Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/12/1998 09:10 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. 250
"An Act relating to management of game and to the
duties of the commissioner of fish and game."
Co-Chair Sharp, sponsor of the bill, invited his staff
member, Marilyn Wilson to the table. She read the sponsor
statement to committee members. Co-Chair Sharp indicated he
has an amendment to be offered after public testimony is
heard. He noted a page taken from the Board of Game Winter
1998 Proposal Book. He pointed out the differences of
definitions listed in the book to those laid out in this
bill. He said the intent of the bill is to make the
language more meaningful and make the definitions very
clear.
At this point, the committee heard public testimony. Co-
Chair Sharp announced that testimony will be limited to
three minutes to allow everyone a chance to participate.
BILL HAGER via teleconference from FAIRBANKS was first to
testify. He said the definitions and their linkage is vital
to the Department of Fish and Game in implementing the
intensive management plan. In his view, the department is
arguing philosophy not biology and that SB 250 was needed in
order to implement the laws adopted by the earlier bill, SB
77. In supporting SB 250, he is requesting fair and equal
distribution for humans.
LYNN LEVENGOOD via teleconference from FAIRBANKS, attorney
representing the Alaska Outdoor Council supported SB 250.
He asked Co-Chair Sharp about his proposed amendment and
whether that would change the intent of the bill. Co-Chair
Sharp explained his amendment requested very small changes
that would not affect the meaning of the bill. Mr.
Levengood stated his opinion that SB 250 was necessary for
the implementation of the laws passed through SB 77. He
said the definitions proposed in the current bill are
mandatory to require the Board of Game to implement the
intensive management plan. He objected to what he saw as
the board's practice of trying to manage human beings rather
than managing wildlife. He spoke of harvest objectives, and
gave an example using the Porcupine Caribou herd.
Senator Phillips asked if changes to the harvest objectives
for the Porcupine herd would effect the international
agreement between Alaska and Canada governing the management
of the herd. It was agreed that the department
representative would be better suited to address the
question.
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR testified in favor of the bill. He
asked about changes proposed in the Co-Chair's amendment.
Co-Chair Sharp explained his amendment. Senator Taylor
voiced his support of the original version of the bill. He
stated that hunter success really has nothing to do with
biology. He felt the Board of Game and ADF&G's efforts to
date had been totally counter-productive.
Co-Chair Sharp told the committee of the work done between
his office and ADF&G on this and other bills. He thanked
the department for their efforts and expressed his
appreciation.
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Department of Fish and Game testified for the committee. He
told them the department has no objection to the definition
change to intensive management proposed in Co-Chair Sharp's
upcoming amendment. He did say that the bill's definition
of harvestable surplus is different than the traditional
method biologists have been using for years. He explained
how biologists currently determine the harvestable surplus
of a population using the recruitment rate rather than the
birth rate as proposed in this legislation. However he felt
the department could make the necessary adjustments.
Mr. Regelin said the department does not think it is wise
for a mandatory fixed number of harvestable surplus to be
written in statute. The reason for this is the great
variations between each population and even within certain
populations. Instead, ADF&G is in support of requiring the
Board of Game to set number for each population in
regulation. The department has begun working with the board
to set up a system to determine those numbers.
On the matter of sustained yield, Mr. Regelin advised
against defining a set number in statutes. He warned of
Department of Law's concerns on the legality of such
actions.
Senator Phillips inquired on the department's reasons for
advising against the mandating of these numbers. Mr.
Regelin explained how each population is different and
subject to fluctuations.
Senator Phillips asked about the definition of "biologically
achievable." Mr. Regelin expressed concerns about Section 5
of the bill. Passage of this section would put two statutes
in conflict. He expounded, telling the committee of the
statute governing the Board of Game, which specifically
prohibits fiscal authority. He felt the Department of Law
should explain this further. He suggested a change to this
bill that would avoid the conflict.
Mr. Regelin's idea would be to change the phrase to become
"identified big game population". He stressed the need to
clarify that the department is to spend its resources only
on populations that have been identified as in need of
intervention. This would circumvent the need for the Board
of Game to direct the department on where to spend funds.
Mr. Regelin then spoke to Senator Phillips earlier concerns
regarding the Porcupine Caribou herd. He assured the
committee that any changes enacted by this legislation would
not affect the international agreement with Canada. He said
the harvest levels are so low that herd numbers are not
significantly impacted.
Senator Torgerson inquired about the accompanying fiscal
note. He questioned the high costs listed and wondered if
some of the proposed duties aren't already being carried out
by the department. If they are, he felt the funding needed
shouldn't be so large. Mr. Regelin responded that the
department had already drafted a new, zero fiscal note. He
explained his reasons for the high numbers indicated on the
first version. At the time of first receiving the bill, he
was unsure of the intent of the legislation's impact on the
department and therefore wanted to show the committee the
breakdown of costs of running a wolf control program. He
thought it could be helpful for the legislators to see those
figures. Since then, he's come to understand the intention
and predicts the department could adequately run the program
using existing funds. The new fiscal note would be sent to
the committee soon.
This concluded the public testimony for SB 250.
Senator Torgerson moved for adoption of Amendment #1,
drafted by Co-Chair Sharp. Senator Adams objected. There
was discussion between Co-Chair Sharp and Mr. Regelin about
the definition issues. Mr. Regelin stated that the
amendment would help clarify things. He referred to the
wording allowing certain populations to be targeted for
growth rather than strictly sustained yield - like the
Fortymile Caribou herd. Upon hearing that the department
had a chance to study this amendment and had no problems
with it, he removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment #1 was adopted.
Senator Torgerson offered Amendment #2 and moved for its
adoption. He explained this would address Mr. Regelin's
concerns stated earlier regarding direction of the
department's resources only to identified big game
populations. There was no objection to this amendment and
Co-Chair Sharp ordered Amendment #2 adopted.
Senator Torgerson then moved Senate Finance Committee
Substitute for SB 250 with a new, zero fiscal note from
committee. Co-Chair Sharp moved the bill from committee
there being no objection.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|