused eagle report -- eagle recovery. a tripping cause-and-effect to the regulation as -- attributing con -- cause to regulation as opposed to other rules is tricky. host: let's go to william, in connecticut. the morning.

-- good morning. the waygandhi once said a society is first judged by how they treat their animals, who are lesser than us. i was in montana, and i had never seen such cowardice from hunters. they are flying around in airplanes, spotting elk, treeing a tv's and dogs to lions, or or mountain they are having a dog follow a , and with radios, to come and shoot them. why don't they grow up and be men. if they want to shoot something, why don't they become navy seals or real men, not ambush people.

michael doyle, about how hunting is changed. guest: the caller made a point about the ethical concerns that play into hunting. if you look at the comments to the park service's rules, you can find those on regulations.gov, a dominant theme is that the proposed practices and the use of bait or dogs are immoral, unethical, or unfair. if you talk to certain members of congress, like don buyer of --don byer of virginia, you will hear that hunting is one thing but hunting using certain practices is not real. the gandhi observation is one we will hear more of. host: you're talking about the public comments were hunting restriction in alaska? guest: that's right. periodill be a comment

that is members of the public to weigh in and cast a nonbinding vote. they can get their impressions of the park service on whether it's a good thing or a bad thing to change the hunting rules. host: and remind our viewers who missed it at the top, what rules are we talking about? reversal of the obama administration plan, the obama administration imposed limits on certain hunting tactics, on national parks and alaska. lands in not parks, but preserves, the tactics include the use of bait, motorboats in dens, and other provisions. host: the reversal of the rolling back those restrictions and allowing those methods? guest: that's right. as we have been discussing, there is something dispute over how much of an impact it would have. host: while our bus was in alaska we spoke to bruce dale,

with the alaska department of fish and dale -- fish and game, this is what he had to say about the common period. >> the ngos that support the national park service are in enormous machines that churns up gathering public input. and promoting input from certain groups and interest groups. and compared to the small number of people who live in alaska, especially the small number of rural users that are relying on these, the numbers of comments and the types of comments are only useful to a point. host: so they are hearing from people outside of alaska? .uest: by the scads and the official is right. the nongovernmental organizations like national and conservation association and the humane society are expert masters at churning up public

comments, and flooding the channels with commentary. regulations.gov, and review the 77,000 comments, of that, the majority are identical, and are opposed to the change in the rules. that is just an observation

great question. i am not of the 200 24 million acres are owned by the federal government. i don't know the percentage of that. it would be illuminating to know, i am not sure. my state has historically sent more dollars to the federal government than these terrorist states, including alaska. i don't care if i live in alaska, i should be heard, my

opinions should carry more weight than these people sitting heref that have contributed nothing to this. project southwest was funded by eastern money. my state, new york and a few others. so i am tired of hearing about this. i do want those animals protected. i want people to be taught to be humane. you can do it like a human being. not some kind of idiot. i am tired of these congressmen who aren't actually subsidizing their payroll, because their people get more money from the federal government, and it comes from out of my pocket. brothers, and -- because you might live next door to other properties, tell them. it is a specious argument and this needs to be put on track.

it is majority rules, and eastern money funded it, and we should be heard. host: ok, let us take that point. michael: that is a lively debate . i would love to have congressman young sit with the caller. in perspective and many alaska, is that we know best. we have the unique characteristics of terrain, geography, distance from the federal government. young is famous for his very strongly articulated excoriations about the right ns to decide for themselves, what's what. about the next discussion we will have about the intersection of the arts and commerce in our great country. during this discussion, we governors, of course, think of

governing as a performance art, but we will be thinking of all the other art forms in this discussion rather than that one. our discussion today will be centered on the intersection of arts and commerce. we know that there is such a profound and robust part of economic growth in our states, the economic parts. but i wanted to kick off if i could, i discussion of the art. i remember checking into a hotel in washington a few months ago. and oh's talking to someone who was behind the desk. and he