Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/26/1995 09:35 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 77
An Act relating to intensive management of identified
big game prey populations.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 77 be brought on for
discussion. Senator Sharp, sponsor of the legislation, said
that the bill contains cleanup provisions for last year's SB
77. New legislation was introduced because several factions
are having difficulty understanding the mandate of the
previous legislation. He then commenced the following
sectional review:
Sec. 1. Contains findings already set forth in statute.
Sec. 2. Adds item (4) at page 2, and states that the
Commissioner
shall cooperate with and assist the board of
fisheries and the board of game by implementing
regulations requested by either board. This
provision was added because of recent court
decisions ruling that the Commissioner cannot void
quotas set by the board. It thus places in
statute the recent court ruling.
Sec. 3. Removes old language mandating that state fish and
game
divisions cooperate with and assist the federal
government in enforcement of federal fish and
wildlife laws and regulations. At this point in
time, that mandate is onerous. New language
mandates that the department cooperate with the
state board of fisheries and board of game.
Sec. 4. Deletes the Commissioner's option of establishing
a
division of game within the Dept. of Fish and
Game.
Sec. 5. States that the division shall be the division of
game
and sets forth the duties. This returns to the
status quo prior to six or seven years ago when
nomenclature for the division was changed to the
division of wildlife conservation.
Sec. 6. Clarifies language adopted by the Eighteenth
Legislature. Department personnel are having
difficulty understanding what the
statute says. It addresses the point at
which depletion is calculated and
establishes the benchmark as "historic
high levels." Anything below that
represents depletion.
Sec. 7. Clarifies that intensive management does not
include
management of people. The department appears to
have a difficult time with that concept. Intensive
management refers to management of game.
Sec. 8. Adds paragraphs relating to harvestable surplus
and
defines the meaning. Senator Sharp noted
difficulties at recent board meetings in matching
individual personal philosophies with what the
statutes say. Subsection (4) defines the term
"high level of human harvest" to a quantifying
element (1/3 or more) that is easily
understandable.
Sec. 9. Adds a new section which strengthens legislative
intent
in statutes by establish a quantitative target to
better focus management goals at the 50/50 level.
That is the high level. Nothing mandates that it
be achieved. It says that once parameters "get
down to a third of the harvestable surplus taken
by human harvest, they should consider
implementing intensive management, if it appears
feasible and achievable by scientific studies, and
try to work up toward the 50/50 replacement." The
allocation at this time is 87/3. That is out of
balance "between four legged critters and two
legged critters." That has resulted from years of
passive management and no intensive management to
control the element currently taking the 87%.
At the December meeting, the assistant attorney general had
no problem understanding and articulating what previous SB
77 meant. The issue is still not understandable to
department personnel. Personnel should move forward to
aggressively manage game as outlined by the attorney
general's recommendation.
Senator Sharp stressed that the resource belongs to the
people of Alaska. It is a valuable resource if managed
correctly. An abundance creates greater accessibility and
availability to utilize the resource.
Senator Randy Phillips referenced the last two sentences of
the legislation. They indicate that in instances of
disagreement between the commissioner and the board, the
decision of the governor is final. He then commented that
since the commissioner is appointed by the governor, the two
are likely to be of the same opinion. Co-chairman Halford
advised that the governor is ultimately in control.
Language in the bill places the authority and responsibility
"clearly where it really is . . . ." Senator Phillips
voiced his belief that the final decision should rest with
the board of game since that entity is charged with
responsibility for managing the resource. Decisions
concerning the resource should be based on data rather than
politics.
Senator Rieger referenced the chart indicating current
harvest levels of 87/3, in terms of predator and human
takings. Language within the bill speaks to one-third
harvest by humans--a ten fold increase in human harvest of
game. He then asked if that number should realistically be
set in statute. Senator Sharp referenced escape hatches set
forth in Sec. 6 and noted, specific, avoidance in all areas
North of the Yukon River. Senator Rieger questioned
whether, because of the radical change, the board would rely
on escape provisions, and management would not achieve the
goals of the legislation. He suggested a more moderate
enhancement of human harvest might be more easily triggered.
Senator Sharp advised that on the vast majority of state
land where the law will be applicable, where one-third or
less harvest of the harvestable surplus is taken by humans,
the department must evaluate the situation. Further
discussion of effective management of certain areas
followed.
Senator Zharoff asked if the department had developed
regulations and implemented last year's legislation.
Senator Sharp indicated that the board commenced a
familiarization review last November and December.
Extensive further discussion was had at the March meeting,
and implementation of intensive management was designated
for two areas where residents have been concerned about low
population levels.
Discussion of the term "harvestable surplus" followed
between Senator Zharoff and Senator Sharp.
Senator Zharoff questioned the advisability of managing via
legislation, indicating that it removes much flexibility for
making mid-season adjustments, etc. He suggested that
ability to correct problems as the season progresses is much
better under the current system. Ability to pull the board
together to make emergency decisions, if necessary, will be
difficult to attain.
Senator Sharp attested to difficulties associated with
attempts to implement predator control programs. He further
suggested that Senator Zharoff was viewing wildlife
management from the viewpoint of commercial fishing which
has been "very successful in managing for abundance."
Management of game has been dismal. It is time for the
state to either save its money and let nature take her
course or commence game management for abundance. Senator
Zharoff advised that every time the department develops a
predator control program, the methods are not acceptable,
and the program draws both in-state and national opposition.
Senator Rieger directed attention to page 2, line 30, and
MOVED to change "has occurred" to "exists." He noted that
"has occurred" references something that may have occurred
in the past but may no longer exist. "Exists" indicates
that that is the situation at the time the board is
considering depletion from historic levels. The sponsor
said he had no problem with the change. No objection having
been raised, the AMENDMENT was ADOPTED.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Dept. of Fish and
Game, came before committee. He attested to need for in-
season flexibility compared to a pre-season goal. The
department is concerned by definitions which place specific
numerical goals in statute. That reduces department ability
to respond to variations.
Referencing prior comparison of commercial fishery
management with that of game, Mr. Bruce stressed that the
success of fishery management has hinged on flexibility to
make in-season adjustments based on observations of
abundance and other factors as they occur. That contrasts
with the federal system which set pre-season goals and
locked managers into those goals regardless of what was
actually observed in season. The more flexible route has
been the approach taken since statehood in management of all
state fisheries. That has produced tremendous success.
Speaking to allocations, Mr. Bruce reminded members that
even in times of great fishery abundance, there are "raging
fisheries allocation conflicts." That highlights the fact
that the state cannot achieve a level of production in fish
and wildlife that will eliminate or reduce allocation
conflicts. There will be disputes among individuals about
what is the highest and best use of resources.
Co-chairman Halford pointed out that there is no commercial
harvest of game. That is a major component. As use of game
became an issue across the nation, market hunting was the
first thing to go. There is thus a significant difference
between fish and game resources. Conflicts will continue to
exist.
Senator Rieger voiced his understanding that under amended
language within the bill a reduction in stock of a certain
game triggers intensive management. Once historic high
levels are again achieved, the state can lift itself out of
intensive management. It does not have to go all the way to
the one-third human harvest level. The numerical quota may
never be fully achieved.
Mr. Bruce voiced department concern that figures for
historic high yields reflect numbers from a time during
which the department does not have the same level of
confidence as it does for current numbers. Those levels
were achieved after extensive predator control involving the
use of poison. It may be difficult to re-create that
effort. Mr. Bruce advised of department support for
predator control and attempts to conduct predator control
where prey populations were in "the predator pit." Those
efforts met with "tremendous opposition" and were
subsequently discontinued. The department remains committed
to predator control and recognizes that it is one of the
valid tools for use in wildlife management. During recent
meetings, the board of game identified 35,000 square miles
in the interior in which predator control would be
appropriate. These are areas of major human harvest along
the roadside where major problems exist. Mr. Bruce stressed
that members keep in mind the state's population growth and
how it has impacted hunting opportunities, particularly
along the road system.
Co-chairman Halford noted that the most effective form of
wolf control is pack elimination. That involves helicopters
and biologists and elimination of the entire pack so there
are no remaining reproducing pairs. That approach is
totally unacceptable to both the environmental community and
"all of our friends with Super Cubs who want to go out and
wolf hunt." They cannot stand the thought of state
employees participating in predator control "when they can't
do it." The department is thus stuck with alternatives that
do not work very well. Senator Sharp concurred that
predator control is not effective when the size of the pack
is reduced rather than eliminated. The pack is generally
back to full or greater strength within three years or
fragmentation has occurred and several packs have formed.
Senator Sharp referenced earlier comparison of management of
the commercial fishery to that of game. He suggested that
it is much easier to keep people happy when management has
produced an abundance rather than when there is nothing to
allocate. Co-chairman Halford noted that the reverse is
true for other states that are overpopulated but where game
is managed for maximum production. He said that the state
of Pennsylvania provides more pounds of big game for human
harvest than Alaska.
Senator Sharp spoke to need to zero the fiscal note for the
bill, saying that there is sufficient money in the
department's $900.0 budget to cover the cost. Geron Bruce
asked that the note not be eliminated. He explained that
the purpose of the note is to identify costs associated with
the new program and new initiative. If the note does not
accompany the bill, the only way the department could move
ahead with the program would be to discontinue some other
function and reprogram the funds.
End: SFC-95, #57, Side 1
Begin: SFC-95, #59, Side 1
In further discussion of the fiscal note, Senator Sharp
advised that he would not delete the negligible note at this
time. He stressed need to ensure that the note does not set
a pattern for future budget additions until results are
known.
Senator Rieger asked if the underlying issue behind the bill
is that the department has utilized bag limits, harvest
seasons, and human consumption limits as the method of game
management to the exclusion of management forms. He then
asked if the bill could be simplified to require that
management of a game stock must not reduce human harvest by
a greater percentage than the reduction of predator harvest.
All consumptive uses other than natural causes would thus be
on equal ground and share in the burden. That would
eliminate discriminatory treatment of one form of
consumption over another. Senator Sharp said he would have
no problem with that approach were the human harvest at a
recognizable point. Since human harvest is only 2.5 or 3%
and other takings total 87%, there is no equity. Passive
management over the last twenty years has resulted in a
reallocation of resources away from humans to predators.
Without predator control, that is what happens. The Senator
questioned who game resources are being managed for.
Discussion followed between Senator Phillips and Mr. Bruce
regarding the transplant of Canadian wolves into Yellowstone
National Park. Mr. Bruce advised that while Alaska offered
to provide wolves for the transplant, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife service wanted stock that was genetically closer to
what was native to the area. The department does not
believe there is a significant difference between Canadian
and Alaskan wolves. The offer to provide transplant stock
remains open. Senator Sharp noted that department
biologists are acknowledged worldwide as experts on what
should be done to control wolves. Of the 35 or 36 wolves
captured in British Columbia, 31 or 32 were captured by
Alaskan biologists.
In response to a question from Senator Phillips regarding
the possibility of transplants to other states, Mr. Bruce
noted that as attractive as export is, it is not a realistic
option in achieving a balance between predators and prey.
It will not solve the existing problem.
Senator Sharp MOVED for passage of CSSB 77 (Fin) with
individual recommendations and the accompanying $10.0 fiscal
note. Senator Zharoff OBJECTED. CSSB 77 (Fin) was REPORTED
OUT of committee on a show of hands evidencing five in
support of passage, one no vote, and one abstention. The
$10.0 fiscal note from the Dept. of Fish and Game
accompanied the bill. Co-chairmen Halford and Frank and
Senators Donley and Sharp signed the committee report with a
"do pass" recommendation. Senators Phillips, Rieger, and
Zharoff signed "no recommendation."
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|