Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/07/1994 08:15 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 77 - Intensive Management Of Game Resource CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated Senator Sharp provided two new draft versions of the bill. The first of those, draft version B was sent out to teleconference sites and to others who requested it. Since then, Senator Sharp provided a newer version, draft version W, which will be considered presently. SENATOR BERT SHARP, PRIME SPONSOR, stated the new draft version W is a result of ongoing discussions with ADF&G. Version W addresses additional concerns the department had, it organizes the bill, and it does not amend the A section of AS 16.05.255. He said the intensive game management concept was addressed by adding new sections (e), (f), and (g), the legislative intent section has been added, and noted that subsection (e) is the former item 11. He explained subsection (f) is the former (e) and the subsection says the Board of Game shall not significantly reduce the taking of identified big game populations by doing standard passive things unless they also adopt intensive management which manages 100 percent of the resource. Subsection (f) does not apply in areas where the department has concerns on ineffective management based on scientific information or if intensive management will be inappropriate due to land ownership patterns. Subsection (f), (2) recognizes emergency closures and the department's ability to make that determination at any time based on their information and recommendation. Subsection (g) is the definitions subsection of intensive management and identified big game prey population. Number 417 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Senator Sharp to point out the change in version W which addresses the issue concerning subsistence. SENATOR SHARP said the legislative findings section is a very strong legislative statement supporting human harvest for consumptive purposes and states it is the highest and best use in most areas of the state. DAVE KELLEYHOUSE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, ADF&G, stated ADF&G supports the House CS for CSSB 77 version W. He said all previous concerns have been addressed. The House CS preserves the discretion of the Board of Game to adopt regulations necessary for the management of game and it maintains the distinction between the powers of the Board and the powers of the commissioner. He stressed the CS recognizes the importance of certain big game prey populations in meeting the needs of many Alaskans and the need to manage such identified populations appropriately. The proposed legislation now provides clear direction to the Board of Game and ADF&G by explicitly stating legislative intent which contains sufficient safeguards, ensuring that intensive management will not be applied under circumstances which are not feasible and prudent, where it will not be effective or which such management will be inappropriate due to land ownership patterns and land management philosophies. He urged the committee to adopt HCS CSSB 77. Number 488 LEE PUTNAM, KETCHIKAN SPORTS AND WILDLIFE CLUB, testified via teleconference and stated the club supports SB 77. He said with more and more of Alaska's land being closed by the federal government to consumptive users, the remaining land needs to be intensively managed to allow the maximum harvest for consumptive users. With intensive management, food resources in Alaska can be increased to the point (indiscernible) subsistence, personal use, and sport hunters will be drastically reduced or completely eliminated. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a MOTION to ADOPT HCS CSSB 77(RES). CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated he is very interested in the bill, but he along with Representatives Carney and Davies are supposed to be in caucus. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out for Representative Finkelstein's benefit that ADF&G now supports HCS CSSB 77(RES). Number 551 DICK BISHOP, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, testified via teleconference and stated the council has supported the concepts of SB 77 since its original introduction. The council also supports version W. He said although the legislative findings necessary to the importance of harvest of big game prey for human consumptive uses in most areas of the state is self-evident to those familiar with Alaska's history and lifestyles, it has not been adequately emphasized in statute. He noted the council agrees with providing for regulations enabling intensive management in the new subsection (e) and added that the new subsection reduces the confusion over the federal responsibilities and authorities of the Board of Game. MR. BISHOP stated subsection (e) emphasizes intensive management will be used where the Board of Game has established goals for human consumptive use as a preferred use and low big game prey populations interfere with these goals and population enhancement is feasible. He stressed the provisions make several points clear that opportunities for human consumptive use are very valuable to Alaskans; enhancement will occur where the Board has established harvest goals; low big game prey populations disadvantage Alaskans; enhancement is feasible; and the Board is not required to implement intensive management everywhere, all the time or in areas where other uses have been given a higher priority. MR. BISHOP continued that subsection (f) emphasizes the importance of addressing intensive management to meet harvest goals and it makes it clear that the Board is not obligated to undertake a futile exercise or allow a population to be further depressed by harvest by people. Subsection (g) makes it clear that the intensive management provisions only apply to populations which the Board has determined are important for harvest by people. Subsection (g)(2) makes it clear that the purpose of the provision is to provide for harvest by people which is consistent with constitutional language and history and that there are various recognized wildlife management techniques which can be used depending on the circumstances. MR. BISHOP stated the Alaska Outdoor Council believes the bill addresses the longstanding statutory need to emphasize the importance of managing wildlife for food for Alaskans, which is environmentally correct and ecologically sound, using recognized management tools to do so. Draft W resolves several difficulties relating to earlier language, while retaining the direction and emphasis of the original bill. He urged passage of HCS CSSB 77. Number 640 GEORGE YASKA, DIRECTOR OF WILDLIFE, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE, testified via teleconference and stated although the conference supports consumptive use of wildlife, particularly big game, the Tanana Chiefs cannot support SB 77 in its present version. The primary concern is the amount of research needed to begin to artificially manipulate big game species and their populations. He said TCC does not believe current information is adequate and the data base is not available to begin to artificially modulate the species and their populations. The secondary concern is the cost of intensive game management and its use by the Board of Game for maximum sustained yield. He stressed maximum sustained yield or predator control is costly and there is a concern with prescribed or controlled use burns. He pointed out that providing for maximum sustained yield for big game will favor sportsmen over trappers. Number 697 ROD ARNO, PALMER, testified via teleconference and expressed support of SB 77. He said there is a well-documented demand for the harvest of big game prey populations for human consumption in Alaska. According to ADF&G's survey on wildlife and hunting attitudes, over 85 percent of Alaskans surveyed have hunted big game in Alaska at least once and the majority surveyed approved a (indiscernible) big game for personal consumption. Fifteen percent of resident Alaskans purchased hunting licenses in 1992 and in the last census in 1990, there were 110,000 subsistence users of big game in rural Alaska. By passage of SB 77, the legislature will empower the Board of Game to adopt regulations advantageous to all Alaskans who choose to be active participants in Alaska's ecosystem. MR. ARNO stated there are two options which will increase the availability of big game prey populations for human consumption. One is an enhancement of the prey populations in areas readily accessible and the other option is be to increase access into areas where the prey populations are in large numbers. TAPE 94-27, SIDE B Number 000 MR. ARNO (cont.) to take the areas which have already been accessed and have a history of human use, and manage the resources there intensively for human consumption. Number 015 RANDY FRANKLIN, HOMER, testified via teleconference and stated he agrees 100 percent with the concept of SB 77. He felt subsection (f) ties the hands of the Board of Game. He also expressed concern about the costs of research and implementation of an intensive management program such as burns, collaring, etc. MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated the Board of Game will first have to identify populations, because SB 77 only applies to identified populations where the need is high. He said there is language in subsection (f) which allows the Board to use a dimmer switch--they can make changes in regulations as long as the change does not significantly reduce the taking. In regard to the budget concern, he explained the Division of Wildlife Conservation already has the responsibility of managing wildlife and the cost of intensive management is quite low, adding that less than $200,000 will be spent this year to restore the Delta caribou herd out of a total agency budget of $15 million. Number 042 SANDRA ARNOLD, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA WILDLIFE ALLIANCE, testified via teleconference and recalled that Mr. Kelleyhouse said the department supports the bill now because it retains the powers of the Board and the department, but he failed to state it retains the powers of the public, which she feels should be the priority in any bill. She asked in regard to Senator Sharp's legislative findings, how (indiscernible) it seems to be accepted as fact that intensive game management is the highest and best use when it seems to her it is someone's opinion. She stressed intensive game management is not the highest and best use of the state's wildlife, but rather only one of several options which should be considered on a case-by-case basis. MS. ARNOLD stated SB 77 mandates that one interest group will always win when it comes to game management and that is unfair. She said surveys have shown that 65-70 percent of Alaskans oppose predator control which she feels SB 77 mandates. Economically, SB 77 does commit most of the state's scarce state wildlife personnel and money to manage a few favored species and serve small interest groups. She pointed out that intensive management and predator control is expensive and the state cannot afford it. She felt that is why no fiscal note is attached to the proposed legislation. She urged committee members to reject SB 77 Number 070 CHRIS MAACH, PRESIDENT, ANCHORAGE AUDUBON SOCIETY, testified via teleconference and expressed opposition to SB 77. She said this bill will produce the opposite of what it seems to be promoting, a continuous high human harvest of game resources. If state game managers are tendered in their ability to alter bag limits and hunting seasons in order to protect some game resources, predator control will be too little and too late. She stressed SB 77 benefits a limited number of game resource users, mainly hunters and trappers and will ultimately deprive tourists, photographers and others who are attracted to the state by its wildlife and wilderness. The society feels that nonconsumptive uses of wildlife are just as beneficial to the people of Alaska in the long run, both economically and aesthetically, and (indiscernible) management practices do not deprive hunters and trappers of their way of appreciating wildlife. MS. MAACH said the recent heated controversy over wolf control is no doubt a factor in the drafting of SB 77. This legislation, if passed, will not resolve that controversy and will probably exaggerate it. She does not remember ever seeing a policy based on fear and spite that did not produce more of the same. She urged the committee to not pass SB 77. Number 098 TRACY ABELL, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB, testified via teleconference and stated the club is opposed to SB 77. The club is against a policy which will artificially boost so-called game species population at the expense of other animals. She said it is particularly disturbing that no attempt is being made to reduce hunting pressure or study other alternatives before predators will be systematically killed. She felt it is bad public policy to mandate the killing of a species as the first and only wildlife management tool. Alaska's wildlife should not be managed for the sole benefit of hunters and trappers. Predator control programs are shortsighted and can only result in a damaged ecosystem. She urged committee members to oppose SB 77. Number 110 GEORGE MATZ, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and stated SB 77 limits the ability of Board of Game to manage for biological reasons. He felt despite all the conditions listed in the bill, it is well known that the Board of Game (indiscernible) are very prone to lawsuits and it is inconceivable to him that the Board can do anything without a whole series of lawsuits. Meanwhile, if there are severe weather conditions, etc., impacting the game populations, the Board is not going to be able to use (indiscernible) because of a number of things. He stated the emphasis should be on managing people. In terms of increasing the abundance of moose, it is much better to look at where the real mortality is. He said the number of moose being killed on the highway is increasing. Number 161 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said if the Board wants to reduce the harvest level on a prey population and is not an emergency but is clearly a situation where the take needs to be lowered, subsection (f) says they cannot do that unless at the same time or previously, a regulation has been adopted providing for intensive management applicable to the area. He added that seems to say that what could be a relatively simple action to lower a take all of a sudden cannot be done without the complexities of dealing with intensive management. He asked if that will slow down the ability of the Board to be able to respond to nonemergency situations requiring an adjustment in harvest levels. MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied he did not believe so, because of the amendment which adds in the words "significantly reduced". He said the department discussed situations where there may be a bad winter or an extraordinary situation during the hunting season and their feeling is that subsection (f) will provide the Board of Game sufficient latitude to use a dimmer switch without having to consider a full blown intensive management effort prior to taking that step. He referred Representative Finkelstein to page 1, subsection (e)(2) which says the depletion of the big game prey population or the reduction of the productivity of the big game prey population has occurred and may result in a significant reduction in the allowable human harvest of the population. He thought (f) would be predicated upon the Board's determinations under (e). Number 196 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said there could be disagreements on what "significantly" means. He stated if there is an area where 20 moose are allowed to be taken and there is a desire to reduce that to 15, one could say that is a reduction of five moose and is not significant, but someone else could argue that is a reduction of 25 percent which is significant. He stated the (f) subsection assumes there is already regulations applicable to that situation under subsection (e). If there is not, the Board is going to be hamstrung in their ability to significantly reduce the taking of prey. He felt the Board will not be able to make the normal decisions they have been making over the years, unless the Board has adopted regulations prior to intensive management to increase the take, etc. He thought there will be situations where the Board is not going to be able to do what they believe is the biologically correct thing to do for lack of a procedural step. If the Board has to wait, it may be damaging to the resource to have a higher level in place, while the intensive management regulations have not been adopted. Number 220 MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded that the Board of Game and ADF&G are mandated to manage on a sustained yield basis. A delay of one year would not be possible if it would be unacceptable biologically and would jeopardize the sustained yield management. He pointed out that under subsection (e), human consumptive use goals identified by the Board is discussed and he envisioned that those consumptive use goals to be expressed as a range, rather than an absolute, so the Board can build in the flexibility they need. He said the purpose of this type of legislation is to address the situation ADF&G has had in the Delta caribou herd where the harvest has gone from several hundred caribou out of a population of almost 11,000 to having no open season for a prolonged period with the population still declining. He hoped that the Board will promulgate regulations addressing those types of situations where action is clearly needed. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 77 on page 2, line 21 adding a new section: (g) The Board of Game may not adopt regulations requiring the department to conduct intensive management programs, notwithstanding (a)(11) of this section, unless the board has taken all reasonable measures under (a)(1)-(10) of this section to reduce the take of the identified big game population. Subsection (g) will then become subsection (h). REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said one of the keys of this proposed legislation is the link to current law. He noted that subsection (a)(1) - (10) is not contained in the present version but was in previous version V. It is basically all of the tools which the department has. He stated other steps being taken are all important to the process, but the Board should not resort to intensive management unless they have used the normal measures to try and avoid the problem situations. He pointed out the amendment does not add anything new, it only says the intensive management steps shall wait until the normal wildlife management steps have occurred. Number 265 SENATOR SHARP stated that is the problem with the entire situation presently; five percent of the harvest is being managed and 80 percent of the harvest is not being managed. This amendment will still allow management of the human element which is five percent of the take and not the other 80 percent which destroys the intent of intensive game management. MR. KELLEYHOUSE agreed and stated that in most cases in the state, human harvest is limited to less than five percent. Consequently, normal changes in seasons and bag limits will preclude human use opportunities but may not have a population level impact. He pointed out the proposed legislation allows manipulation of the other 85 percent of natural mortality so the human harvest opportunity for long periods is not lost. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated his amendment addresses when the Board can get into intensive management and whether or not they are required to use the normal tools laid out in (a)(1) - (10) first to solve the problems. He felt the amendment reflects the intention that ADF&G has stated and that is, the Board will try and use the normal tools first to solve problems and only when the normal tools fail will the Board go into higher levels. MR. KELLEYHOUSE felt Representative Finkelstein had misinterpreted what he had said. While ADF&G wants to maintain the Board's flexibility, the department supports the intent and the house committee substitute which says that in certain situations and certain big game populations, more intensive management tools will be applied in order to preserve hunting opportunities. He said the amendment would basically close those off before any action will be taken and that turns the intent of the bill around. He stressed ADF&G is not opposed to using intensive management in certain circumstances to maintain human harvest opportunities. Number 318 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated if the entire subsection (f) is reviewed, it refers back up to (e)(1) - (3). He said (e)(3) says enhancement or productivity is feasibly achievable utilizing recognized and prudent active management techniques. He felt that says the Board cannot reduce hunting unless it has adopted regulations in accordance with having a methodology of feasibly achieving. He said the bill has been modified enough where there is a policy on the first page. He stated he did not support the amendment because he did not feel it fits and the issue is already covered. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the motion. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected. Number 330 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the amendment was Representative Finkelstein. Voting against the amendment were Representatives James, Mulder, Bunde, Hudson, and Williams. The MOTION was DEFEATED 5-1. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 77 on page 1, line 9, deleting the word "shall" and inserting the word "may". CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected. Number 355 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated currently the department has the power to perform some of the steps outlined including goals and means to achieve the goals, but he felt it did not make sense the way the law is structured forcing the department in all situations to do this. He said the proposed legislation is an interpretation of what is best at this point and it may not work forever. He felt the best way to write ADF&G laws is to give the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game the power to intensively manage, but give them the discretion to apply the law where they believe it is appropriate. He thought the word may represents that approach much better. SENATOR SHARP replied the reason the proposed legislation was restructured in the committee substitute was to leave flexibility in items 1-10 in section A and the word "shall" applies to intensive management under conditions which have many open windows. He felt using the word "may" will convolute the process even more and not provide any corrective action. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER opposed the amendment. He felt the amendment is perhaps the whole thrust of the bill in that it is a policy call - does the committee agree with intensive game management under the limited format proposed or not. He stated the amendment will diminish the provisions being adopted. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the amendment will only diminish the bill if the Board of Game disagrees with the approach of the bill. If the Board of Game agrees, which they probably will, the amendment will have no effect. He felt the Board of Game should be given that discretion. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the amendment were Representatives Bunde and Finkelstein. Voting against the amendment were Representatives Mulder, James, Williams, and Hudson. The MOTION was DEFEATED 4-2. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to pass HCS CSSB 77(RES) with a zero fiscal note out of committee with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN OBJECTED. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the motion were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Bunde, James, and Mulder. Voting against the motion was Representative Finkelstein. The MOTION PASSED 5-1. ANNOUNCEMENTS CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will meet on Wednesday, March 9 at 8:15 a.m. to hear SB 46 and HB 238. He said also on Wednesday, March 9 at 8:30 a.m. the House Committee on Fisheries has a presentation by community development groups and Representative Moses has extended an invitation to the House Resources Committee. Chairman Williams asked committee members to send staff members to the meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 11:10 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|