Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/25/1996 08:08 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SCR 24 - REESTABLISH ADFG DIVISION OF GAME Number 1482 CO-CHAIR GREEN said the next item on the agenda was CSSCR 24, relating to a division of game in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and to management of game. SENATOR BERT SHARP, sponsor of CSSCR 24 (RES), read from a sponsor statement, "CSSCR 24 (RES) simply put is a request by the legislature, to the Governor, to remove the name Division of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) and replace it with the Division's original name, Division of Game (DG). The first whereas notes that, then Governor Cowper, in 1989 renamed the Division of Game, the Division of Wildlife Conservation. What's in a name you say? A rose by any other name smells just as sweet you say. The rose, Division of Game, that everyone could recognize as responsible for the management of games resources, was replaced by a broad array of flowering plants that emits such a range of scents that every "posey" sniffer claims to detect their favorite and demands that their sense of smell is the most accurate and overpowering and should dictate the Division's actions. Unfortunately, the rose which represents the Division of Game's commitment to the management of game, bases on sound scientific data, has deteriorated to a mangy bramble. The fragrance from this bramble is now the least detectable element of the swirl of odors emitting from the Division of Wildlife Conservation. No longer is the scientific management of Alaska's game resources the Division's primary goal. The goal of achieving and maintaining high sustainable population levels of game animals for personal use harvest and viewing by Alaskans is no longer a commitment of the Division. No longer is hands on active management of the resource considered their primary responsibility. Their mission now is more confused and is now being focused on the management of people not of game." He said the actions of the past years back this statement up. "They now advocate the need to manage public opinions as one of their responsibilities, such as their newly proposed `human dimensions' program costing over a quarter of million dollars." He said there is an extensive public process involved with the Board of Game to change any regulations or establish new regulations which sometimes takes up to five years of public input. He said there is adequate public process without the Division of Wildlife Conservation involving themselves in managing public opinion through the use of wildlife funds. "The fact is that 100 percent of this Divisions's budget is paid for by taxes and fees on hunters, shooters, sportfishing activities and their license fees and associated equipment that these people use. The name change in 1989 to DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION encouraged the fragmentation of the Division's mission into many parts, many with diametrically opposed goals. The Division's resources have been redirected n many areas toward benefiting non- hunters, even though those people do not contribute to the Division's budget one dollar. I submit that a name does carry a significant meaning. Ask those engaged in the commercial fishing industry, would they favor a change of name from the Division of Commercial Fisheries to the Division of Conservation of Marine Life? I think not. Let's send this reasonable message to the Governor. Let's get back to basics, let's manage the resource as a resource for Alaskans, harvestable resource as well as a viable viewing opportunities for all. Let's re-establish the Division of Game. Number 1730 EDDIE GRASSER, Member, Alaska Outdoor Council, was next to testify. He said the council supports CSSCR 24 (RES) for a variety of reasons. He said, when the name change occurred, some members supported the change, others reluctantly agreed and others opposed it. He said the practices of the Division of Wildlife Conservation have lead to a determination that it was bad to change the name. Number 1798 MR. GRASSER said there are a lot of hunters that belong to the council. He said there is a lot of frustration regarding the management policies within the DFG. He said there are game populations no longer being managed actively by the DFG and the opportunity for human harvest is diminishing. He said, Unit 13 in the Nelchina Basin, has a high number of moose, although it has decreased from 22,000 to 18,000. He said only 750 moose have been allowed to be harvested over the past four years. He said the small harvesting number is because of other species who hunt moose in the area. He added that the DFG has liberalized the bear harvest in the basin. He said, in the McGrath area, there is one wolf for every 12 moose. He said this situation has lead to a high frustration level due to the lack of management which he said had been formulated from public misconceptions. Number 1812 Representative Barnes joined the committee meeting at 8:40 a.m. MR. GRASSER said anti-hunting groups have pushed for the so-called "balance" in the management of wildlife. He said, while these groups continually call for a balance, they refuse to acknowledge that two-thirds of Alaska is either closed to hunting or is off limits to any type of meaningful state management because this land is owned by the federal government. He said these groups feel that only a tiny portion of the land is being managed for their use, but added that the federal land is huge and that it is being managed for this group's use. Number 1889 MR. GRASSER said one of the issues that brought the management issue to a head was the Payne bear hunt in McNeil River Game Refuge. He said, by the director's own admission, the Division of Wildlife Conservation supported the closure of the bear hunt because of public perception. He said this was the wrong thing for the Division of Wildlife Conservation to do as hunting in this area has gone on for many years. He said the Division of Wildlife Conservation should have begun a program of public education to demonstrate that viewing and hunting are compatible. He said as a result of this policy, the frustration of the hunting community has continued to grow. Number 1931 MR. GRASSER said the state needs to recognize that the Division of Wildlife Conservation is fully funded by hunters and trappers. He said there is dialogue in the papers, et cetera in which anti- hunters argue that their money is not being spent wisely. He said it is not this group's money, it is the money of the hunters and it should be spent in a better way. Number 1946 MR. GRASSER referred to other bills introduced by Senator Sharp which have been labeled "intensive management." He said it is not "intensive management," but a return to management. He said a balance has been struck and reiterated the federal land component. Number 1971 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked how many acres are off limits to hunting in Alaska. Number 1979 MR. GRASSER said he believed it was a little over 50 million acres that are completely closed to hunting. Representative Nicholia joined the committee meeting at 8:35 a.m. Number 1983 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if these acres are managed by the federal government which has no management of game policy. Number 1997 MR. GRASSER concurred and added that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service have moved towards a biodiversity management scheme which is a "hands off scheme" and does not recognize the human interaction within the natural environment. Number 2019 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game, was next to testify. He said there is significance in a name and gave information on the view of the Division and Department on why the present name is appropriate. He said the responsibility for managing the state's wildlife resources comes from the state's constitution. In the constitution, it mandates management of wildlife species for the maximum benefit of all Alaskans. He said there are 520 wildlife species in Alaska, 70 of which are hunted species. The Division of Wildlife Conservation spends 95 percent of its budget managing these hunted species. He said the other 4.5 percent goes to the wildlife education program, endangered species program and to the wildlife viewing program. He said these small programs offer benefits to the hunting community. MR. BRUCE said the wildlife education staff works directly with the teachers in the educational system, grades kindergarten through high school, in developing wildlife curriculum which educates people about the benefits of wildlife, how to preserve the species and the ethics of hunting and using the wildlife. During this interaction, the staff discovered information, in the curriculum which was anti-hunting and incorrect. He said the staff worked with the Department of Education in the Anchorage school system to remove that material from the curriculum and had information substituted which correctly portrayed the ethics of hunting and how it relates to the conservation ethic that the state supports. Number 2119 MR. BRUCE said the Endangered Species Program that the Division of Wildlife Conservation oversees has an excellent record. Since the legislature passed that act, no species in Alaska, that Alaska manages, has been listed on the Endangered Species Act and several species have been removed. Number 2135 MR. BRUCE said, it is the Division of Wildlife Conservation belief, that management of game involves the management of people. He said this is why Division of Wildlife Conservation has a Board of Game system and intensive public involvement in the regulatory process. He said he believed a lot of the issue was a matter of emphasis and perception. He said, some people believe that, there should be more emphasis in certain areas as compared to other areas. He said there is always room for discussion and a difference of opinion on those matters, but the Division of Wildlife Conservation works hard to support hunting. He said of the 180 employees in Division of Wildlife Conservation, only five work on non-consumptive use programs. He said the Division of Wildlife Conservation feels that this is a reasonable balance in line with the state's constitution and the mandate to serve all the people. Number 2183 REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES asked him to repeat his references to the constitution. Number 2194 MR. BRUCE, "Through the Chair, Representative Barnes, yes, ma'am I did refer to Article 8 of the state constitution which is the ... which talks about the common use, maximizing the uses of wildlife for all of the people subject to preferences among beneficial uses. Which is something that this body and the Board of Game is charged with determining those preferences." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "since he has (indiscernible )correctly portrayed what the constitution says, subject to preference among beneficial uses. It does not say anything about subject to preference among beneficial users, does it?" Number 2230 MR. BRUCE, "Through the Chair, Representative Barnes, no the language is uses." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "Thank you." Number 2240 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked what the Division of Wildlife Conservation doing about the wolf problem in McGrath. Number 2249 MR. BRUCE said the issue of predator control is the most controversial issue in wildlife management. He said the Division of Wildlife Conservation and DFG is concerned about the high ratio of wolves to moose in the area and that options are being explored to correct that situation. He said, if a program of predator control were chosen, "it would have to go through the Board of Game in the area, approved, and then it would also have to meet the Governor's criteria for predator control program." He said that staff from the Division of Wildlife Conservation have gone out to the area and said that one of the human dimension efforts was directed at McGrath to find out what they recommended doing. Number 2300 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked what the timeline would be on this issue. Number 2302 MR. BRUCE said he could not lay out a specific timetable. He said he would need to contact the director of the Division, to see if there was a proposed timetable and what it would be. Number 2313 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if it would roughly be months or years. Number 2319 MR. BRUCE said any type of predator control needs to occur during the winter in a period of snow. He said it would probably not be possible to do anything this year. Number 2334 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "Mr. Chairman, through the chair, Mr. Bruce, would you tell me who establishes the policy which is implemented for your department?" Number 2344 MR. BRUCE, "Through the chair, Representative Barnes, yes, ma'am, the policies that the Department implements are established by the Legislature through its statutory authority and then through the Board of Game through its regulatory authority." Number 2356 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "What was that statement you made about the Governor, subject to the Governor's policies?" Number 2359 MR. BRUCE, "Well, the Governor has laid out a criteria that he thinks a predator control must meet in order to be implemented and that is what I was referring to." Number 2365 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "Mr. Chairman, since the Legislature and only the Legislature, through its statutes, regulations that we promulgate in the form of law that is not to be superseded by the Departments, plus the budget process, can you tell me how the Governor can override those laws?" Number 2380 MR. BRUCE, "Through the chair, Representative Barnes, I don't believe the Governor is overriding the laws of that the Legislature has passed. I believe the Governor is using his discretion as the chief executive to direct policy in a way that he thinks is consistent with the public good and the desires of the Legislature and the Board of Game." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "MR. Chairman, that to me, and I have been here a long time, is one of the worst statements that I have ever heard made to this Legislature. The Governor has no authority whatsoever to establish policy. He has the authority to carry out what is in the law, he cannot make up the law and he cannot make up his own administrative direction. And I have known more than one Governor to be sued over that. And that is a terrible statement you made and Mr. Chairman, I want it off the record verbatim." A discussion ensued about the issue of including this section of the meeting verbatim in the minutes. TAPE 96-41, SIDE B Number 0000 CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to the comment about the number of federal lands that are protected and off-limits to hunters, he asked if the state was being overly protective of state lands. Number 0019 MR. BRUCE said he could provide information on the number of participants in wildlife viewing. He said Division of Wildlife Conservation conducted a large effort to try and get feedback from hunters and non-hunters and their uses of wildlife and said that study provided information. He said there is also information on specific areas where are those activities are very prominent such as McNeill River, Walrus Island, Potter Marsh and Kramer's field. He said, as a general comment, the activity in those areas is quite high and there are many people participating in viewing as well as hunting activities. Number 0060 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if most of the people are viewing in established viewing areas as opposed to those hunters who go out into areas that would not be accessed by the average viewer. Number 0069 MR. BRUCE said one of the growing elements of the visitor industry is guided trips to view wild lands. He said there are operators in many areas of the state who take people out into remote areas. Number 0095 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if the name was changed, from Division of Wildlife Conservation to Division of Game, would there be an adverse affect on people wishing to view wildlife. Number 0114 MR. BRUCE said this issue is one of perception and message. He said a name should be used which most accurately describes the broad mission to serve everyone. He said the Division and the Department will still do their best to serve the multiplicity of uses. He said most of the expenditures, within the Division of Wildlife Conservation, go to the hunted species. He then reiterated that even some of the activities that are not specifically directed to hunters, can have a beneficial affect by providing correct information to young people regarding the positive benefits of hunting and countering misinformation. He said the program, in total, is very supportive of the hunting community and hunting as a legitimate use of Alaska's wildlife. He said this policy would not change. MR. BRUCE said the issues involving programmatic decisions within the Department relates more to the funding situation. He said some general fund monies supported a few of these activities, such as the wildlife education program, until very recently. He said, as general funds are being reduced throughout government and the funding sources available through the DFG fund and the Federal Aid and Wildlife Restoration Program have increased, there has been a tendency to use those funds in lieu of declining general funds. MR. BRUCE said the Division of Wildlife Conservation will continue with its program under whatever name. He said the legislature will decide what the perception and the message is that the state wants to present to the public. Number 0204 CO-CHAIR GREEN expressed concern that there was a correlation between the focus change of the Division of Wildlife Conservation and the change of the name from Division of Game to Division of Wildlife Conservation. He asked if this question had been previously asked to the director and asked where he was. Number 0236 MR. BRUCE said these questions were answered. He said the director is at the Board of Game meeting. He said he tried to summarize the same arguments that the director or the deputy director had made in earlier testimony, especially testimony given on the Senate side. Number 0257 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if the name was changed to Division of Game, if the focus of the Division would change. Number 0273 MR. BRUCE said it is a question of perception and people might see things differently. He said, "I don't think you can really see a significant difference in the way the Division spends its monies." He said the non-hunting provisions within the Division are a small part. He said most of the effort is directed at the hunted activities. He questioned whether the name were changed if it would cause a reduction in the 4.5 percent. He said there are other factors driving the policy and they have little to do with the name of the Division. Number 0312 REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG asked if the Board of Game was under the Division of Wildlife Conservation. Number 0326 MR. BRUCE said the Board of Game is organized administratively under the Division of Administration and the Commissioner's Office, not under the Division of Wildlife Conservation. He said the board is semi-autonomous and consists of seven people who are appointed by the Governor and confirmed through the Legislature. He said the board makes the difficult decisions of how the resources are used among the various competing users and serves as a way to bring the public into the management decisions made by the Division. He concluded that the board is housed administratively in the department, but it functions as an independent entity in the decisions it makes. Number 0373 CO-CHAIR GREEN clarified that Mr. Bruce had not been with the Division when the name change was made. He then asked if there had been a change of direction when the name change occurred as alluded to by the sponsor. Number 0388 MR. BRUCE said he had talked with the director, the deputy director and other staff who do not believe that there has been a change of focus. They believe that the reason the name was changed is because it more accurately reflected the mission of the Division at that period in time. He said it was more an alignment of name with function, at that period, rather than the signaling of any change. Number 0422 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked him to confirm this statement in the context of what the sponsor and witnesses believe. Number 0426 MR. BRUCE said yes it was true, "with all due respect to those individuals." He referred to his earlier statement that people perceive things differently. He said the perception of staff, within the Division, was that the name change did not signal a change of focus. He said it is hard to measure perception and to determine who is correct. Number 0457 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if the name were changed to Division of Game if it would merely be a perception change. MR. BRUCE said that was correct. Number 0463 REPRESENTATIVE LONG questioned if the name change involved in CSSCR 24 (RES) would be considered a directive from the Legislature to change direction. Number 0492 MR. BRUCE said it is not that the Division is not interested and responsive to legislative direction, but clarified that CSSCR 24 (RES) requests a name change and sends a message about the Legislature's perception that the program is not orientated towards a certain kind of emphasis. He said the Division would take the message to heart. He repeated that the small amount spent towards non-hunting and said before that amount was reduced, the Division would want to meet with the Legislature to make sure that was the desired direction. He said the resolution is a request, it does require or mandate the Department to do anything. Number 0556 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the Legislature is charged, by the constitution, to manage the fish and the wildlife in the state of Alaska. She said the Legislature delegates their authority to carry out the laws they promulgate. She said the Legislative Branch promulgate and establishes in the policy to the Board of Game. She said the board is not the ultimate authority, the Legislature is. Number 0598 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move CSCSR 24 (RES) with individual recommendations. Hearing no objections CSSCR 24 (RES) was moved from the House Standing Committee on Resources.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|