Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/22/1999 01:11 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SCR 2 - MANAGEMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE CO-CHAIR OGAN announced that the next item of business would be Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 2, relating to management of Alaska's wildlife and fish resources. Number 2673 MEL KROGSENG, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska State Legislature, came forward on behalf of the sponsor. She noted that SCR 2 is very similar to the resolution of the same number passed by this legislature last year, then stated: The resolution is intended to send a strong message to the Governor, the Board of Fisheries, the Board of Game and the Department of Fish and Game that you, the legislature, want the wildlife and fish resources of our state to be aggressively biologically managed on a sustained yield basis for abundance. Mr. Chairman, over the last few years we've seen a decline in several of our wildlife and fish stocks in certain areas. This decline has continued to the point where serious shortages currently exist and are continuing unabated. Last year, before this very committee, you heard testimony about moose shortages in the Aniak area, and moose and caribou shortages in the Dot Lake area. There are ongoing shortages in fish stocks in several areas, as well. Bristol Bay has been considered a disaster area for the last two years. In 1997, the Kenai River had very few coho salmon, and just this past year the Kenai was closed down June 5th, very early, to catch-and-release for the first run of Chinook salmon. The Mat-Su streams, Mr. Chairman, as you well know, have had ongoing shortages in coho, sockeye, chum and Chinook stocks. Cook Inlet commercial fishing was closed down early just this past year because of a low sockeye run there. Management of these resources, Mr. Chairman, was delegated by the legislature to the Board of Fisheries, the Board of Game and the Department of Fish and Game, and, therefore, it is incumbent upon you, the legislature, to tell the agencies the management philosophy that you want followed. This resolution will send that message - and it is a crystal clear message - that the legislature wants these resources biologically managed on a sustained yield basis for abundance. MS. KROGSENG read from page 2451 of the original Alaska Constitutional Convention proceedings [copy provided in committee packets]: "... we have in mind no narrow definition of sustained yield as is used, for example, in forestry, but the broad premise that insofar as possible a principle of sustained yield shall be used with respect to administration of those resources which are susceptible of sustained yield, and where it is desirable. For example, predators would not be maintained on a sustained yield basis." She suggested that having an abundance of wildlife and fish resources in our state would go a long way towards resolving the ongoing subsistence issue, as there would be enough of these resources for all user groups: personal use, commercial and sport. Number 2815 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES clarified that the legislature delegates authority to the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game, not the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and members of the department work for those boards. She added, "We are the only ones that can appropriate money, so they do work for us, but we do not delegate our powers to them, but to the board of fish and game, because we, under the constitution, are charged with ... the management of all of Alaska's resources." Number 2864 CO-CHAIR OGAN said he supports this resolution but has a reservation about the same-day airborne hunting of brown bears. He stated, "A good example is some action that the board took here recently, that they rescinded their action and held it over to, I think, January of next year, and that was same-day airborne brown bear hunting in Unit 13; and I think there's a cost-benefit analysis we have to look at when we do those kind of things." He noted that he has lived in this state since 1975, during which time he doesn't believe that there has been same-day airborne hunting for bears. CO-CHAIR OGAN noted that there had been same-day airborne hunting for wolves, deer and caribou, however. He then stated, "I'm a little concerned, at a time when we're talking about some constitutional amendments to limit or prohibit the public's involvement in fish and game matters, or resource matters, this ... literally interpreted would almost instruct them to do whatever they can. I'm just concerned about the same-day airborne [hunting] of bears. ... While it might be sound biological management, it would certainly be a fund raiser for 'Friends of the Animals' and 'Sierra Clubbers' and those kind of things, ... which could end up countering what we're trying to do with some of the initiatives." Number 2955 MS. KROGSENG responded that there are many ways that the department could manage predators, including brown bears. They could increase bag limits, or annual harvests, for example. She said although she wasn't aware of it at the time, she understands that in the Forty Mile area there was a special program under which trappers in the area took, she believes, 80-some wolves, then tanned the hides and sold them at auction. It didn't cost the state any money; it accomplished the project at hand, which was to lower the wolf population in the area; and it made money for the trappers. TAPE 99-16, SIDE B Number 0001 MS. KROGSENG said she knows the sponsor wouldn't want to do anything to jeopardize any of the other resolutions. What they are trying to do with this resolution, as they tried last year, is to tell the Board of Fisheries, the Board of Game and the department that they need to manage the resources in conformity with the constitutional mandate of sustained yield. She concluded by saying she had read the quotation from the constitutional convention proceedings to point out that when the constitution talks about sustained yield, it is not necessarily talking about wolves, bears and other predators. Number 2925 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE recalled that the legislature had passed some legislation the previous year about managing for abundance. He asked how HJR 15 works with that. Number 2906 MS. KROGSENG responded that a similar resolution on abundance had been passed last year. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that this year, the resolution includes fish, whereas last year it just pertained to wildlife. In addition, this one talks about passive management. He said he recalled a bill, however, having to do with managing for abundance, which he believed to be SB 250, by Senator Sharp. He indicated he would ask an ADF&G representative about it. Number 2850 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to page 2, line 4, of SCR 2, which read, "wildlife and fish resources on a biological basis for abundance". She asked whether, to alleviate Co-Chair Ogan's concerns, it would be appropriate to add wording along the lines of, "with the exception of predators that the board of fish and game have determined to be a detriment to the other wildlife population". MS. KROGSENG responded that she believes Senator Taylor would support that proposed amendment. She stated, "It is not his intent to have this resolution imply, in any way, shape, size or form, that we should be managing wolves and bears on a basis for abundance - or other predators, for that matter." CO-CHAIR OGAN suggested saying something about human consumption. MS. KROGSENG mentioned the ungulate population, then said she would work on the proposed amendment. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES offered Ms. Krogseng the language she herself had written down. Number 2709 DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Kenai. He stated support for SCR 2 and agreed with Representative Barnes that the legislature is the trustee of Alaska's fish and wildlife resources, with responsibility to manage those resources for abundance, for the sole benefit of the users - the public. Number 2650 DREW SPARLIN testified via teleconference from Kenai. A commercial fisherman for 35 year in Cook Inlet who resides in Kenai, he told members he supports SCR 2. He has great hopes that it will go towards eliminating politics from the decisions being made, because of the need to make decisions through biological data. Mr. Sparlin expressed belief that if everyone made the best decisions, based on the best biological information available to them, the resource would be the benefactor. Number 2564 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked Geron Bruce of the ADF&G whether the bill passed last year and SCR 2 were connected in any way, in terms of intensive management and managing for abundance. GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), answered that he doesn't recall a piece of law on this subject that passed last year. Although a number of bills addressed this general topic, the only bill that he remembered passing was SB 250, which was significantly amended as it went through the process. In its final version, he doesn't believe it addressed abundance; rather, it addressed how to account for and track federal aid money, where it was going to be appropriated. Number 2323 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said he was wondering whether, in managing for abundance, especially for salmon stocks, there may be conflict between some of the user groups, such as commercial and sport interests. MR. BRUCE first offered some background, saying it is hard to talk about fish and wildlife in Alaska in general, because this is such a huge state, and there is so much difference in the species, the productivity in different regions, the patterns of use, and so forth. While some populations are low or declining, overall both our fish and our wildlife populations are quite strong. MR. BRUCE next said he would discuss an area that embodies the kind of problems that Representative Joule is talking about. He stated: I think for the managers - for the people on the Board of Fisheries, Board of Game, and the department staff that has to implement the management plans that they pass, and carry out the statutes that you folk pass - it balances. You know, "balance" is a key word, trying to balance abundance of different species that may be running at the same time, and may be subject to harvest at the same time. And I think probably there's no better example of this in the state than Cook Inlet, where you have a very large sockeye producer in the Kenai River. You have a number of other small-to-medium-size producers of sockeye, Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon and pink salmon scattered through the drainage. These fish generally enter Cook Inlet together, and when you say "manage for abundance," ... you have to decide what that means in terms of a management program. Does it mean maximizing the production of the strongest stock and maximizing the harvest of that? Because that's where you might actually produce the maximum numbers of fish, and harvest the maximum numbers of fish. But what that is going to mean is that for some other stocks, they are going to be less abundant than they could be ... if they weren't mixed with this stronger stock and subject to incidental harvest during the prosecution of the fishery for the stronger stock. So, that's why the board tries to balance between ... the abundant resources, the smaller resources that may never have the potential to be as abundant as some of the larger ones, and then the various users. It's a very complicated ... process; it's one that you never get 100 percent right. But I think the key term there is "balance," and trying to balance all these different production goals, capabilities, the environmental factors are certainly one, and then the preferences ... that people have for the different uses of these resources. Number 2323 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to the zero fiscal note. He asked whether, if the ADF&G managed for abundance, there would be a fiscal impact, using salmon as an example. MR. BRUCE replied that human resources - staff - are a constraint in terms of trying to maximize production for the whole range of resources. He pointed out all of the information they would have to gather from all the systems in Cook Inlet, for example, to be applied, in season, to management of the fisheries, to try to separate the systems in order to get maximum production from each individual unit. It would be costly. It would also be very difficult to accomplish, given the overlap, even with unlimited funds; but certainly funds and manpower are factors in determining how much information they can gather, and how many stocks they can manage with that level of precision. Number 2226 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to page 1, lines 10 and 11, which read, "WHEREAS the passive monitoring of declining wildlife and fish populations is no longer acceptable". He asked whether Mr. Bruce would say that passive management is the ADF&G's current type of management. MR. BRUCE replied, "I guess we read the resolution as implying that that is passive and somehow not good or not what we should be doing." He told members he would echo the testimony of Wayne Regelin, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, ADF&G, in the earlier hearing on SCR 2 in the House Special Committee on Fisheries. Mr. Regelin had strongly stated that basic data collection - including data on harvests, resource inventory and productivity - is the heart of any successful fish and wildlife management program. They have to have it. Without it, they would be shooting blind, with no idea what they were doing. MR. BRUCE emphasized that Alaska has a reputation as a leader in fish and wildlife management, primarily because of the data collection and analysis carried out on a systematic and regular basis; that is also the reason why there are fish and wildlife resources here in this state. Number 2145 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "Mr. Bruce, you would, then, concede that because we have this ongoing research all the time, in our fish and wildlife population, that it would be hard to determine if you needed additional funds for the research activity, since it is an ongoing process, and that that would not, in any way, take from the zero fiscal note that was attached to this bill?" MR. BRUCE replied that he doesn't believe this resolution requires a positive fiscal note from the ADF&G; it is an expression of the legislature's will and desires. Number 2093 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES moved to adopt the previously discussed conceptual amendment, which had been typed up as follows: On page 2, line 4, insert: "with the exception of predators that the Board of Fish[eries] and the Board of Game have determined to be a detriment to the resources used for human consumption." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. [Further clarification of this amendment by Representative Barnes is found at Number 1079 during the hearing on HJR 28.] Number 2025 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move SCR 2, as amended, from committee with the accompanying zero fiscal note and individual recommendations; she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, HCS SCR 2(RES) moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee. SCR 2 - MANAGEMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE Number 1079 Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 2, relating to management of Alaska's wildlife and fish resources, was brought up again briefly. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to Conceptual Amendment 1, adopted earlier that meeting. She pointed out that the boards don't meet jointly. Therefore, the amendment needs to say, "the Board of Fish[eries] or the Board of Game". She suggested that because it is a conceptual amendment, hurriedly drafted, there is no problem with making that change, as the drafters could have changed it themselves. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether anyone objected to that change to Conceptual Amendment 1; no objection was heard. [End of this section.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|