Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/07/1996 08:05 AM House FIN
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE March 7, 1996 8:05 A.M. TAPE HFC 96-65, Side 1, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 96-65, Side 2, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 96-66, Side 1, #000 - 345. CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. PRESENT Co-Chair Hanley Representative Martin Co-Chair Foster Representative Mulder Representative Brown Representative Navarre Representative Grussendorf Representative Parnell Representative Kelly Representative Therriault Representative Kohring ALSO PRESENT Senator Bert Sharp; Representative Alan Austerman; Wayne Regelin, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Fish and Game; Sara Hannan, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby; Bill Hagar, Fairbanks; Lynn Levengood, Executive Director, Wildlife Conservation Association; Mark Luttrell, Director, Eastern Kenai Environmental Association; Tom Scarborough, Fairbanks. SUMMARY SB 77 An Act relating to intensive management of identified big game prey populations. HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the Department of Fish and Game. SENATE BILL NO. 77 "An Act relating to intensive management of identified big game prey populations." Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt House Committee Substitute for CSSB 77 (FIN), #9-LS0460\Z, dated 1/25/96 (copy on file). Representative Brown OBJECTED for purposes 1 of discussion. She asked for a review of the Committee Substitute. SENATOR BERT SHARP, sponsor SB 77, reviewed the Committee Substitute. He compared the Committee Substitute to HCS CSSB 77 (RES). He noted that Section 2 contains a new subsection (4). He stated that (4) requires that the Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game "cooperated with and assist the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game by implementing regulations as requested by either board. He stressed that this subsection will provide clarity regarding the duties of the Commissioner. He observe that Section 3 adds the same language in AS 16.05.225 (e). Senator Sharp explained that Section 4 adds new language, "consistent with the sustained yield principle" to clarify the meaning of "intensive management". He added that "or has resulted" was inserted on page 2, line 20 to clarify the level of game depletion that would trigger intensive management. Senator Sharp explained that "active" was substituted for "intensive" in two areas in Section 5 of HCS CSSB 77(RES). This section was deleted in the Committee Substitute. Senator Sharp noted that Section 5 of the Committee Substitute clarifies that "intensive management" does not include management of human use. The Committee Substitute added on page 2, line 30 and 31, "but not including restrictions on methods or means of taking game, access to game, or human harvest of game" and "in accordance with the sustained yield principle" on page 2, lines 26 and 27. He asserted that reduced bag limits or limits on seasons allows greater access to predators. Senator Sharp provided members with a visual Chart demonstrating that only 3 percent of the mortality of moose, sheep and caribou born annually can be attributed to humans. According to the chart the natural mortality rate accounts for 10 percent of the deaths and predators account for 87 percent of the deaths. He stated that these figures are based on studies by the Department of Fish and Game compiled over the past 10 years. He referred to the 1995, Fortymile Caribou Herd Management Plan (copy on file). He observed that areas of this range have not been used for over 30 years. He concluded that the present herd is below its potential. He observed that 1,800 calves are born each year. Two-thirds die in the first 40 - 60 days. An additional 12 percent are killed by predators before the first year. In total, approximately 85 percent die by predator attack. He pointed out that humans harvest approximately 300 bulls a year. He observed that the 2 Fortymile Caribou Herd Management Plan stated that the human harvest of bulls does not affect the productivity of the herd, since the bull/cow ratio is high. Senator Sharp provided members with a chart demonstrating what would happen to the Fortymile Herd if predators were reduced (Attachment 1). He summarized that the herd has tremendous reproductive possibilities. He suggested that Department of Fish and Game personnel could sedate wolves and transfer them away from calving grounds during calving season. He emphasized that intensive management of the herd would reduce predators and increase the herd. He emphasized that the intent of the legislation is to clarify statutes regarding intensive management. Senator Sharp provided members with a memorandum from Jack Whitman, Division of Wildlife Conservation, dated 2/22/96 (Attachment 2). He observed that the results of a moose study completed by the Department of Fish and Game showed that the overall calculated moose density is 0.3705 per square mile. He emphasized that this is one-tenth of the density of a healthy moose herd. He observed that the ratio of wolf to moose is 1 to 12. He stressed that this is the highest density of wolves ever recorded in North America. He added that 77 percent of the local residents agreed that wolves should be reduced for greater than five years in order to increase the moose herd. Senator Sharp noted that Section 6 adds three new definitions. Subsection (3) defines "harvestable surplus" as the estimated number of animals that is equal to the number of offspring born in a game population during the year less the number of animals in the population that die during the year from all causes other than predation or human harvest." He stated that most game managers accept this definition. Subsection (4) defines "high level of human harvest" as the harvest of one-third or more or the harvestable surplus of a game population by humans." Subsection (5) defines "sustained yield" as it applies to game. Senator Sharp noted that Section 7 adds a new subsection (h) that strengthens the legislative intent wording in the statute to establish that the management goal is to provide at least one-half of the harvestable surplus for humans. Senator Sharp observed that Section 8 is amended by adding a new subsection (b): "If a board delegated authority to the commissioner, the commissioner shall cooperate with and assist the board by implementing regulations, management plans, and intensive management programs as requested by the board." 3 Senator Sharp explained that Section 9 would repeal AS 16.05.050(1): "To assist the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in the enforcement of federal laws and regulations pertaining to fish and game." Senator Sharp summarized that the Department of Fish and Game has expert staff. He stressed that the Department of Fish and Game is reluctant to implement intensive management. He asserted that greater clarification is needed due to the reluctance of the Department to implement intensive managment. He restated that the Division's job is to manage the resource not human use. Representative Brown WITHDREW her objections. There being NO OBJECTION, House Committee Substitute for CSSB 77 (FIN), BILL HAGAR, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference network. He spoke in support of the Committee Substitute. He referred to public remarks by Mr. Regelin, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation. He stated that Mr. Regelin's remarks have been ambiguous. He questioned if statements comparing Alaska's resource problems with those of Sweden are valid. He maintained that the sustained yield harvestable surplus is working very well. He observed that 100 percent of the 3 percent of the resource allocated to humans is being harvested. He stressed that a one-third harvest is fair. He noted that the difference between 600 grizzly bears and 1,200 grizzly bears is 10,000 moose. MARK LUTTRELL, DIRECTOR, EASTERN KENAI PENINSULA ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION ASSOCIATION testified via the teleconference network. He spoke against SB 77. He disagreed that human use is the highest and best use for the harvest. He stated that the focus should not be only on supply. He asserted that the human demand should be limited. He noted that predator control is politically divisive, expensive and inefficient. He spoke against any wolf free zones. He objected to Section 5 (2) on page 2, line 30 and 31 "but not including restrictions on methods or means of taking game, access to game, or human harvest of game." He stated that this language should be deleted. LYNN LEVENGOOD, FAIRBANKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION testified via the teleconference network. He spoke in support of the Committee Substitute. He stressed that the definitions in HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) comply with the constitutional mandate for sustained yield of Alaska's renewable resources. They are similar to definitions found in other sections of the statutes. He disagreed with statements that the Department 4 cannot allocate one-third of the harvestable surplus to human consumption. He discussed comments by Mr. Regelin comparing Alaska's harvestable surplus to that of Sweden. He asserted that the Department has done nothing to implement "intensive management" and has openly requested clarification and definition of existing statutes. He maintained that HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) provides clarity and definition. SARA HANNAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY testified in opposition to HCS CSSB 77 (FIN). She noted that her family has over 30 years of hunting experience. She stated that she is not opposed to hunting. She stressed that she does not support hunting at the demise of other users of the resources. She emphasized that it is a complicated issue. She maintained that the state of Alaska has instituted the most extensive public process for the management of fish and game anywhere in the world. She acknowledged hunters' concerns. She observed that she can not go hunt where she took her first solo hunt at the age of sixteen. Ms. Hannan maintained that HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) would provide a bad precedent. She observed that game population stresses are only in a couple of game units. She acknowledged that residents in McGrath have a wolf problem. She stated that it would be short sighted to try to remedy the problem in Juneau. She emphasized that every fisheries dispute will come to the Legislature for a statutory change if the precedent is set. She noted that decisions by the Board of Fish and the Board of Game are publicly noticed and go through an extensive nine month proposal system. She maintained that HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) does not stand the test of good public policy. She acknowledged that there is a sport hunting problem in Fairbanks. She observed that Fairbanks' population has tripled. She stated that the highest level of fish and game extraction are currently occurring. Ms. Hannan emphasized that the Alaska Environmental Lobby is not opposed to predator control. She cautioned that repeal of Section 9, "to assist the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in the enforcement of federal laws and regulations pertaining to fish and game" would open Pandora's box. She stressed that repeal of this language would put state employees in the field into a legal bind. She noted state and federal agreements. TOM SCARBOROUGH, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference network. He spoke in support of HCS CSSB 7 (FIN). He maintained that Department has not implemented the wishes of the Board of Game. WAYNE REGELIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 5 testified that HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) would significantly amend AS 16.05.255, Intensive Management Law, passed in 1994. He observed that the bill would fundamentally alter the relationship between the Board of Fish and the Board of Game and the Commissioner of Department of Fish and Game. It would require the Commissioner to implement regulations regardless of expense. The Boards do not currently have administrative, budget or fiscal powers. The second part of the bill would require the Board of Game to manage ungulate populations for high levels of human use. It mandates that the Board of Game adopt regulations to provide for intensive management consistent with the sustained yield principle. He maintained that the Department of Fish and the Board of Game already strive to manage consistent with the sustained yield principle in most of Alaska. Mr. Regelin observed that the Intensive Management Law passed in 1994 already requires that intensive management be implemented before the Board of Game can reduce a season length or bag limit. He noted that intensive management is defined as predator control or habitat manipulation. The bill specifically states that changes in seasons or bag limits do not qualify as an intensive management tool. In many cases that is all that would be required to correct a short term problem. Mr. Regelin stated that the biggest problem with the proposed legislation is how it defines harvestable surplus, high levels of human use, and sustained yield. He maintained that the definitions, combined with the language in the bill, would force the Board of Game and the Department of Fish and Game to attempt to meet unrealistic objectives, ignore scientific standards, and sometimes sacrifice other resource values. He observed that the bill would require the annual harvest to be equal to or greater than one-third of the animals born in a population during the year less the number of animals in the population that die during the year from all causes other than predation or human harvest. He asserted that moose and caribou populations in Alaska cannot sustain such high harvest rates unless predation rates are extremely low. Predator populations would have to be reduced to very low levels or eliminated to achieve these rates. He emphasized that it is not always possible to sustain the harvest level and keep the population healthy. He observed that severe winters cause a high mortality rate. The harvest level is reduced during bad years to allow the herd to recover. Mr. Regelin asserted that the legislation is the result of frustration by a few persons that want higher harvest levels along road accessible parts of Alaska. He maintained that the Department of Fish and Game and the Board of Game have 6 all the tools needed to manage game. He maintained that the Intensive Management Law clarified legislative intent regarding management of wildlife populations. He asserted that the Law is being implemented. Mr. Regelin observed that the Board of Game authorized predator management in three areas where there is an imbalance in the predator/prey ratio. The Board's regulations were delayed pending action by the Governor due to the political nature of wolf control. He observed that wolf control has impacts beyond hunting. Since 1982, decisions regarding wolf control have been made in conjunction with the Governor. The Board acknowledged the controversial nature and the broader ramifications of wolf control. He stated that to settle the wolf control controversy we must have a balanced management program that is accepted by the public. He maintained that the wolf control debate is controlled by small minorities on both extremes. Mr. Regelin stated that the legislation is a step in the wrong direction, not because the goals are wrong, but because the methods are too extreme. In response to a question by Co-Chair Foster, Mr. Regelin clarified that the Court ruled that the Commissioner must implement the Board's allocation decisions. He observed that there is a close cooperative relationship between the Board of Game and the Department of Fish and Game with the exception of the wolf control issue. He noted that the Board does not have financial powers. In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Mr. Regelin noted that wolf control was not implemented by the Commissioner due to the political nature of wolf control. He observed that HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) would require the Commissioner to implement the Board's regulations including wolf control. Representative Kelly summarized that the Commissioner would have to follow public policy as represented in the Board's actions. Representative Therriault noted that the Board process is extensive. He observed that the Legislature decided that the Boards of Fish and Game should be more involved in the amount of game. He stated that the legislation will make a direct link from the policy derived by the Board and its implementation. He acknowledged that it is still up to the Legislature to fund polices of the Board. Mr. Regelin stressed that the Commissioner has worked to 7 implement the Board's decisions. He pointed out that the past four Governors have interceded in respect to wolf control. He stressed that if the Governor orders the Commissioner not to implement the Board's decisions it would probably be settled in court. Representative Therriault asserted that the Board's decisions regarding wolf control have been stopped by the political process. Discussion ensued regarding the political nature of wolf control. Mr. Regelin summarized that the Division of Wildlife Conservation is caught in the middle of the issue. Representative Therriault concluded that the Board has made sound decisions that the Division has not been able to implement for political reasons. Co-Chair Foster observed that due to politics the Administration is preventing the voice of the people to be heard through the Boards of Fish and Game. Representative Grussendorf summarized that politics play a role in decisions by the Boards of Fish and Game. He pointed out that predators are part of the management and health of a herd. He observed that humans harvest the healthiest, biggest animals they can find. Mr. Regelin referred to the chart that demonstrated that 87 percent of new born ungulates are taken by predators. He pointed out that the chart does not take into account that some do survive. He observed that herds that are away from the road system are healthy and have large bag limits. Representative Grussendorf noted that the Division has adjusted their programs to account for areas with needs. He summarized that the Division is meeting what is required for predator control under existing laws. Mr. Regelin restated that the existing laws and tools are more than adequate to allow the Board to make decisions and for the Department of Fish and Game to implement wolf control. The Department has been stopped from moving forward due to a controversial public policy issue. Co-Chair Hanley summarized that the Governor can choose not to implement the Board's policy. Representative Brown referred to page 2, lines 30 and 31, "but not including restrictions on methods or means of taking game, access to game, or human harvest of game." Mr. Regelin noted that under this language the Board of Game could not reduce a season or bag limit without concurrently implementing intensive management through predator control or habitat manipulation. (Tape Change, HFC 96-66, Side 1) 8 Mr. Regelin stated that the legislation will reduce the flexibility of the Board to take action without expensive programs. He emphasized that the basic tool of wildlife management is setting bag limits and seasons. He asserted that adjustments to bag limits and seasons have resulted in an overall increased harvest in the State. He acknowledged that bag limits and season adjustments do not solve problems which are due to predator/prey ratios that are out of line. He noted that there are three areas where the predator/prey ratio is out of control. Co-Chair Hanley stressed that it is a philosophical problem. He concluded that intensive management is intended to maximize human use. He noted that it is not the legislative intent that human use be restricted to increase game populations. In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr. Regelin observed that black and brown bears are considered big game species. Wolves are also a big game species but have a dual classification. Representative Brown asked if sustained yield should include predators. Mr. Regelin observed that the intent is that predators are reduced and maintained at low levels to allow a high opportunity to harvest moose and caribou. He noted that there are too many bears in Unit 13, Glennallen area. He noted that the Board has already taken action to reduce the bear population in Unit 13 through increased bag limits and season lengths. He did not anticipate that the Department would have to do more than adjust bag limits or seasons in regards to bears. Representative Brown questioned the fiscal note. Mr. Regelin explained that the fiscal note represents the cost of aerial wolf control in two areas. Representative Therriault clarified that expenditures will come from reprogramming of existing revenues. Mr. Regelin agreed that no new dollars will be needed. Representative Kohring spoke in support of the legislation. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 1, delete on page 2, line 30 and 31, "but not including restrictions on methods or means of taking game, access to game, or human harvest of game." She stated that the Alaska Outdoor Council expressed concern regarding the language. She questioned if the language is counterproductive. 9 Representative Kelly stated that the Alaska Outdoor Council currently supports the legislation as it is. Representative Grussendorf asked for the Department's position. Mr. Regelin stated that the language takes away the Department's ability to fix short term problems caused by weather through the reduction of harvest. The Board would have to concurrently implement wolf control or habitat manipulation with a reduction in bag limits or seasons. He stated that the Division would prefer the language not be adopted. Co-Chair Hanley summarized that the legislation does not state what amount of predators would have to be eliminated. He concluded that the elimination of one wolf would fulfill the requirement for predator control. He added that the legislation without the amendment would require that something be done about predators and habitat if human use is going to be reduced. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment 1. IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf OPPOSED: Kelly, Kohring, Mulder, Parnell, Therriault, Foster, Hanley Representatives Martin and Navarre were absent from the vote. The MOTION FAILED (2-7). Representative Mulder MOVED to report HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Brown OBJECTED. She stressed that the Department of Fish and Game is working to meet the goals of intensive management. She added that the controversy will be intensified by the legislation. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to report HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) from Committee. IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring, Mulder, Parnell, Therriault, Foster, Hanley OPPOSED: Brown Representatives Martin and Navarre were absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (8-1). HCS CSSB 77 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do 10 pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the Department of Fish and Game. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:55 a.m. 11
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|