Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/07/1996 08:05 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 77
"An Act relating to intensive management of identified
big game prey populations."
Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt House Committee
Substitute for CSSB 77 (FIN), #9-LS0460\Z, dated 1/25/96
(copy on file). Representative Brown OBJECTED for purposes
1
of discussion. She asked for a review of the Committee
Substitute.
SENATOR BERT SHARP, sponsor SB 77, reviewed the Committee
Substitute. He compared the Committee Substitute to HCS
CSSB 77 (RES). He noted that Section 2 contains a new
subsection (4). He stated that (4) requires that the
Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game "cooperated
with and assist the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game
by implementing regulations as requested by either board.
He stressed that this subsection will provide clarity
regarding the duties of the Commissioner. He observe that
Section 3 adds the same language in AS 16.05.225 (e).
Senator Sharp explained that Section 4 adds new language,
"consistent with the sustained yield principle" to clarify
the meaning of "intensive management". He added that "or
has resulted" was inserted on page 2, line 20 to clarify the
level of game depletion that would trigger intensive
management.
Senator Sharp explained that "active" was substituted for
"intensive" in two areas in Section 5 of HCS CSSB 77(RES).
This section was deleted in the Committee Substitute.
Senator Sharp noted that Section 5 of the Committee
Substitute clarifies that "intensive management" does not
include management of human use. The Committee Substitute
added on page 2, line 30 and 31, "but not including
restrictions on methods or means of taking game, access to
game, or human harvest of game" and "in accordance with the
sustained yield principle" on page 2, lines 26 and 27. He
asserted that reduced bag limits or limits on seasons allows
greater access to predators.
Senator Sharp provided members with a visual Chart
demonstrating that only 3 percent of the mortality of moose,
sheep and caribou born annually can be attributed to humans.
According to the chart the natural mortality rate accounts
for 10 percent of the deaths and predators account for 87
percent of the deaths. He stated that these figures are
based on studies by the Department of Fish and Game compiled
over the past 10 years. He referred to the 1995, Fortymile
Caribou Herd Management Plan (copy on file). He observed
that areas of this range have not been used for over 30
years. He concluded that the present herd is below its
potential. He observed that 1,800 calves are born each
year. Two-thirds die in the first 40 - 60 days. An
additional 12 percent are killed by predators before the
first year. In total, approximately 85 percent die by
predator attack. He pointed out that humans harvest
approximately 300 bulls a year. He observed that the
2
Fortymile Caribou Herd Management Plan stated that the human
harvest of bulls does not affect the productivity of the
herd, since the bull/cow ratio is high.
Senator Sharp provided members with a chart demonstrating
what would happen to the Fortymile Herd if predators were
reduced (Attachment 1). He summarized that the herd has
tremendous reproductive possibilities. He suggested that
Department of Fish and Game personnel could sedate wolves
and transfer them away from calving grounds during calving
season. He emphasized that intensive management of the herd
would reduce predators and increase the herd. He emphasized
that the intent of the legislation is to clarify statutes
regarding intensive management.
Senator Sharp provided members with a memorandum from Jack
Whitman, Division of Wildlife Conservation, dated 2/22/96
(Attachment 2). He observed that the results of a moose
study completed by the Department of Fish and Game showed
that the overall calculated moose density is 0.3705 per
square mile. He emphasized that this is one-tenth of the
density of a healthy moose herd. He observed that the ratio
of wolf to moose is 1 to 12. He stressed that this is the
highest density of wolves ever recorded in North America.
He added that 77 percent of the local residents agreed that
wolves should be reduced for greater than five years in
order to increase the moose herd.
Senator Sharp noted that Section 6 adds three new
definitions. Subsection (3) defines "harvestable surplus"
as the estimated number of animals that is equal to the
number of offspring born in a game population during the
year less the number of animals in the population that die
during the year from all causes other than predation or
human harvest." He stated that most game managers accept
this definition. Subsection (4) defines "high level of
human harvest" as the harvest of one-third or more or the
harvestable surplus of a game population by humans."
Subsection (5) defines "sustained yield" as it applies to
game.
Senator Sharp noted that Section 7 adds a new subsection (h)
that strengthens the legislative intent wording in the
statute to establish that the management goal is to provide
at least one-half of the harvestable surplus for humans.
Senator Sharp observed that Section 8 is amended by adding a
new subsection (b): "If a board delegated authority to the
commissioner, the commissioner shall cooperate with and
assist the board by implementing regulations, management
plans, and intensive management programs as requested by the
board."
3
Senator Sharp explained that Section 9 would repeal AS
16.05.050(1): "To assist the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service in the enforcement of federal laws and
regulations pertaining to fish and game."
Senator Sharp summarized that the Department of Fish and
Game has expert staff. He stressed that the Department of
Fish and Game is reluctant to implement intensive
management. He asserted that greater clarification is
needed due to the reluctance of the Department to implement
intensive managment. He restated that the Division's job is
to manage the resource not human use.
Representative Brown WITHDREW her objections. There being
NO OBJECTION, House Committee Substitute for CSSB 77 (FIN),
BILL HAGAR, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference
network. He spoke in support of the Committee Substitute.
He referred to public remarks by Mr. Regelin, Director,
Division of Wildlife Conservation. He stated that Mr.
Regelin's remarks have been ambiguous. He questioned if
statements comparing Alaska's resource problems with those
of Sweden are valid. He maintained that the sustained
yield harvestable surplus is working very well. He observed
that 100 percent of the 3 percent of the resource allocated
to humans is being harvested. He stressed that a one-third
harvest is fair. He noted that the difference between 600
grizzly bears and 1,200 grizzly bears is 10,000 moose.
MARK LUTTRELL, DIRECTOR, EASTERN KENAI PENINSULA
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION ASSOCIATION testified via the
teleconference network. He spoke against SB 77. He
disagreed that human use is the highest and best use for the
harvest. He stated that the focus should not be only on
supply. He asserted that the human demand should be
limited. He noted that predator control is politically
divisive, expensive and inefficient. He spoke against any
wolf free zones. He objected to Section 5 (2) on page 2,
line 30 and 31 "but not including restrictions on methods or
means of taking game, access to game, or human harvest of
game." He stated that this language should be deleted.
LYNN LEVENGOOD, FAIRBANKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION testified via the
teleconference network. He spoke in support of the
Committee Substitute. He stressed that the definitions in
HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) comply with the constitutional mandate for
sustained yield of Alaska's renewable resources. They are
similar to definitions found in other sections of the
statutes. He disagreed with statements that the Department
4
cannot allocate one-third of the harvestable surplus to
human consumption. He discussed comments by Mr. Regelin
comparing Alaska's harvestable surplus to that of Sweden.
He asserted that the Department has done nothing to
implement "intensive management" and has openly requested
clarification and definition of existing statutes. He
maintained that HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) provides clarity and
definition.
SARA HANNAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY
testified in opposition to HCS CSSB 77 (FIN). She noted
that her family has over 30 years of hunting experience.
She stated that she is not opposed to hunting. She stressed
that she does not support hunting at the demise of other
users of the resources. She emphasized that it is a
complicated issue. She maintained that the state of Alaska
has instituted the most extensive public process for the
management of fish and game anywhere in the world. She
acknowledged hunters' concerns. She observed that she can
not go hunt where she took her first solo hunt at the age of
sixteen.
Ms. Hannan maintained that HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) would provide a
bad precedent. She observed that game population stresses
are only in a couple of game units. She acknowledged that
residents in McGrath have a wolf problem. She stated that
it would be short sighted to try to remedy the problem in
Juneau. She emphasized that every fisheries dispute will
come to the Legislature for a statutory change if the
precedent is set. She noted that decisions by the Board of
Fish and the Board of Game are publicly noticed and go
through an extensive nine month proposal system. She
maintained that HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) does not stand the test of
good public policy. She acknowledged that there is a sport
hunting problem in Fairbanks. She observed that Fairbanks'
population has tripled. She stated that the highest level
of fish and game extraction are currently occurring.
Ms. Hannan emphasized that the Alaska Environmental Lobby is
not opposed to predator control. She cautioned that repeal
of Section 9, "to assist the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service in the enforcement of federal laws and regulations
pertaining to fish and game" would open Pandora's box. She
stressed that repeal of this language would put state
employees in the field into a legal bind. She noted state
and federal agreements.
TOM SCARBOROUGH, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference
network. He spoke in support of HCS CSSB 7 (FIN). He
maintained that Department has not implemented the wishes of
the Board of Game.
WAYNE REGELIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
5
testified that HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) would significantly amend
AS 16.05.255, Intensive Management Law, passed in 1994. He
observed that the bill would fundamentally alter the
relationship between the Board of Fish and the Board of Game
and the Commissioner of Department of Fish and Game. It
would require the Commissioner to implement regulations
regardless of expense. The Boards do not currently have
administrative, budget or fiscal powers. The second part of
the bill would require the Board of Game to manage ungulate
populations for high levels of human use. It mandates that
the Board of Game adopt regulations to provide for intensive
management consistent with the sustained yield principle.
He maintained that the Department of Fish and the Board of
Game already strive to manage consistent with the sustained
yield principle in most of Alaska.
Mr. Regelin observed that the Intensive Management Law
passed in 1994 already requires that intensive management be
implemented before the Board of Game can reduce a season
length or bag limit. He noted that intensive management is
defined as predator control or habitat manipulation. The
bill specifically states that changes in seasons or bag
limits do not qualify as an intensive management tool. In
many cases that is all that would be required to correct a
short term problem.
Mr. Regelin stated that the biggest problem with the
proposed legislation is how it defines harvestable surplus,
high levels of human use, and sustained yield. He
maintained that the definitions, combined with the language
in the bill, would force the Board of Game and the
Department of Fish and Game to attempt to meet unrealistic
objectives, ignore scientific standards, and sometimes
sacrifice other resource values. He observed that the bill
would require the annual harvest to be equal to or greater
than one-third of the animals born in a population during
the year less the number of animals in the population that
die during the year from all causes other than predation or
human harvest. He asserted that moose and caribou
populations in Alaska cannot sustain such high harvest rates
unless predation rates are extremely low. Predator
populations would have to be reduced to very low levels or
eliminated to achieve these rates. He emphasized that it is
not always possible to sustain the harvest level and keep
the population healthy. He observed that severe winters
cause a high mortality rate. The harvest level is reduced
during bad years to allow the herd to recover.
Mr. Regelin asserted that the legislation is the result of
frustration by a few persons that want higher harvest levels
along road accessible parts of Alaska. He maintained that
the Department of Fish and Game and the Board of Game have
6
all the tools needed to manage game. He maintained that the
Intensive Management Law clarified legislative intent
regarding management of wildlife populations. He asserted
that the Law is being implemented.
Mr. Regelin observed that the Board of Game authorized
predator management in three areas where there is an
imbalance in the predator/prey ratio. The Board's
regulations were delayed pending action by the Governor due
to the political nature of wolf control. He observed that
wolf control has impacts beyond hunting. Since 1982,
decisions regarding wolf control have been made in
conjunction with the Governor. The Board acknowledged the
controversial nature and the broader ramifications of wolf
control. He stated that to settle the wolf control
controversy we must have a balanced management program that
is accepted by the public. He maintained that the wolf
control debate is controlled by small minorities on both
extremes.
Mr. Regelin stated that the legislation is a step in the
wrong direction, not because the goals are wrong, but
because the methods are too extreme.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Foster, Mr. Regelin
clarified that the Court ruled that the Commissioner must
implement the Board's allocation decisions. He observed
that there is a close cooperative relationship between the
Board of Game and the Department of Fish and Game with the
exception of the wolf control issue. He noted that the
Board does not have financial powers.
In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Mr.
Regelin noted that wolf control was not implemented by the
Commissioner due to the political nature of wolf control.
He observed that HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) would require the
Commissioner to implement the Board's regulations including
wolf control.
Representative Kelly summarized that the Commissioner would
have to follow public policy as represented in the Board's
actions.
Representative Therriault noted that the Board process is
extensive. He observed that the Legislature decided that
the Boards of Fish and Game should be more involved in the
amount of game. He stated that the legislation will make a
direct link from the policy derived by the Board and its
implementation. He acknowledged that it is still up to the
Legislature to fund polices of the Board.
Mr. Regelin stressed that the Commissioner has worked to
7
implement the Board's decisions. He pointed out that the
past four Governors have interceded in respect to wolf
control. He stressed that if the Governor orders the
Commissioner not to implement the Board's decisions it would
probably be settled in court.
Representative Therriault asserted that the Board's
decisions regarding wolf control have been stopped by the
political process. Discussion ensued regarding the
political nature of wolf control. Mr. Regelin summarized
that the Division of Wildlife Conservation is caught in the
middle of the issue. Representative Therriault concluded
that the Board has made sound decisions that the Division
has not been able to implement for political reasons.
Co-Chair Foster observed that due to politics the
Administration is preventing the voice of the people to be
heard through the Boards of Fish and Game.
Representative Grussendorf summarized that politics play a
role in decisions by the Boards of Fish and Game. He
pointed out that predators are part of the management and
health of a herd. He observed that humans harvest the
healthiest, biggest animals they can find. Mr. Regelin
referred to the chart that demonstrated that 87 percent of
new born ungulates are taken by predators. He pointed out
that the chart does not take into account that some do
survive. He observed that herds that are away from the road
system are healthy and have large bag limits.
Representative Grussendorf noted that the Division has
adjusted their programs to account for areas with needs. He
summarized that the Division is meeting what is required for
predator control under existing laws. Mr. Regelin restated
that the existing laws and tools are more than adequate to
allow the Board to make decisions and for the Department of
Fish and Game to implement wolf control. The Department has
been stopped from moving forward due to a controversial
public policy issue.
Co-Chair Hanley summarized that the Governor can choose not
to implement the Board's policy.
Representative Brown referred to page 2, lines 30 and 31,
"but not including restrictions on methods or means of
taking game, access to game, or human harvest of game."
Mr. Regelin noted that under this language the Board of Game
could not reduce a season or bag limit without concurrently
implementing intensive management through predator control
or habitat manipulation.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-66, Side 1)
8
Mr. Regelin stated that the legislation will reduce the
flexibility of the Board to take action without expensive
programs. He emphasized that the basic tool of wildlife
management is setting bag limits and seasons. He asserted
that adjustments to bag limits and seasons have resulted in
an overall increased harvest in the State. He acknowledged
that bag limits and season adjustments do not solve problems
which are due to predator/prey ratios that are out of line.
He noted that there are three areas where the predator/prey
ratio is out of control.
Co-Chair Hanley stressed that it is a philosophical problem.
He concluded that intensive management is intended to
maximize human use. He noted that it is not the legislative
intent that human use be restricted to increase game
populations.
In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr.
Regelin observed that black and brown bears are considered
big game species. Wolves are also a big game species but
have a dual classification.
Representative Brown asked if sustained yield should include
predators. Mr. Regelin observed that the intent is that
predators are reduced and maintained at low levels to allow
a high opportunity to harvest moose and caribou. He noted
that there are too many bears in Unit 13, Glennallen area.
He noted that the Board has already taken action to reduce
the bear population in Unit 13 through increased bag limits
and season lengths. He did not anticipate that the
Department would have to do more than adjust bag limits or
seasons in regards to bears.
Representative Brown questioned the fiscal note. Mr.
Regelin explained that the fiscal note represents the cost
of aerial wolf control in two areas.
Representative Therriault clarified that expenditures will
come from reprogramming of existing revenues. Mr. Regelin
agreed that no new dollars will be needed.
Representative Kohring spoke in support of the legislation.
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 1, delete on
page 2, line 30 and 31, "but not including restrictions on
methods or means of taking game, access to game, or human
harvest of game." She stated that the Alaska Outdoor
Council expressed concern regarding the language. She
questioned if the language is counterproductive.
9
Representative Kelly stated that the Alaska Outdoor Council
currently supports the legislation as it is.
Representative Grussendorf asked for the Department's
position. Mr. Regelin stated that the language takes away
the Department's ability to fix short term problems caused
by weather through the reduction of harvest. The Board
would have to concurrently implement wolf control or habitat
manipulation with a reduction in bag limits or seasons. He
stated that the Division would prefer the language not be
adopted.
Co-Chair Hanley summarized that the legislation does not
state what amount of predators would have to be eliminated.
He concluded that the elimination of one wolf would fulfill
the requirement for predator control. He added that the
legislation without the amendment would require that
something be done about predators and habitat if human use
is going to be reduced.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
1.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf
OPPOSED: Kelly, Kohring, Mulder, Parnell, Therriault,
Foster, Hanley
Representatives Martin and Navarre were absent from the
vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-7).
Representative Mulder MOVED to report HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Brown OBJECTED.
She stressed that the Department of Fish and Game is working
to meet the goals of intensive management. She added that
the controversy will be intensified by the legislation.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to report HCS CSSB
77 (FIN) from Committee.
IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring, Mulder, Parnell,
Therriault, Foster, Hanley
OPPOSED: Brown
Representatives Martin and Navarre were absent from the
vote.
The MOTION PASSED (8-1).
HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
10
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Fish and Game.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|