Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/03/1996 08:07 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 313 - BIG GAME TAGS FOR WOLVES Number 511 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "HB 313 is straight forward and the least controversial methodology that the state might be able to impose for managing predators. It simply reduces the tag fees for out of state residents from $175.00 to $30.00 and for non-resident aliens from $250.00 to $50.00." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "Currently, there is literally a handful of permits that are issued to nonresidents every year. The chances of a person running across a wolf during regular hunting seasons in the fall are fairly slim. The takes are pretty much incidental. We believe that by lowering these fees there will be more people with wolf tags in the field. The Department of Fish and Game, through its recommendations to the game board, could set seasons and bag limits to effectively manage these areas." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN submitted that, "If a system like this is in place that, quite possibly, in some of the areas we are right now, hunting is restricted for all nonresidents for moose or caribou. And, we have a real bad problem with lack of predator control and too many predators in certain areas that possibly this might have been a tool that could have been used to keep these areas from getting to that point." Number 668 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "Originally we had lowering the price to $10.00 and we felt that the department had a little bit of a problem with it because they felt it would be a negative fiscal note, or have a negative affect on their revenues and be a fiscal note of about $50,000. I believe by raising these tags, I would not be surprised, at all, if this brings in more money to the department. I believe that guides will advise their hunters that while you are at it, pick up a wolf tag they are only 30 bucks or 50 dollars." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "In certain areas where we don't want wolves taken, the game board can still have the ability, and the tools, to restrict harvest and season in those areas. So, this is not going to be detrimental to the wolf populations in areas that we don't want wolves taken out." Number 748 REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG clarified that the committee substitute was lowering tag fees for wolves from $175.00 to $30.00 and $250.00 to $50.00. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN answered that Representative Long was correct, the bill lowers wolf tag fees for nonresident or a nonresident alien hunters. "We hope that more of them will pick up tags and, the incidental take of wolves while they are in the field hunting generally other species, will increase, allowing the game board to set the harvest and bag limits. Essentially, it is an accepted practice to bear chase, hunt wolves, that is the biggest outcry of the animal rights activists groups is that some of the methodology that's been proposed is not bear chase. This certainly is bear chase, and, I believe, gives the game board more latitude to manage predators." CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted earlier arrival of Representatives Davies and Austerman. Number 833 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wanted to know the plan, the nonresident alien is not required to have a nonresident tag if he is hunting in an area of intensive game management. Will that be by guide only so that the state knows that he is complying with other areas? REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded that, "Species, except moose and caribou nonresidents are required to have guides. Chances are nonresidents, especially, and nonresidents do hunt with guides primarily. It is rare when they do not. Realistically, most areas where there is intensive management now, and nonresidents cannot hunt for moose and caribou in those areas because there are not enough to go around, nonresidents are the first ones that are not able to hunt." Number 916 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Department of Fish and Game, joined the panel and responded to Chairman Green that a nonresident hunting big game would be required to have a guide. The guide would be familiar with the areas which the Board of Game has identified as an area for intensive management. Those are areas where there is a higher population of wolves, or other predators, that would be wise to reduce, so it could have the affect that Representative Ogan is intending. MR. BRUCE replied that HB 313 is not a big cost savings, but it is a message that the state is sending encouraging people, if they are so inclined, to go ahead and take a wolf while they are hunting for other species. He stated that the intensive game management areas, that authority was given to the Board of Game by prior legislation and another bill was recently passed which expands on that initial authority. Number 1095 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN raised the point that other legislation is fining the citizens of the state for taking game out of season while this bill appears to be giving a break to nonresident hunters to come in and hunt wolves. MR. BRUCE informed Chairman Green that residents are not required to have a tag to take wolves so there is no cost for residents. Number 1120 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN answered that the other legislation referred to by Chairman Green affected nonresidents as well as residents. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wanted to know the effectiveness of incidental kill. Number 1193 MR. BRUCE responded that, historically, there has not been a high interest by nonresidents coming to the state specifically to hunt wolves. The number of wolves taken by nonresidents has been fairly small and fairly stable. "I think it is an incidental take question and I think the intention, though, is that there are limited tools available that have general acceptance to try to increase the harvest of wolves in areas where there are surpluses and this is intended to provide a tool that would do that. How effective that will be, we will have to give it some time to see. Number 1247 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN assumed from Mr. Bruce's testimony that the department is in favor of both the reduction and the nonrequirement for intensive game management areas. Number 1261 MR. BRUCE replied that the department has worked with the sponsor and we are comfortable with the bill. Number 1270 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES wondered how much the wolf tag is and, specifically, why the language only says eliminate and does not give the possibility of reducing the wolf tag. MR. BRUCE replied that $175.00 for nonresidents and $250.00 for nonresident aliens is the current requirement. He explained, "So, it is being reduced in areas which have not been identified for intensive management and waived in areas where intensive management has been implemented. So, there are two levels of incentive under the bill." Number 1307 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to Game Management Area 13 stating the state has waived tag fees on grizzly bears for resident hunters in that area. Number 1359 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES understood that the bill would eliminate or reduce the tag fee stating his concern was getting rid of the tag, itself. Does the tag help track the take, or are their other uses that the department uses, in terms of management of the tag, apart from the fee? Number 1379 MR. BRUCE answered that there are other means for gathering that information. If you are hunting with a guide, guides are required to provide harvest information to the department. We do not think that we would lose through this measure our ability to collect the information and track the harvest. Number 1403 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if legislation encouraging nonresidents and nonresident aliens to come to Alaska and kill wolves could be used against the state and generate bad publicity. Number 1430 MR. BRUCE explained that the bill, essentially, liberalizes hunting regulations, it is still within the normal domain of hunting under the fair chase principle. It is consistent, in that respect, with all the other general philosophy for managing the hunting activity. It is not predator control in that sense, it is just simply a more liberalized approach to hunting of this particular species. Number 1479 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested that the bill is wildlife management, as wildlife management is intended to be. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN subscribed to intensive game management where it is necessary to preserve the game. Number 1499 REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN commented that he sees nothing wrong with the bill and understands the intent. He said that Kodiak Island, also, had lean years and years of abundance, and that is a management tool that the department can use whether the tag fee is lowered or whether it is the bag limit, it is all part of how game management is controlled. Number 1557 ANTHONY CRUPI, Volunteer, Alaska Environmental Lobby, related that today's testimony had raised points that address why the lobby does not support HB 313: "Number one, I believe there would definitely be a negative impact on the tourist industry by something like this. More importantly, it appears inconceivable how, at a present period where we have such cuts in our budget for the Department of Fish and Game that we would pass legislation that would reduce the revenues to increase predator control. That just does not seem to be consistent with what our feelings should be. MR. CRUPI, "I, also, believe that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, as well as the Board of Game, the supposed managers of our wildlife, should be managing our wildlife. They should retain that authority to regulate our game and our predators. I do not feel that it is consistent with our legislature imposing acts to take that authority from underneath them. MR. CRUPI continued, "The influence of this bill reducing the variable by over 80 percent to increase the nonresident and nonresident aliens takings, does not do anything but decrease the latitude of the Board of Game and the Department of Fish and Game to manage the predators. Number 1642 MR. CRUPI stated, "I feel that by not requiring this wolf tag that intensive game management, when it is under progress, it does not lead to more biologically sound understanding of the wolf population or the game population. I feel that we are losing information by not requiring this tag. MR. CRUPI concluded, "In addition to decreased regulation, HB 313, as we have said, is very inconsistent with proposed bill, HB 329 which as you know, puts the penalty value for a wolf at $500.00 whereas this puts the value of the wolf at $30.00. I do not believe that even at $500.00, it adequately represents the wealth, the worth and the benefit of a live, running, healthy wolf." Number 1680 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Crupi if his last statement meant that the state should not kill wolves, altogether. MR. CRUPI related that his point was that the $500 value is very inconsistent with the $30.00 and $50.00 price put on the wolf in HB 313. His personal opinion is a wolf, as a predator, should be valued even higher than $500.00, and he is very opposed to a $30.00 or $50.00 wolf. Number 1723 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN expressed an opinion that the wolf having a negative impact on the tourist industry is a smoke screen. He referred to the budget cuts saying, "Right now, 10,000 nonresident and nonresident aliens hunt in this state every year, 245 currently buy wolf tags, and we believe that if half of those people picked up tags, it could generate $200,000 for the state. Currently, the tag sales generate about $50,000." Number 1796 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "For your information, we delegate, we the legislature, delegates the authority to the Department of Fish and Game and the Board of Game to manage wildlife. We would not be undermining their authority because we give it to them. So, ultimately, it is the legislature's authority to manage this wildlife and we have chosen to delegate it to those people. So, we are not taking any authority away because we give the authority. You need to understand that." CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked the wish of the committee. Number 1811 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN moved that CSHB 313 (RES) move from the House Resources Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|