Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/20/2001 01:50 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 144-GUIDES FOR NONRESIDENT MOOSE HUNTERS CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 144, "An Act requiring nonresident hunters to be accompanied when hunting moose; and providing for an effective date." Number 1062 REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to adopt CSHB 144 [Version 22- LS0602\J, Utermohle, 3/21/01] as the working document before the committee. There being no objection, Version J was before the committee. Number 1133 REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER, Alaska State Legislature, testified as the sponsor of HB 144. Representative Lancaster informed the committee that early in the session he was contacted by a constituent, who is a guide, regarding the actions of the Board of Game. Working with the constituent and the Alaska Professional Hunter's Association (APHA), HB 144 was drafted. He informed the committee that he fully supported the committee substitute (CS). Representative Lancaster said, "The bill will assure that nonresident moose hunters are given the assistance needed, by someone accountable for legal hunting and proper care of game in the field during the time of hunting." This legislation should increase the moose population, alleviate the biological and conservation concern regarding moose populations, and assure more stable subsistence allocation for resident moose hunters. Furthermore, the bill will curtail the increase of wanton waste and moose hunting violations committed by unguided nonresident moose hunters while protecting the economically viable state guide industry. Representative Lancaster pointed out that the CS allows for the "buddy hunt," which means that one nonrelated person can hunt moose with a resident. Number 1224 VIRGIL UMPHENOUR testified via teleconference. He stressed that he was speaking on his own behalf, although he informed the committee that he is a big game hunting guide, owner of a meat and fish processing facility in Fairbanks, and a member of the State Board of Fisheries. Mr. Umphenour felt that this bill is necessary. As a guide, he has seen how nonresident hunters have increased such that drawing permits are now done. Mr. Umphenour pointed out that the Board of Fish & Game can only manage by methods and means. If so desired, nonresidents can be restricted entirely, which just happened in game management unit 13. MR. UMPHENOUR, as an owner of a meat processing facility, says the biggest problem is nonresidents bringing in filthy moose meat. Most registered guides, such as himself, hire the local Native Alaskans. Furthermore, he only allows the hunter to take one hind leg and the back strap home, which can be 150-200 pounds of meat. The rest of the meat is taken care of by himself and his guides. The meat is aged for a couple of days and then taken to the villages for distribution to the elderly and single mothers. MR. UMPHENOUR informed the committee that the biggest complaint he hears from advisory board members throughout the state is that transporters drop off their clients in easy drop-off sites and thus they compete with the local subsistence users. Much conflict over subsistence happens. Therefore, he felt that [CSHB 144] would alleviate many of the problems. He concluded by saying that this is a good bill. Number 1378 CLARK WHITNEY testified via teleconference. Over his nearly 40- years in Alaska, he has trapped, fished, and flown over most of Alaska and thus he has a close association with the wildlife of Alaska. He also informed the committee that he has served on the local fish and game advisory board as well as (indisc.). Mr. Whitney noted that he is most familiar and concerned with game management units 15, 16, 9, 17, and 19. He pointed out that there is very little calf recoupment due to predation. Mr. Whitney urged the committee's support of HB 144 for the following reasons. Firstly, the current administration has eliminated practically all predator controls statewide. Therefore, there has been widespread depletion, specifically of moose and sheep. This fact has been recognized by the legislature, the Board of Fish & Game, and the Native community. Despite of efforts of these various groups, the governor has refused to change the policy regarding these issues. Mr. Whitney predicted that the governor will not change his stance for the rest of his term. Furthermore, the aforementioned game populations have been hamstrung within the Department of Game due to their disagreement with the governor's agenda. MR. WHITNEY acknowledged that many factors have contributed to the decline of Alaska's game stocks, such as predation by bears and wolves, winter kills, and illegal takes. Mr. Whitney related his belief that much of the illegal takes can be contributed to nonresident hunters who are allowed to hunt without supervision. [This lack of supervision] results in the killing of "sub-legal" animals. The aforementioned problem can be eliminated through the implementation of HB 144. Furthermore, HB 144 would alleviate conflicts with Native groups and eliminate wanton waste. Although Mr. Whitney believes that passing HB 144 will not solve the current crisis with depleted stocks, he believes it is a step in the right direction. Mr. Whitney urged the committee to expedite this bill and implement it by 2002. Number 1530 DICK BISHOP, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), informed the committee that the AOC opposed HB 144. He noted that the committee should have a letter from the AOC to that effect. The basic problem, the shortage of resources, is not addressed by the bill. In many cases, the shortage of resources is related to the lack of effective management. Mr. Bishop related his belief that it is clear that the Board of Game has the means to address the difficulties. For example, in units 19A & B nonresident hunters must draw permits and [thus the board] has limited the numbers of nonresidents that can hunt in those areas under that permit provision. The restriction is about at the level of the harvest two years ago. He provided another example in which nonresident hunting for black bear had grown too much on Kuiu Island, which led the Board of Game to pass a regulation that didn't allow any nonresident black bear hunting until the population recovered. Therefore, the AOC didn't see the need to pit guides against transporters. He indicated that this [bill] has developed from a concern about hunters going out with transporters; however, a high proportion of those are Alaskan residents, not nonresidents. MR. BISHOP turned to the recovery of moose populations and pointed out that it is unlikely that the proposed restrictions will have a significant impact. In most cases, residents or nonresidents, hunters with guides or transporters, are looking for male moose with a nice rack as well as the food. Therefore, Mr. Bishop felt that [HB 144] is a measure that is not the appropriate approach to address the problems. Furthermore, the nonresident hunters make up a relatively small portion of the moose hunting public, only 8 percent statewide. "Overall, we don't think that it's an appropriate bill. It can't ... be justified in the same basis as guides were originally justified when that was put in the statute on the basis of the need to ensure safety of nonAlaskans. So, we would like you to not pass this bill," he said. CO-CHAIR SCALZI mentioned the possibility of an amendment that would insert language allowing the local game boards latitude to address this problem on an area-by-area basis. He asked if Mr. Bishop viewed that as a solution. MR. BISHOP asked if he was referring to requiring guides on a case-by-case basis. CO-CHAIR SCALZI answered yes and specified that if the legislation was such that the Board of Game statutes were amended to allow the board to create this provision on an area- by-area basis. He asked if the AOC would prefer something like that over a statewide solution. MR. BISHOP said that he didn't believe that addressed the basic problem either. That is, if the problem is resource conservation or rather providing adequate populations. He pointed out that although this [bill] may alleviate some concerns regarding people hunting properly, there are already laws on the books that address that. Therefore, he didn't believe Co-Chair Scalzi's suggestion would be that helpful. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked if Mr. Bishop is aware of any other states that have laws such as HB 144. MR. BISHOP said that he didn't recall. However, he did recall seeing an article about increasing guides in New Mexico, which created a backlash that led nonresident hunters to boycott hunting in New Mexico. There was such a fuss, that the law was repealed and all guide requirements were removed in a very short time. Number 1854 GREG ROCZICKA, Orutsararmuit Native Council (ONC), testified via teleconference. He informed the committee that ONC is in support of this bill. Although he felt that the uncontrolled predator numbers is the primary factor in the decline of the moose population, he also felt that the nonresident hunting component is an increasingly significant impact that needs to be addressed. The nonresident hunting numbers are rising and there is no end in sight. In some areas, nonresident hunters outnumber resident hunters by 5:1 and statewide nonresident hunters outnumber resident hunters by 3:1. Earlier it was mentioned that overall statewide [nonresident hunters are] only 6-8 percent [of those who hunt in Alaska]. However, if one includes the game management units that contain the large urban centers: 14, 15, and 20, then the percentage [of nonresident hunters in Alaska] increases to 20 percent. Mr. Roczicka identified the crux of this matter as the transporter industry for which there is basically no control. "There is no onus of responsibility," he said. He explained how transporters, who bring in large numbers of hunters, have a larger impact than the smaller numbers of hunters brought in by guides. MR. ROCZICKA noted that he is also the Chair of the Board of Game, which discussed this legislation as well. The board didn't take a position on this legislation. The board's concern is similar to that expressed by the AOC, that is that this [legislation addresses] a small portion of a larger problem. Mr. Roczicka urged the committee to review the board's resolution 98-127, which requested that the legislature put the Commercial Services Board back in place. He remarked that the elimination of nonresident hunts and the guide industry is where things are headed [without this legislation]. Number 2091 ALEX TARNAI, Trapper, Nowitna Wildlife Refuge, testified via teleconference. He informed the committee that he has lived on the Nowitna River for 25 years, the last ten of those years he has had a guide license. Mr. Tarnai announced his support of this bill. He discussed the increase in nonresident hunters in his area and estimated that nonresident hunters in his area outnumber resident hunters by 3:1 and 5:1 in some areas. Furthermore, he felt that nonresident hunters are not qualified to judge [the size of] moose. He related first hand situations in which he saw illegal moose taken and not reported and taken and left in the field. Also, the air service that brings the hunters in has no responsibility. Therefore, there is room for violations. In response to an earlier question, Mr. Tarnai informed the committee that Wyoming has a law that requires a nonresident hunter to be guided by a state certified guide when in a wilderness area. CO-CHAIR MASEK inquired as to where Mr. Tarnai obtained the numbers he used in his testimony. MR. TARNAI clarified that the numbers come from his personal observation as well as the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in Galena, which has a check station at the mouth of the Nowitna River. He noted that he kept a record of how many hunters went up by boat. However, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service at the Nowitna Wildlife Refuge doesn't have any record regarding how many hunters are flying into the area. He specified that he was referring to the nonresident hunters. Mr. Tarnai added that he spoke with several of the hunters and found that hunts in the Nowitna Wildlife Refuge were being sold as a package for $3,500, which included airfare. Number 2313 TOM JOHNSON, High Adventure Air, testified via teleconference. He noted that the sponsor of HB 144 and many members of the House and Senate Resources Committees should have a letter from High Adventure Air that details why they are in opposition to HB 144. Number 2374 NEIL WEBSTER, Beardown Adventures, testified via teleconference. Mr. Webster requested that the committee move HB 144 out of committee today. TAPE 01-38, SIDE B MR. WEBSTER informed the committee that he has a long-standing history in game management unit 16B, which is where he started guiding and personal hunting in 1972. This unit has a unique situation because there is some private land and access is controlled, and furthermore there is no competition with transporters or other hunters. Both residents and nonresidents are strictly controlled [in this unit]. Mr. Webster informed the committee that in 1995 there were 82 nonresident hunters, which increased to 118 nonresident hunters in 1999. With regard to guided moose hunters, such hunts grew from 38 in 1995 to 44 in 1999. Although those numbers don't show a large increase, the transporter numbers do because in 1995 there were 11 drop offs, which increased to 40 in 1999. That is a 300-400 percent increase in nonresident hunters, which is evident in many of the game units. Mr. Webster said, "Unfortunately, we are in a situation where we no longer have a valid wildlife management program. We do not control the predators. All we're involved with now is controlling the hunting groups." The situation has reached the point at which the guide industry will take a "hit on the chin." Personally, Mr. Webster said that he would face some financial loss due to the Board of Games' closure of unit 16B. He pointed out that the closures of units 13, 17, and 19 are coming. He questioned when the closures would stop. If a predator control program can't be stopped, then these nonresident party hunts have to be stopped. He acknowledged the point that this legislation is merely a band aid when a tourniquet is necessary. To that he said, "But you don't eat a moose in one bite; you eat it a little bit at a time." This bill is necessary "as a positive step to protect this industry." Mr. Webster indicated agreement with Mr. Roczicka in that a multi-million dollar guide industry may be jeopardized because the state can't implement a valid predator control program. Mr. Webster urged the committee to forward HB 144. However, he expressed concern that the bill he has allows a resident to take out three nonresident hunters, which he considered a party hunt. Number 2242 DAVID HAEG, Director, Alaska's Western Wildlife Alliance (AWWA), informed the committee that AWWA consists of people who are very dependent upon Alaska's wildlife resource from both a subsistence and economic point of view. He said that AWWA strongly urges the committee to support the CS. This legislation would effectively solve the problem of illegal or "sub-legal" takes, subsistence related conflicts, and violations of wanton waste laws by unguided nonresident moose hunters. This problem has grown such that now it threatens subsistence and guide use of the state's moose resource. Both the aforementioned uses are vitally important to many parts of rural Alaska. A resource as important as moose should be protected from waste and other abuse and thus a guide requirement for nonresident hunters will help achieve that. MR. HAEG informed the committee that the 1,000 guided nonresident moose hunters bring in over $14 million, primarily to rural Alaska. The over 2,000 nonguided nonresident moose hunters bring in just over $6 million. "We should not jeopardize a $14 million industry with a hunting segment which not only accounts for most cases of waste and conflict, but which, with its rapidly rising numbers, is overtaxing a declining resource," he said. In conclusion, Mr. Haeg noted that AWWA and APHA support the buddy hunt amendment with a limit of one nonresident per resident being able to come up per year. Number 2144 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS turned to the earlier mention of the waste that occurs as a result of nonresident hunters. He understood the implication to be that there is no waste from resident hunters. He asked if Mr. Haeg could provide further information on that notion. MR. HAEG noted that he had provided committee members with a letter from Fish & Wildlife Protection in King Salmon, which says that the only cases of waste found were from nonguided nonresidents. In the last several years they have found no waste from guided nonresident hunters. He indicated that another fish and wildlife officer from up North had promised him a letter that related the same findings as the letter pertaining to King Salmon. Mr. Haeg informed the committee that the Native Alaskans that have contacted him have great concern with the nonguided [nonresident] hunters that are dropped off and take rafts down the rivers. When the hunters "pull-out" in the villages, none of the meat is usable. Such cases aren't very well-documented. He specified that he obtained his information last year. CO-CHAIR MASEK inquired as to where Mr. Haeg is obtaining his figures that relate to saying that nonresident hunters are responsible for the wanton waste violations. MR. HAEG answered that much of that information was drawn from Proposal 114, which was amended by the Board of Game. He read the following paragraph from Proposal 114: In recent years, the Board of Game has received numerous complaints and concerns regarding the rapid increase and no upper limit to the numbers of hunters using outfitters and air taxi drop-off services, illegal or sub-legal take, subsistence-related conflicts, and violations of wanton waste laws are of significantly greater proportion for unguided nonresident hunters using these services. CO-CHAIR MASEK expressed her difficulty in determining whether a hunter is a resident or a nonresident. She seemed to think that much of this information is from one area of the state and thus isn't a statewide problem. She asked if the people testifying before the Board of Game are from a specific game management unit area. MR. HAEG said that he has received reports from almost down to the Alaska Peninsula up to Fairbanks and east. He noted that most of the complaints are coming from the rural areas, mainly along the river corridors. MR. HAEG, in further response to Co-Chair Masek, reiterated that AWWA supports this legislation as does APHA. Number 1905 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE referred to a bar chart that illustrates the number of moose hunters by origin. She said she understood the chart to say that the number of hunters has decreased over the last five years. MR. HAEG agreed. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said then that the number of hunters in the field has decreased and yet, moose are on the decline. Therefore, she asked if any other factors would contribute to the moose decline other than wanton waste of nonresident hunters. MR. HAEG agreed that there are other factors that have contributed to the decline of the moose. He echoed earlier testimony that predation is probably the primary factor in the moose decline. However, "we" haven't been able to do much about predation. Therefore, predation combined with other problems from nonresident hunters are threatening a large rural industry, guiding. He said that [AWWA] would agree that addressing predation would be a more effective solution, which they have tried. Therefore, this legislation addresses another part of the problem that can be addressed, nonguided nonresident hunters. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked whether Mr. Haeg was of the opinion that if HB 144 passes, the problem will be alleviated. MR. HAEG replied no, although he felt that the problem would be "eased." In the long term, this legislation will help. Mr. Haeg explained, "Either you can allow nonguided hunters to keep coming to Alaska ... and them adding to the problem and then just shutting off all nonresident hunting and killing the guide industry. Or, you can start cutting back ... part of the effort." REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE interjected that she has heard two different things labeled as the issue: wanton waste and the guiding industry. MR. HAEG explained that rural Native communities started with the wanton waste issue. Although guides said that they weren't part of that problem, the Board of Game has to limit guiding as well as nonguiding. In work with the Native communities, the Native communities have agreed that guiding is not the problem but rather the problem is the nonresidents that aren't guided. However, the Board of Game can't differentiate between guided and nonguided hunters. Therefore, "the Board of Game, to address the problem of the Natives, has to use a sledge hammer, although ... they say that they would ... like to be able to do something else." So, the [goal] was to address wanton waste, but in the process it has jeopardized the guide industry, who doesn't place as near the impact on the environment as the nonguided hunter. Number 1724 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE related her understanding that there are enforcement mechanisms in place for wanton waste; it is illegal. Therefore, she asked if the [problem] is that the current law isn't being enforced. MR. HAEG agreed that lack of enforcement is part of it. However, he pointed out that probably the largest part of that is the fact that the guide is responsible for that hunter. Mr. Haeg pointed out that when a hunter commits a crime, the guide is the first one charged. However, the drop-off service isn't held accountable. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE posed the possibility of drafting a bill that would hold drop-off services liable for wanton waste and asked if that would address the same problem. MR. HAEG replied, "It possibly would, but we're also looking at a diminishing resource and we'd like to try slowing down the effort." He recalled that such an effort was tried several years ago, but it went nowhere. Number 1625 REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT related his understanding that there are roughly 2,000 nonguided [nonresident] hunters. According to the bar chart, Representative Chenault estimated that there were probably 500 guided nonresident hunters, 300-400 nonresident hunters that are transported, and then the solo nonresident hunter. He posed a situation in which HB 144 was enacted and the approximately 1,000 solo nonresident hunters came forward and wanted to take a guided hunt. In such a situation, he wondered whether the purpose [of HB 144] had been defeated because, in his opinion, the guide would take as many people hunting as allowed or as many as the guide had the opportunity to take. MR. HAEG compared a guide to a farmer because the guide "is fixed in a spot." Mr. Haeg informed the committee that he has dramatically cut back his hunts this year because he knows what is happening. He further informed the committee that he has a fixed lodge and through the guide board he is bound to three small areas. If he over harvests in his areas, then he is cutting his own throat. However, an air taxi can go in and find groups of moose and annihilate them and then fly elsewhere. Mr. Haeg noted that he actually polices the area and reports any abuse to fish and wildlife protection because anything happening in his area will haunt him in future years. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT related his understanding that as a guide, one can only guide in a particular area and thus cannot guide in other spots in the state. MR. HAEG clarified that he is allowed three fairly small specific areas. Although he is allowed to change those areas, most guides like himself have fixed lodges that are impossible to move. Number 1481 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if Mr. Haeg is a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), which has sent a letter in strong opposition to this legislation. MR. HAEG affirmed that he is a member of the NRA, but that he has not seen the letter. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS pointed out that the NRA's letter charges that this legislation is discriminatory in nature. Furthermore, the net loss in hunting opportunity concerns the NRA, which views HB 144 as an anti-gun bill. MR. HAEG related his belief that the NRA letter the committee has isn't representative of the general membership of the NRA. Mr. Haeg said that he views HB 144 as Alaska looking out for its resource. Number 1399 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER returned to the issue of wanton waste. She remarked that when one is shooting moose, it is difficult to determine whether the moose has a 50 inch rack. Representative Kapsner, a co-sponsor of HB 144, informed the committee that she is a member of the NRA and she believes it is important for Alaska to look after its own state resources. She said, "If we're looking at a Tier II hunt for in-state residents versus letting anybody from outside come in and shoot our moose, I think that's a scary thing." CO-CHAIR MASEK related her belief that guided hunters are twice as successful than those that don't go out with a guide. Number 1309 KELVIN GURNEY testified via teleconference. He noted his support of HB 144 as amended. He also noted the importance of the buddy option. Mr. Gurney related a story in which he went hunting in Mulchatna. At the airport there, he saw several hunters with only moose racks. When asked where the meat was, the hunters all said that a bear got the meat. Although Mr. Gurney supported the bill, he felt that predators are the number one cause of the moose's decline and it is disappointing that can't be addressed. Number 1217 JOE KLUTSCH, Master Guide, Katmai Guide Service, testified via teleconference. Mr. Klutsch, who has lived in the Bush for over 30 years, informed the committee that he has been a hunting and fishing photography guide. He said that this legislation will go a long way in making lawful hunting by nonresidents more enforceable. Furthermore, this legislation will reduce conflicts amongst users in the field and will result in a spatial distribution of effort. That is, there will not be high concentrations of hunters at river and lake corridors, which is where transporters often drop hunters with no regard for other users, the impact on the resource, or the quality of the experience. He remarked that guides have a stewardship incentive [in their designated areas]. MR. KLUTSCH related his belief that this legislation is more than a mere band aid. He said he feels that this legislation is a step in the right direction. However, he did believe that in conjunction with this legislation there will need to be some meaningful predator management, which he believes will come. He expressed the need for balance between predator and prey. MR. KLUTSCH remarked that ADF&G will probably be in opposition to this legislation due to the attached fiscal note. He acknowledged that there will be an initial reduction in the number of nonresident tag fees if this legislation was adopted. Therefore, Mr. Klutsch suggested the need for tag fee increases in order to compensate for the overall decline in nonresident fees. He said that he has a number of formulas that could be utilized to accomplish that goal. In regard to Mr. Bishop's analogy to New Mexico, Mr. Klutsch disagreed and felt that there will be more than enough folks from the Lower 48 who will be willing to pay what it takes to have an honest hunt in Alaska. In conclusion, Mr. Klutsch expressed his hope that this bill will be moved forward. GEORGE SIAVELIS testified via teleconference. He informed the committee that he has been a subsistence hunter for about 20 years as well as a small guide. Mr. Siavelis urged support of HB 144, although he believes that it is a band-aid bill for all the issues. This legislation will greatly reduce the wasting of moose meat, the killing of sub-legal moose by nonresidents, nonresident pressure on a dwindling resource, and field conflicts with subsistence users and thus provide a better subsistence opportunity. This legislation is a statewide solution versus the Board of Game's proposal 114, which has the potential of rearranging pressure demographics. Mr. Siavelis remarked that the Board of Game desperately needs some legislative assistance in alleviating the aforementioned problems. He mentioned his belief that no other state has an animal this size hunted in such unfamiliar terrain. He also mentioned that air transporters don't rely on the moose resources to the degree that guides do. Mr. Siavelis related his belief that all responsible guides and nonresident hunters should and will support an increase in the big game tag fee. Number 0691 LES KRANK testified via teleconference. He announced his support of HB 144. This [legislation] is not being done for a special interest group but rather to help the resource. To his knowledge, the guiding industry is the only group that has come forward with legislation as a solution. He remarked that the problems with air transporters are just part of the problem. Mr. Krank echoed earlier comments by Mr. Haeg regarding the belief that guides are stewards of their area. Mr. Krank pointed out that although the number of hunters has declined over the past years, since the 50 inch minimum and/or three or four brow tine requirement, there are probably many unguided nonresidents who are shooting one to three moose before taking a legal moose. In regard to the tag fees increase, Mr. Krank was supportive of that as a means of off-setting some of the costs that ADF&G will incur. He turned to the letter from the NRA, of which he is a member, and related his belief that the member base had not been contacted. MR. KRANK noted that he is a guide and stands to loose a fair amount of money to the unguided hunter. However, he is willing to give that up if it would help [the moose population]. He expressed the hope that in the future the predator problem could be addressed. However, if something isn't done today, then no one will have the moose population to pursue. He recalled that it takes about 30 years for a moose population to turn around whereas it takes about 3-4 years for a wolf population to turn around. Number 0349 JIMMY HURLEY testified via teleconference and mentioned that his a member of the Nushagak Advisory Committee. Mr. Hurley noted his support of HB 144. He expressed the desire for moose to be around for a long time. He echoed earlier testimony regarding the competition between [nonresident hunters] and subsistence hunters. He also touched on the fact that many [nonresident hunters] are uneducated in preserving moose meat. Furthermore, those that are dropped off [at a river] face the reality that the rafts can only hold so much. Mr. Hurley said, "I think this is a real good bill." TAPE 01-39, SIDE A Number 0015 MATT ROBUS, Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), announced that the department opposes HB 144. Firstly, the department doesn't believe that the bill will achieve its primary goals of reducing wanton waste and hunter conflict. Secondly, this legislation will be extremely costly to the department's wildlife management programs. Thirdly, this legislation could jeopardize the existing system of nonresident guide requirements for other species. MR. ROBUS addressed the issue of wanton waste, which the department understands to be one of the primary reasons for HB 144. The legislation is based on the assumption that nonresident hunters are less knowledgeable about moose and about Alaska and thus are more likely to make a mistake and commit a violation. However, wanton waste isn't restricted to nonresident hunters because it occurs across all classes of hunters. As the bar chart illustrates, nonresident hunters are the smallest hunting group. He pointed out that the bar representing nonresident hunters is divided into the following groups: guided nonresident, transported nonresident, and solo nonresident. Mr. Robus said that even if those nonresidents are somewhat more likely to commit wanton waste violations, it is difficult to believe that attacking 6 percent of the total moose hunter population would significantly impact wanton waste violations statewide. In fact, the headquarters of the Fish & Wildlife Protection Division said that they were confident that it would be safe to say that the majority of wanton waste violations in this state are not committed by nonresident hunters. MR. ROBUS said, "The way to improve wanton waste in this state is through education and an adequate enforcement presence. Both of those are possible, both occur to some extent, and both are funding issues for our agency and for the troopers." However, requiring a guide to solve the problem basically deters 75 percent of the nonresident hunters because the price difference between a nonguided hunt and a guided hunt. The department believes that will be an obstacle for many people and thus will cause them not to go moose hunting. MR. ROBUS turned to the issue of conflict between hunters and the competition for moose. Again, Mr. Robus pointed out that only 6 percent of the hunters are effected by HB 144. In the department's opinion, conflict is more likely to occur between local and nonlocal residents versus with nonresidents. He acknowledged that there is conflict in moose hunting areas. However, the 6 percent of nonguided nonresident hunters are only part of the problem. Number 0332 MR. ROBUS said that a more appropriate way to address the aforementioned conflict and reduce wanton waste would be to re- create a Big Game Commercial Services Board that would have jurisdiction to manage guides as well as transporters. As mentioned earlier, this legislation will not heavily impact transporters because a high percentage of their clientele is Alaska residents. The legislature needs to help control the number of people that are being dropped off in these areas [where] the conflict is being created. MR. ROBUS addressed the state's ability to require guides for nonresidents. Such a requirement is placed on the following three species: brown bear, mountain goat, and Dall sheep. That discrimination has been justified with the safety argument, which is that the animal is dangerous as is its terrain. The other argument is that a hunter cannot obtain much exposure to those three species other than in Alaska. However, moose has been successfully killed by nonresidents for years and thus the safety argument is difficult to make. Furthermore, several other states offer moose hunts and thus the exposure argument is difficult to make also. Therefore, requiring all nonresidents to have guides could make the entire system of requiring guides for nonresident hunters for certain species more vulnerable to a legal challenge. The department cautions against that. MR. ROBUS moved on to the fiscal impact of HB 144. He noted that the department is making several assumptions and although these assumptions may not be perfect, they are the best available. He informed the committee that when mountain goat hunting was changed such that nonresidents were required to have a guide, there was a 70 percent decrease in the number of goat hunters. If that figure is applied to the portion of nonresidents that are not guided and the $485 per person fee is used, it amounts to just under $1 million, which is the fiscal note. Mr. Robus pointed out that the small bar on the chart, the nonresident hunters, contributed about $2 million in ADF&G revenue, which is used to run the program. That approximately $2 million is more than all resident hunters contributed for all species. Therefore, he remarked that Alaskan hunters have a good deal, but [the department] depends on nonresident hunters to contribute a fair amount to the program and thus the department would take a tremendous hit if HB 144 passed. Additionally he predicted that Alaska would lose $3,000 per hunter that chose not to come to Alaska; that prediction is based on an economic study done for the department in the mid 1990s. MR. ROBUS concluded by saying that the department views HB 144 as a costly bill and probably one that won't be very effective in curing the problems. He acknowledged that there are problems and pointed out that the Board of Game has done what it could to control what it can in places like game management unit 19 where there is a drawing hunt that caps nonresident hunters. Mr. Robus reiterated the department's opinion that the best way to approach this would be to re-establish a Big Game Services Board. Number 06368 CO-CHAIR MASEK inquired as to how federal matching funds impact the budget. MR. ROBUS reminded the committee that the Division of Wildlife Conservation, the wildlife management arm of ADF&G, has very little general fund in its budget. Almost all of the division's operations are based on ADF&G fund expenditures. However, Pittman Robertson money is received from the federal government, but that money requires a 1:3 state match. He said, "Now, we're overmatched. So, I'm not saying that all of this million dollars is going to lose us three million dollars of federal money, but a million dollars out of our operations -- this loss that we project would be about 10 percent of Fish & Game fund revenues on an annual basis. That's a substantial chunk." CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if HB 144 will really address conservation because it seems that this will only impact about 6 percent of the hunters. Furthermore, hunters are 35-68 percent more successful with a guide. MR. ROBUS remarked that the conservation aspect of this is basically under the control of the Board of Game. The board has shown that when a wildlife population reaches the point at which it can't satisfy the entire demand of hunters, the first thing to go is nonresident effort. Since "we" don't have a way to control the number of nonresident hunters entering an area, the Board of Game is faced with allowing as much hunting as the herds can support and after that [groups] must be eliminated. Therefore, the board has had to use its available tool of trimming nonresident hunters and sometimes cutting them entirely or even going to a Tier II hunt. Therefore, this bill will probably not make a difference in the way moose populations are faring. Number 0855 CO-CHAIR MASEK inquired as to how one can be sure that this bill reduces wanton waste. MR. ROBUS remarked that the assumption can be made that a knowledgeable guide can help a nonresident hunter figure out how to deal with a moose once it's down. However, he pointed out that if all of the guided hunters and nonguided hunters had guides, then that amounts to no more than 8 percent of the total hunter population. Unfortunately, there is still a certain amount of wanton waste that occurs with Alaskans. Mr. Robus reiterated that this legislation impacts a very small portion of the hunt. Even if this portion is impacted positively, the nonlocal Alaskans, the second largest bar on the chart, and local Alaskans are not being addressed. MR. ROBUS, in further response to Co-Chair Masek, said that he didn't know the number of citations given for wanton waste violations in 1999 or 2000. He reminded everyone that the Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection is the enforcement arm of the state and that division isn't in ADF&G. Number 0975 WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, said that he didn't have that information. He noted that he had called the Division of Fish & Wildlife Protection earlier and it didn't have that information readily available. However, he was sure that information could be provided by the division. Mr. Regelin acknowledged that wanton waste is a problem, but noted that it is a small portion of the hunters in general. He added that Alaska probably has some of the most strict wanton waste laws in the nation, but more enforcement is needed. Number 1067 REPRESENTATIVE FATE referred to page 2, line 2, which in part says, "An applicant for a nonresident hunt permit". He asked if there will be a special permit or will a nonresident just obtain an out-of-state license and a moose tag. MR. ROBUS explained that in many cases nonresidents would have to apply for a drawing permit, while in other cases the nonresident would merely obtain a registration permit. He was not aware of a special nonresident permit. REPRESENTATIVE FATE pointed out that on page 2, line 5, the language refers to a "permit hunt". Therefore, he was confused as to whether it's a permit hunt or whether the license and tag are part of the permits issued to the nonresident. MR. REGELIN informed the committee that he didn't have the work draft until he arrived today. REPRESENTATIVE FATE referred to page 2, line 6, which says "the applicant has contracted to guide the permit hunt." In the case of Section 4(3)(A), would that individual who complies with the requirements be able to have a verbal agreement or would a special form be required. Representative Fate felt that this makes a big difference and is a point that could be litigated. REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER pointed out that the House Resources Standing Committee penned the CS and thus he didn't know. REPRESENTATIVE FATE remarked that he was bothered by some of the terminology. Number 1286 CO-CHAIR SCALZI inquired as to why Mr. Robus felt that a Big Game Commercial Services Board would be a better solution. MR. ROBUS noted that the Big Game Commercial Services Board is commonly referred to as the Guide Board. If there was a guide board that had jurisdiction over guide outfitters as well as transporters, then the state would have a mechanism to regulate the amount of nonresidents that are guided and transported as well as transported residents. Therefore, a much larger proportion of the moose hunters would be regulated in a way that didn't swamp out moose populations or local residents. In further response to Co-Chair Scalzi, Mr. Robus said that it would be up to the legislature to put together the board. In his opinion, the Board of Game has its hands full regulating the wildlife and thus he would hesitate to give this to them also. Number 1364 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE referred to the buddy hunt and related her understanding that Mr. Robus had said that a different division enforces this. MR. ROBUS agreed. In response to whether he could answer enforcement questions, Mr. Robus reiterated that he received the CS today and that his testimony wasn't originally written to speak to the CS. However, an initial reaction to the extra recordkeeping for the Alaskans serving as the guide buddy would require some new [procedures] that aren't currently in place. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said she understood then that the form providing advance notification of the buddy hunt would have to be developed as would procedures for creating the form, reading the form, and tracking it. MR. ROBUS agreed. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE related her belief that these are serious consequences [for violation of the provisions of HB 144]. She pointed out that Section 4(g)(3)(B) refers to the resident being allowed to accompany not more than three nonresidents. She felt that [the unclear language] would create enforcement problems because does it mean that the resident cannot take more than three residents at a time or at separate times. Furthermore, Section 4(g)(3)(C) says "does not receive compensation for accompanying the nonresident to hunt moose." She asked if a nonresident provided gas money, would that be considered compensation. She then referred to Section 4(g)(2) and asked if an 18-year-old college student has his family come up to hunt, would that 18-year-old be sent to jail for a year. MR. ROBUS said that although he can't answer that very well, he believes that those are important questions. With regard to chipping in for gas, Mr. Robus said he believes that reimbursement of expenses is different than compensation. He noted that he had spoken with Mr. Saxby, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, today on a similar question. MR. ROBUS turned to the seriousness of the offense and related his belief that it is about the same now for wanton waste violations. Mr. Robus said, "It's probably one of the most serious wildlife crimes there is." REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE agreed that wanton waste is a serious offense. However, she expressed concern with the vagueness of the language referring to the buddy hunt. Therefore, she believes that there may be some unanticipated consequences. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE recalled testimony from guides that said the amount of revenue the department may lose may be countered by increasing the cost of the tag. She inquired as to the [department's] view on that and the possibility of taxing the guides. Number 1600 MR. REGELIN expressed the need to be cautious regarding how much more nonresidents are charged versus residents. There have been court cases in Colorado regarding the appropriateness of the differential. Currently, Alaska charges "way over" that differential partly because it is so inexpensive for a resident to hunt. Mr. Regelin pointed out the need to keep in mind that the state is in competition for hunters and Alaska is at the high end for what other states charge for big game tag fees for nonresident hunters. He also pointed out that most states are similar to Alaska in that 10 percent of the hunters pay for 90 percent of the bills. Mr. Regelin acknowledged that there are other ways in which the money could be obtained, such as a tax on the guide or a fee for each animal. Those mechanisms would have to be done by the legislature or the legislature would need to create the Big Game Commercial Services Board and provide them the authority to enact such regulations. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS inquired as to the intention of the Co- Chairs with HB 144. Number 1714 CO-CHAIR MASEK appointed the following subcommittee: Representatives Green, McGuire, and Kerttula. [HB 144 was heard and held and a subcommittee was assigned.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|