Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/27/1995 08:05 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 27, 1995
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Pete Kott
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative John Davies
Representative Eileen MacLean
Representative Irene Nicholia
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Jeanette James
Representative Pete Kelly
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 169: "An Act defining the scope of the responsibility of the
Department of Natural Resources for regulating the
mineral resources of the state."
PASSED CSHB 169(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 80: "An Act relating to the approval, change, or vacation of
subdivision plats in areas outside organized boroughs, in
the unorganized borough outside of cities, and in the
third class boroughs; and relating to the definitions of
`street' and `subdivision'."
PASSED CSHB 80(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 170: "An Act relating to intensive management of identified
big game prey populations."
HEARD AND HELD
*(first public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 432
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 169
NEIL MACKINNON, Representative
Alaska Minerals Commission
1114 Glacier Avenue
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-1254
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 169
BOB STILES, Representative
DRven Corporation
711 H Street, No. 600
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: 276-6868
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 169
CHARLIE GREEN, Member
Alaska Minerals Commission
Assistant Vice President, Marketing
Usibelli Coal Mine
P.O. Box 71805
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Phone: 452-2625
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 169
CHARLIE BODDY, Vice President Government Relations
Usibelli Coal Mine
122 1st Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Phone: 452-2625
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 169
REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 80
RON SWANSON, Director
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: 762-2692
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 80
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 513
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 170
WAYNE REGELIN, Deputy Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 170
PETE SHEPHERD
1012 Galena
Fairbanks, AK 99789
Phone: 474-4685
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 170
RALPH SEEKINS
1625 Old Steese Highway
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Phone: 452-1991
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 170
BILL HAGAR
431 Gaffney Road
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Phone: 452-6295
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 170
WARREN OLSON
5961 Orth Circle
Anchorage, AK 99516
Phone: 346-1811
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 170
DAVID OLSON
5961 Orth Circle
Anchorage, AK 99516
Phone: 346-1811
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 170
LYNN LEVENGOOD
931 Vide Way
Fairbanks, AK 99712
Phone: 457-3841
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 170
TOM SCARBOROUGH
1676 Taroka Drive
Fairbanks, AK 99789
Phone: 479-3412
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 170
JACK COGHILL
904 Calhoun
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 463-5153
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 170
JOEL BENNETT, Representative
Defenders of Wildlife
114 W. 6th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-1255
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 170
MOLLY SHERMAN, Representative
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 170
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 169
SHORT TITLE: DEPT. NAT RES. IS LEAD AGENCY FOR MINING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT, Williams, Kelly, MacLean
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/08/95 273 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/08/95 274 (H) RES
02/10/95 322 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILLIAMS
02/21/95 432 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY
02/22/95 456 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MACLEAN
02/27/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 80
SHORT TITLE: DNR APPROVAL OF PLATS IN UNORG BOROUGH
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/95 41 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 41 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 41 (H) COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS, RESOURCES
01/31/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/02/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/16/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/21/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/22/95 443 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NEW TITLE 3DP 4NR
02/22/95 443 (H) DP: VEZEY, KOTT, IVAN
02/22/95 443 (H) NR: MACKIE, ELTON, AUSTERMAN, NICHOLIA
02/22/95 443 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (CRA, DNR)
02/23/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/27/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 170
SHORT TITLE: INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY
02/10/95 301 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/10/95 301 (H) RESOURCES
02/20/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/20/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/27/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-24, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman
Green at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Austerman, and Kott. Members absent were
Representatives Williams, Ogan, Barnes, Davies, MacLean and
Nicholia.
HRES - 02/27/95
HB 169 - DNR IS LEAD AGENCY FOR MINING
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, PRIME SPONSOR, stated HB 169 is a measure
that will place the coordination of mineral resources and
development within the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). He
said HB 169 was extracted from the Alaska Minerals Commission
Report. He told committee members there is no intent of removing
any regulatory authority from any of the existing departments. He
noted if there is an issue related to mining, DNR will coordinate
the efforts and will serve as the chief and lead agency.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted there is a proposed committee substitute
which will clarify the intent of HB 169. He stated there had been
some misunderstandings that some of the regulatory functions,
currently within various departments, would be withdrawn and placed
within DNR. He stressed that is not the intent of HB 169.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN noted in the committee substitute the word
"regulation" was changed to "management" which he felt was a good
change.
Number 076
NEIL MACKINNON, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA MINERALS COMMISSION (AMC),
stated HB 169 is a recommendation of the AMC. He said the
recommendation comes as a result of the Fort Knox project which
involved an expeditious permitting process and from other
experiences. AMC feels HB 169 will work well for all mining
operations in the state. He noted instead of going to 40 different
agencies, they would have to go to one.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if having a lead agency, as opposed to
having the lead applicant going to each of the various agencies, is
bypassing any requirements.
MR. MACKINNON replied no. He added the lead agency would say here
is the process, here is the application and the process is all
funnelled together. He noted it might help in that two agencies
could hold a hearing at the same time, generally for the same
subject matter.
Number 112
BOB STILES, REPRESENTATIVE, DRVEN CORPORATION, expressed support
for HB 169. He stated he does foresee a potential for a problem
limited to the coastal zone. He said one project he is working on
is in the coastal zone and the Division of Governmental
Coordination (DGC) functions as a coordinating entity when multiple
permits from various agencies are involved. He noted there is a
potential for a conflict, in terms of who is in charge of the
coordination function, when working within the coastal zone and
when subject to the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). He
felt HB 169 would help streamline the process.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he is familiar with the role DGC has taken
in the past in the coastal zone management area. He wondered if
the conflicts are just there or are they irreconcilable.
MR. STILES responded he does not feel the conflicts are
irreconcilable. He said one additional coordination loop would be
needed when working in the mining area in the coastal zone. He
stated on his project, they worked extensively with DGC and it
worked extremely well. He noted what DGC lacked was a clear
designation as lead agency. He stressed there is a difference
between coordination and lead. In the mining area, if there is a
defined lead agency, where multiple permits from multiple agencies
are going to be involved, the process can work more effectively and
more smoothly. However, something would have to be worked out
early on in the process when working in the coastal zone. He felt
it was doable.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked the sponsor if he envisions in those arenas
where they would be dealing with DGC for the coastal zone, that the
DNR as the lead agency would act in conjunction with or instead of
the applicant.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied yes.
Number 195
CHARLIE GREEN, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, MARKETING, USIBELLI COAL
MINE, MEMBER, AMC, said he would speak on behalf of the small
miner. He stated in the AMC Report, the commission cited the
example of permitting for Fort Knox and how the concept of a lead
agency worked well on that large project. He stated there is also
a process which works well for small miners and that is the Alaska
Placer Mining Application process or as it is known, the Tri-Agency
process, whereby the small placer miner completes a consolidated
application form, submits it to DNR, and DNR then passes it around
to the various agencies for review. He noted it is a single point
for filing paperwork and for part of the permitting reporting, and
is very useful for the small miner who does not have a staff. He
stressed the process works very well and speaks to the benefits of
formalizing that process.
MR. GREEN said as new issues come up where there may be agencies
contemplating new permits or new reporting processes, these things
can be funneled into a consolidated process which will save time
for everyone. He felt the concept of a lead agency will be a
benefit to the miners and the state as well.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Mr. Green to estimate the reduction in
time for the permitting process if HB 169 was implemented.
MR. GREEN replied it depends on how many permits are required. He
said for a small miner, who has five or six employees, having to
take a person off the job to have a special meeting with a couple
of agencies and there is only 100 days to work--any additional time
spent working is important.
Number 262
CHARLIE BODDY, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, USIBELLI COAL
MINE, expressed support for HB 169. He said after 36 years of
mineral land management the state has been involved in, there has
been a tug and a pull to have a settling out of who is in charge as
the lead agency. He concurred with Mr. Green that codification of
the position that DNR is the lead agency is overdue. He felt DNR
as the lead agency would deter some of the in-fightings and power
struggles ongoing in the agencies. He stated DNR has evolved from
25 years ago being in an advocacy role to somewhat of a dual role
currently as regulator, policeman, and advocate.
MR. BODDY felt it was timely that this change occur and DNR take
the lead in mining matters. He said as a proliferation of programs
occurs, some emanating from the federal level coming down as state
mandates and some being generated from within the state, the
complexities of bringing any sort of mine on line involve the same
problems--a large amount of permits and other requirements. He
stressed by identifying a lead agency and having other agencies
with any bearing on the property development required to bring
needs to the table in a cohesive manner can only be good for the
state and the person trying to bring the property on line. He
noted that HB 169 looks like a small piece of legislation.
However, he felt it is a very needed piece of legislation from a
resource developers standpoint.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN felt in order to be effective, the DNR would have
to be proactive. He wondered if that will create a conflict of
interest because they would be a proponent but also would be a
regulator.
MR. BODDY stated the DNR can have the advocacy role jointly shared
with the Department of Commerce and Economic Development. He
stressed within the department, there is the ability to have
divisions. He noted the conflict has always been there in a small
way in the past but each year it gets increasingly more police-like
and regulatory in nature. He felt it was more focused on the
divisional level.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted for the record that Representative WILLIAMS
had joined the committee at 8:13 a.m.
Number 380
HRES - 02/27/95
HB 80 - DNR APPROVAL OF PLATS IN UNORGAN. BOROUGH
REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES, PRIME SPONSOR, stated she had
experienced a situation in her district where there was a
subdivision platted in an area where there was no platting
authority and where there was a deficiency in the access. At that
time, she determined that the DNR was a platting agent but not the
platting authority. When people brought in plats in places where
there was not a platting authority, they were required to file the
plat but did not have any opportunity to review it to see if it met
the state requirements for a plat--specifically engineering,
surveying requirements of the perimeter of the plat, ensuring legal
access and other state laws relating to subdivisions--were met.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted she presented this legislation last
year, which was similar to a bill in the Senate in the 17th Alaska
Legislature. She said her bill went through a lot of fixing and
some agreement was finally reached by the parties as to what the
language ought to be. She noted the language extends once one gets
into platting and platting rules, regulations, engineering terms
and survey requirements. She stated she was nearly successful in
getting the legislation through the Senate last year but time ran
out. She felt HB 80 has been massaged enough to the point that
almost everyone is happy with it.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said there is one little dispute which was
fixed in the last committee that may or may not be pleasing to the
Department of Transportation (DOT). She stated that dispute
involves right-of-ways. She noted that DOT wanted right-of-ways
exempted because the DOT likes to put their monumentation in the
center of the right-of-ways. The description of a subdivision in
HB 80 indicates that anytime something is broken into two parcels,
it is a subdivision and therefore, it must be surveyed and there
must be monuments. She explained if a right-of-way is put through
a parcel, the parcel is then divided into two parcels which
constitutes a subdivision, requiring the DOT to put monuments at
the corners of the property. She noted the DOT likes to put their
monuments in the center of the road.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said in response to that concern, she
understands it could change the way the DOT does business.
However, she just had the road in front of her place worked on last
summer involving quite a cadre of engineers and surveyors. She
stated if they put a right-of-way in, monumentation would involve
no more than pounding a piece of metal into the ground since they
already have all the other information they need. She said it may
be a situation of needing someone willing to sign off but she
thought that might be another step which would not be very
expensive. She stressed she is not willing to bring forth any
legislation which is going to cost more money. She felt the
expense would be the only valid concern. She urged the committee
to pass HB 80 out of committee.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if authority was granted, would it take
anything other than a legislative act. He questioned if it would
impact the constitution in any way.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied no. She said it is a matter of giving
the DNR the authority to review plats to ensure they meet the state
law regarding subdivisions. She stated the definition of a
subdivision is brought all into focus in HB 80.
Number 473
RON SWANSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LAND, DNR, stated DNR definitely
needs the platting authority. He showed an example on a map. He
said in 1980, the state sold a particular tract of land consisting
of about 20 acres to an individual. In 1988, this person had a
surveyor establish a five acre piece within the tract and had the
plat recorded. He noted DNR did not review the plat. He said the
transaction was on a land sale contract--the person did not own the
piece of property, it is still state land. He stated in 1993, the
entire piece of property was foreclosed on because the original
applicant was not making payments. Therefore, there is a trespass
situation, with a house built. He stressed this is why the DNR
platting authority is needed.
HRES - 02/27/95
Number 514
HB 170 - INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, PRIME SPONSOR, stated HB 170 is a
further clarification of SB 77 which passed last year. He said
even though SB 77 was only enacted last year, Alaska's intensive
management statute needs additional changes to clarify legislative
intent and define statutory language. He noted this need has been
manifested by both the Board of Game and the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G). He said to emphasize that point, he would
use the words of the ADF&G in a statement before the Board of Game
dated November 8, 1994, "The legislature did not define several
other key phrases important to the implementation of SB 77. How
each phrase should be interpreted and applied to implement this new
statute will provide valuable guidance to the department and to the
public."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated HB 170 provides these department
requested definitions and clarifies Alaska's policy concerning
management of Alaska's wildlife resources. This goal was provided
by the legislative intent which accompanied SB 77. He said the
minor changes provided by HB 170 will greatly assist the Board of
Game and the ADF&G, as well as the Alaska wildlife populations.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY told committee members Section 2 adds to the
functions of the commissioner, requiring the commissioner to
cooperate with and assist the Boards of Fish and Game. This will
help bring ADF&G in line with the Alaska Supreme Court ruling this
week regarding the False Pass fishery issue. He stated Section 3
further establishes the duties of the commissioner to cooperate and
assist the Boards of Fish and Game. Currently, the first listed
duty of the commissioner is to assist federal agencies in enforcing
federal regulations. He felt Alaska is thus requiring state
officials to carry out unfunded federal mandates. He stressed this
puts the commissioner in a catch 22 position if federal regulations
and state policies happen to conflict. He said the commissioner
should first work for Alaskans and the Alaska constitution he is
sworn to uphold.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated HB 170 also defines historic high
levels which was controversial in SB 77 because these were not
defined. HB 170 also clarifies intensive management as wildlife
management, not people management. He said Section 6 defines
sustained yield, harvestable surplus, and high level of human
harvest. He noted SB 77 originally contained definitions which
were left out at the request of the department. The department
argued that these specific definitions were better addressed by the
Board of Game. Months later it was discovered that the Board of
Game was persuaded not to adopt the definitions by the department
because the department argued that the definitions were best
achieved by the legislature. He stressed the basic purpose of HB
170 is to provide those definitions.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said harvestable surplus defines the
conservation goals in terms of population dynamics, allowing the
identification of those areas where action is needed. The need may
result from winter snows or other catastrophic events and the
solutions may include forestry practices by DNR or other actions on
behalf of the ADF&G. He stated the definition will help hold the
ADF&G accountable.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated high level of human harvest is defined
specifically as an accountability guideline which tells the Board
of Game intensive management tools are needed when human harvest
levels drop to one-third. He said sustained yield places the goals
and principles of wildlife management in a clear statutory language
consistent with the Alaska constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY conveyed his concern about the health and
maintenance of Alaska's vital wildlife resources. He stressed
healthy wildlife resources are essential to many ways of life in
Alaska and is managed in many different ways throughout Alaska. HB
170 helps guide ADF&G in the provision for these areas where it is
appropriate to manage for a higher consumptive use level than is
currently achieved. Pointing to a graph on the wall entitled
"Alaska Wildlife Harvest Data", he mentioned the state has a
problem with maintaining wildlife resources at a certain level. He
said predation accounts for 87 percent of the kill, ten percent of
the harvest is for other reasons, and only three percent of the
harvest is by human harvest.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY felt if there is a desire to get a greater
amount of animals, managing that three percent is not going to do
it. He noted there is a three percent leverage to take care of a
huge 87 percent problem. He said SB 77 last year attempted to
address the problems and will have successfully addressed the
problems if the guidelines in HB 170 are adopted. He stressed the
state's wildlife resources are being managed not for human use but
for predators use.
Number 612
WAYNE REGELIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
noted that during the last session of the legislature, SB 77 was
passed which mandated intensive management for certain areas where
the Board of Game determined that the highest value of use was for
human consumptive use. He added if the board wanted to change the
season or bag limit to make it more restrictive, they would have to
implement intensive management. He said it has only been eight
months since that bill became law. He stressed the Board of Game
has worked hard to implement this new legislation.
MR. REGELIN stated the board met in November--the first meeting
after the bill became law--and developed a process to implement the
new law. The board identified ten potential areas for intensive
management. The board then had a special work session, in early
December, to discuss intensive management and how to implement it.
The board decided that five of the ten areas warranted further
consideration and directed the department to prepare detailed
reports on those areas. He noted that report will be presented to
the board at their March meeting and will enable the board to move
forward with implementing the law.
MR. REGELIN said options for the five areas that the board will
look at include altering regulations to increase harvest levels.
He noted an example where this option may be useful is in Unit 13,
where grizzly bear predation is a major problem for the moose
population. He stated the Board of Game had a special meeting in
January and at that time, the board decided to remove the $25 tag
fee on grizzly bears for resident hunters which should increase the
harvest significantly. He noted the board may make further
adjustments on the bear season at their March meeting by extending
the season or the bag limit.
MR. REGELIN told committee members another option the board has is
to request the department to conduct habitat improvement projects
in certain areas. The third option the board has is to consider
predation control, such as wolf control. He said if the board
feels that type of control is warranted, they would direct the
department to prepare wolf control plans according to regulations
on the books. These regulations require a lot of detail such as
collecting certain types of data and holding public meetings. Once
that process is complete, the board then can authorize a wolf
control program.
MR. REGELIN felt the Board of Game has moved as rapidly as they can
to implement SB 77. He stated the department is not sure it is
appropriate to make amendments to a law which has not even been
implemented yet. He said the department has concerns on specific
aspects of HB 170. He told committee members the main concern is
the historic high level of a population is set at a standard which
would trigger intensive management actions. He explained
historical high levels, in many cases, are artificially high
because they occurred in the early 1960s shortly after the
poisoning campaigns were stopped. Therefore, there was a peak in
the populations shortly after that occurred. He said it is
difficult to maintain those high levels of populations because the
habitat cannot support those high levels over long periods of time
and because the habitat will degrade and reduced productions will
occur.
Number 669
MR. REGELIN stated when a population is carried at maximum carrying
capacity, it is not a very productive population. He said most of
those populations are food stressed, resulting in reduced calf
production. He noted with caribou, there can be alternate year
reproduction and low survivability of calves. He mentioned with
moose, there is very low twinning rates and high post-natal
survivorship because weak calves are born.
MR. REGELIN told committee members to maximize the harvest of a
population the department tries to manage it at about 80 percent of
the maximum carrying capacity. At that level, the population is
not food stressed and the highest yield from the population for
harvest occurs. He felt it would be counter-productive to manage
the population at maximum carrying capacity because what occurs is
a lot of animals having very low productivity.
MR. REGELIN stated another concern is the proposed definition of a
harvestable surplus. In the department's opinion, the definition
would mandate an unattainable harvest level. There is no doubt
that reducing predation will allow more harvest by humans but a
level of one-third or more, which HB 170 would require, is
unrealistic. He felt even without any predation, calves would have
to be harvested to achieve this harvest rate. He noted that in
Sweden, which has the largest productive moose population in the
world, they try to maintain a harvest level of 25 percent per year.
He mentioned that Sweden has no predation--they have only one wolf
pack and have very few bears, very little snow, and very mild
winters--yet half of their harvest involves four month old calves.
TAPE 95-24, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. REGELIN said the department has conducted a lot of studies. He
stated just because a calf is not eaten when it is a few days old
by a bear or wolf does not necessarily mean it is going to grow up.
There are many other factors and reasons why calves die.
MR. REGELIN stated the other concern the department has with the
high harvest rate is that it would require cow seasons, or
otherwise there would be very unbalanced sex ratios in a short
period of time. He noted that in Sweden, one-fourth of the harvest
is cows. He stressed that wildlife management is a complex subject
and is not just about counting and killing animals. Many other
factors need to be considered when setting management goals. He
stated the sex ratio, the age structure, the habitat requirements
and the level of predation all have to be looked at.
MR. REGELIN said he understands the purpose of HB 170 and SB 77
last year. He stated many people in Alaska want a higher rate of
harvest for moose and caribou, especially in the road accessible
areas. He expressed support for this goal. He noted he has worked
very hard over the last 20 years trying to achieve that goal. He
agreed that in parts of Alaska the harvest rate is much too low.
He noted an area which the department hears a lot about is the
moose harvest in Unit 13, the Nelchina basin, which is where many
people from Anchorage and Fairbanks hunt. He stated in that area,
only about three percent of the moose population is being harvested
each year. He felt the problem involves too high of a carrying
capacity and too high of a standing crop.
MR. REGELIN stated there is a very low productive population in
Unit 13 for several reasons. One of the primary reasons is that
the grizzly bear population is very high. He felt the recent Board
of Game action will have a significant impact on reducing the bear
population in that area over the next few years. He noted that
Unit 13 wolves are not a big problem at this time but certainly
could be in the future. He said the department recognizes changes
need to be made in Unit 13 and is working toward making changes.
Number 70
MR. REGELIN said another area being talked about is Unit 28, south
of Fairbanks, where the department was doing a wolf control
program. He stated in that unit there is a very depressed caribou
population which is in a predator pit and the population is not
going to get out of that situation until the department takes
action. He pointed out another area where there is a management
problem is in the 40-mile caribou herd. There are approximately
23,000 caribou in that herd and it has the potential to have an
excess of 100,000 caribou. He explained the reason the herd is not
growing is the wolf predation. He stressed there are many factors
affecting the productivity of populations and what can be
harvested.
MR. REGELIN stated he would like to work with the legislature, the
Board of Game, and the public to achieve common goals. He felt it
was possible to achieve those goals without legislation mandating
the Board of Game to take certain actions. He said sometimes those
actions may not be appropriate based on the individual situation.
He stressed the way to approach the problem is through wildlife
management plans. In areas where the board has identified
consumptive use for humans as the highest priority through these
plans, then the department can move forward and take various
actions. He felt it was appropriate for the legislature to provide
direction to the department on what elements they would like to
have in wildlife management plans and direction to the Board of
Game on priorities. He did not feel amendments to SB 77 are the
best way to achieve those common goals.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted, for the record, that Representative BARNES
joined the committee at 8:55 a.m.
Number 118
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN asked if Mr. Regelin could respond to
the graph on the wall.
MR. REGELIN stated he was aware of the basic figures contained in
the graph. He thought the graph combined data from various parts
of the state. He said in certain parts of the state, the figures
might be correct. He stressed the goal is to harvest between 8
percent to 10 percent of the animals in the population. He felt
that goal can be achieved in many areas even with winter
conditions. He pointed out that getting beyond that goal is not
possible in Alaska. He noted there are 600,000 caribou in the
Western Arctic Caribou herd and only about 10,000 are being
harvested by humans, not because the harvest is being limited but
because people just do not go that far north to hunt.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN questioned why the definition of harvest
by natural causes and harvest by predators is separated. He felt
predation is a natural cause. He wondered if the two were
separated so a decision can be made on where the number for human
harvest can be increased.
MR. REGELIN explained the graph is not the department's graph but
he said predation is a natural cause. He thought predation was
being separated from natural causes such as accidents and winter
kills, et cetra, so the point can be made that predation is the
major source of mortality.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN recalled that Mr. Regelin had mentioned
Unit 13 and bears versus moose. He clarified the Board of Game has
made a decision to kill bears so that humans can eat moose.
MR. REGELIN responded that is correct. Several years ago, the
board identified consumptive use of moose and caribou as the
highest use for Unit 13. He said the board is not trying to
eliminate the bear population but wants to reduce it. He thought
the population was currently approximately 1,000 bears and the
board wants to reduce that number to approximately 500. He stated
the department has conducted extensive studies in Unit 13. He
explained grizzly bear predation takes about ten times the number
of moose calves as wolves do. Wolves primarily prey on moose
during the winter period, not when the moose are calves. He
stressed the major cause of calf mortality in Unit 13 is grizzly
bears.
MR. REGELIN noted there are approximately 17,000 caribou hunters
who hunt in Unit 13 and probably 6,000-7,000 moose hunters. He
stated until the board took action in January, there was a $25
special tag required to kill a grizzly bear and now there is none.
Therefore, many people who would see a grizzly bear when they were
hunting would not shoot it because they had not paid the $25. He
felt there now will be a significantly higher harvest rate.
Number 190
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES stated Unit 13 is the area where there
is frequently Tier 2 hunting.
MR. REGELIN replied the Tier 2 hunting is for caribou not for
moose. He said it is the only Tier 2 hunt in Alaska which has a
large number of people involved. He stated the last time there was
an open hunt in Unit 13, the department issued 17,000 permits to
hunt and under Tier 2, that number has been limited to 10,000 to
12,000 hunters. He noted the department will increase that number
this fall because the caribou population is somewhat higher than
what the department desires.
Number 225
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated frequently when there is a bill such
as HB 170 before the legislature, invariably there are
representatives from the Boards of Fish and Game telling members
why the bill is such a bad idea. She wondered if bills such as HB
170 are such a bad idea and the department was not in need of such
a bill because the department feels it is quite capable of doing
the job without such legislation, then why does the legislature get
to the point where it needs legislation like HB 170.
MR. REGELIN responded that people are not satisfied with what is
going on. He said ADF&G does not have the authority to take
actions which the Board of Game has not authorized or the Governor
does not support or does not allow the department to spend money
on. He felt legislation like HB 170 comes forth because people are
very frustrated and feel the system is not working for them.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recalled a piece of legislation a year or two
ago which was supposed to put human consumption as the highest use.
Remembering that, she clarified that the legislature, through its
own constitutional authority, delegates management responsibility
to the Boards of Fish and Game.
MR. REGELIN agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out if the legislature does not
believe the board is doing a good job, it has the right to direct
them to do the job the way they want it done.
MR. REGELIN replied that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered what gives the Governor the right to
override the law. She asked if the Governor is above the law.
Number 262
MR. REGELIN stated the Governor is not above the law. He felt
there are different parts of the law and the Governor has the
authority to decide what money is spent on them.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES questioned where that can be found in law--
where the Governor is the one who decides where money is spent.
MR. REGELIN said he could not tell Representative Barnes where that
is stated in law. However, he stressed that if the Governor tells
ADF&G not to conduct a program, the department does not have the
authority to do so then.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Regelin to tell the Governor that
only the legislature has the power to appropriate. She added there
is a way for the legislature to appropriate where no one can move
the money around or decide how it is spent and that is line item
appropriation.
Number 279
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS recalled that Mr. Regelin had stated
SB 77 did not have definitions. He asked him to expand on that
statement.
MR. REGELIN stated the ADF&G urged the legislature not to define
sustained yield in SB 77. On the other definitions, the department
went to the Board of Game, in November, and asked them to define
certain terms contained in the legislation. He said the board
discussed the issue for several hours and decided it was best to
not have definitions in the bill because they are so variable from
one population to the other. The board decided they would define
each term on each population as it came up. He explained the board
decided not to define sustained yield because it is something which
is extremely difficult to define because it is a concept, not
something which is concrete. He added that the Department of Law
was quite adamant that sustained yield not be defined because of
problems they were having with that in other issues.
Number 312
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Regelin if he felt sustained yield
is difficult to define.
MR. REGELIN replied he does.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES clarified that sustained yield means
sustaining the level to ensure that species will produce and carry
forward.
MR. REGELIN stated there can be a sustained yield by taking one
animal out of a large population. He said sustained yield often
gets confused with maximum sustained yield which is a mathematical
concept in population dynamics of what size of the population the
harvest rate can be maximized. He pointed out that sustained yield
for one person may mean taking one or two animals and that is
sustainable. For another person, sustained yield might mean taking
1,000 animals. In concept, he felt sustained yield meant
harvesting a certain number of animals without the population being
reduced.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the number of predators seem to oscillate
with the availability of prey. He wondered if hunters were to
increase their harvest, thereby reducing the number of prey, would
that reduce the number of predators.
Number 353
MR. REGELIN said Representative Green is getting into predator/prey
relationships. He stated the predator population will follow the
prey population but lag behind it for a year or two. He noted when
the department engages in predator control to reduce predators to
a certain number allowing the prey population to increase to a
certain level, then the predators have a minimal impact or do not
stop the growth of the population. He explained if the number of
predators can be reduced for a short period of time (three years)
and the prey populations are allowed to increase, the result will
be a young age structure which is highly productive and added that
the prey population will continue.
MR. REGELIN said in the instances where the department has followed
this through, the result is higher predator and prey populations in
the system. He stated in some of these there may be a need to
reduce the predators and in others it will take off and no further
action is needed. He stressed each system is a little different.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referring to the graph, said if the three percent
of human harvest goes to 10 percent and the 87 percent killed by
predators dropped to 80 percent, there would still be predation on
prey. He asked if the transfer of gathering from four-legged
critters to two-legged critters still maintain the integrity of the
herd.
MR. REGELIN replied it is possible to maintain a higher harvest
level with reduced predation if the overall population is reduced
so it is more productive.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the push for SB 77 and for HB 170 is to
try and increase human consumption. He pointed out that a human is
a predator, so if he transposes himself into the wolf kill arena
and reduces that, either by reducing the number of predators or by
the fact the number of available prey will drop, that would work to
the benefit of everybody except the wolves.
Number 397
MR. REGELIN responded in general it would. He said it is not a
one-to-one relationship.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled that Mr. Regelin had stated the
department would like to see a 10 percent human harvest.
MR. REGELIN said he used that example for Unit 13. He noted there
are approximately 25,000 moose in that unit. He noted that figure
was previously higher but the winters have taken care of reducing
the standing crop. Therefore, the department should be around 80
percent of the carrying capacity. He stated if 8 percent to 10
percent of that population could be harvested each year, 2,000
moose would probably meet or exceed the demand in that area.
Currently, the department is limiting the harvest to 600 which does
not meet the demand for hunters.
Number 417
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN felt the frustrations being expressed is due to
the fact it is taking too long for ADF&G to react.
MR. REGELIN stated the department if well aware of the
frustrations. He said the Board of Game has taken action. He
noted three years ago, the department had wolf control authorized
by the board for the 40-mile caribou herd, Unit 28, and Unit 13 but
that was stopped. Before that, Governor Cowper announced there
would be no wolf control conducted under his administration. He
mentioned that the department started a long term process of trying
to develop a state-wide wolf management plan, working with the
public. There are two sides of the issue. Right now, the
department is hearing from the frustrated hunters. He pointed out
that he heard from over 100,000 people who had the opposite view
and added that most of those people did not live in Alaska. He
said it is difficult to know what the Alaska population as a whole
feels. He noted the department would like to do some surveys to
determine the feelings of Alaskan residents. He pointed out the
wolf is a public resource and the department is here to manage it
the way the public would like them to.
Number 465
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said Mr. Regelin had just mentioned
managing in a way the public wants. He assumed the management is
in a way the resource will accept.
MR. REGELIN felt there was a balance. He said things cannot be
done which are going to harm the population in the long term but
beyond that, there is a need to be responsive to the public and
manage the wildlife in a balanced manner.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN noted that Alaska is unique in the way the
population base is established. He stated he can appreciate the
dilemma in trying to reach a resource and using it while not over-
impacting it. He expressed concern about the large population
centrally located trying to use the resource.
MR. REGELIN agreed. He noted the management problems are basically
on the road system. He said most areas in Alaska are not on the
road system, the populations are high, the seasons are longer and
the bag limits are the same or greater than what they were in the
1960s. He pointed out that many people want to have the same
season lengths and bag limits they did in the 1960s and 1970s on
the road system. He explained one of the big problems is that in
1960, there were 220,000 people in Alaska and today there are
560,000. The extra 300,000 people primarily live on the road
system. Therefore, it is difficult for the department to move the
hunting pressure where there is a lot of wildlife.
Number 495
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Regelin if he was familiar with
Article VIII, sections 3 and 4 of the Alaska Constitution.
MR. REGELIN responded he has read it but could not quote those two
sections.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said Article VIII deals with natural
resources and Section 3 says fish, land, water, et cetra, will be
managed for the people for the common use. She stated it does not
say anything about wolves. She noted that in Section 4, the
sustained yield principle is very clear. She recalled that Mr.
Regelin had talked about the pressure from people outside. She
remembered the campaign very well and the so-called tourists who
were going to tell the people in Alaska how to run their state.
She also recalled having a meeting with Princess Tours and Holland
American Lines regarding the issue. She noted the state spends a
lot of money promoting tourism in the state and she stated she
would be very happy to have those people spend all of their dollars
if they want to stick their nose in Alaska's business.
Number 514
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said the original intent of HB 170 was due to
the fact that SB 77 was not clearly defined. He stated SB 77
basically says that the current harvest level percentages are not
acceptable and that ADF&G is managing people, not predators. He
pointed out that by managing people, who are only three percent of
the problem, the department is not getting to the problem itself
which is habitat and predators. He noted that SB 77 attempted to
give the department tools to increase the herds overall through
predation control and habitat enhancement. However, the department
said it was not clearly defined. HB 170 clearly defines what the
legislature requires.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY recalled that Mr. Regelin had indicated the
department was going to conduct some public surveys to find out
which way they should go. He felt weighing of the public will is
not the job of the department but rather is politics. The
legislature weighs that public will through the legislative and
statute making process. He said the legislature does not want the
department to go out in regulation making process and further weigh
the public will. He stressed that is the job of the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated there were concerns expressed by the
department that historic levels in HB 170 were defined under
artificial or qualified pretenses--after the predators were
virtually eliminated. He said the problem with that argument is
the historic high levels existed without predators. HB 170 says
let us go back to some of that and do not eliminate the predators.
However, when it was seen that the predators were gone, the
populations were at an incredibly high level. He pointed out the
desire is to return to that so there can be some predators and more
ungulates, enabling people to have more of the resource to consume
as is clearly stated in the state constitution.
Number 563
PETE SHEPHERD, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated
he is a retired biologist, having worked for both the federal
government and the state of Alaska. He expressed opposition to the
department's stance on the historic high levels. He said it would
behoove the department to check the facts and historic records of
the state. He explained the levels of game populations during the
1950s and 1960s were associated with many factors, not just a
predator control project. He explained there were numerous fires
which created habitat, there was a lack of hunting during the 1940s
and World War 2, and also the predator control program. He noted
prior to this time period, there were high levels of caribou,
especially caribou populations in the 1920s. He also noted high
levels at the turn of the century when there was no predator
control ongoing. He reiterated he objects to the department
picking out one time period and using that as a prime example.
MR. SHEPHERD said the leadership might better educate themselves in
regard to the meaning of sustained yield by familiarizing
themselves with the objectives of the International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
Number 587
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY recalled the department said HB 170 assumes
that calves saved from predation will all grow up to an age where
they could be included in the harvestable surplus population. He
stressed that is not the assumption HB 170 makes. HB 170 only
makes the assumption that many of the calves not killed by
predation will be increased for human consumptive use. He stressed
it is not on a one-to-one basis but in fact if the calves are saved
from predation, more of them will grow up into the harvestable
surplus. He noted the 10 percent of harvest by natural causes
shown on the graph is a constant. The department is not expected
to manage at the 10 percent level but can manage the wolf
population taking 87 percent and are attempting to manage mostly at
the three percent. He stressed the desire is to shift from the
managing of humans to the managing of predators.
Number 608
MR. SHEPHERD recalled the second complaint of the department is
with the proposed definition of harvestable surplus which the
department says is naive, unrealistic, and overly simplistic. He
said that might be true but the definition of harvestable surplus
is no more simplistic or naive than the department's claim that the
proposed definition assumes that all predation is added to the
mortality which has been shown to be false. The proposed
definition says that harvestable surplus is equal to the
recruitment of game minus annual mortality from all causes except
predation and human harvest. This in no way assumes all predation
is added mortality.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated the department had said by controlling
predators the population will increase and it will go beyond the
carrying capacity of any given area. He stressed that HB 170 does
not only include intensive management tools of predation, but also
habitat enhancement. He said one of the directions the legislature
is trying to give the Board of Game at this time is to actively
participate in habitat enhancement so there will be more food
enabling the ability to increase the carrying capacity of these
different herds.
TAPE 95-25, SIDE A
Number 000
RALPH SEEKINS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated
one of the problems with the department's position is the fact the
department has not defined any carrying capacity for many of the
areas. He recalled the department had said if there were more
animals, then the carrying capacity would be exceeded. He felt
that is a weak argument because it has nothing to do with the
matter at hand, which is the fact that only 3 percent of the
harvestable surplus are taken by human hunters and the rest is
taken by predators. He pointed out there is no predator control
program but instead the department manages the number of humans who
can harvest.
MR. SEEKINS said part of the problem throughout the state is access
into some of the areas. He stated there has been an attempt to
also control access. There have been more and more areas shut
down, with the department's recommendation, for aircraft access
into some of the largest herds in the state. He noted the Western
Arctic Caribou herd along the (indiscernible) River was closed last
year to aircraft access within five miles of the river on either
side of the river and about 100 miles up the river during the
traditional fall hunting season.
MR. SEEKINS recalled the department said there is the largest
caribou herd in the world in that area, which is not at carrying
capacity, yet decided to restrict access to it. He stated the
department has never taken the time to define what carrying
capacity is in these areas. He felt the reason everyone is present
is because many of the areas are way below carrying capacity. He
noted it is not a carrying capacity being looked at but rather a
predation problem. He stressed the problem is the number of
predators that kill the babies early in the spring. Therefore,
there never is an opportunity to see if the habitat will support
them. He reiterated the department is doing nothing to manage the
resource. He pointed out that the legislature is in the position
of being able to change that.
Number 076
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated the department agrees the harvestable
levels are too low. He told committee members the department had
many years to increase those levels. However, the manner in which
the department has been doing that is not working. He noted in the
Presidential campaign, the definition of insanity was doing the
same thing over and over again, yet expecting different results.
He stressed if the state continues to do the same thing over and
over again in the management of the state's fish and game, the
state will be insane because everyone will continue to see these
populations dwindle.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that if the department agrees
harvestable levels are too low and they are asking for tools to
increase those levels, HB 170 is the tool. He noted there was a
great deal of debate last year. He said HB 170 gives the
department the legislative intent in statute, so there should be no
mistakes. He stressed the department should be able to go out and
increase game populations and do what their mission originally
created the department to do.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Representative Kelly to comment on the
department's statement that before they can determine if SB 77 is
working, the legislature is trying to amend it.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated he is not familiar with the long
history of SB 77. He thought SB 77 was written with the
participation of the department and added the department did not
want these definitions. He noted the department had said the Board
of Game should recommend the harvestable yield, high levels, et
cetra. He said the department then told the Board of Game they
could not set the levels because the legislature did not set them.
He felt the situation has been in limbo.
Number 142
BILL HAGAR, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and said the
committee is probably wondering why this issue is before them
again. He stated the answer to that is to remove the game
shortages and remove the department's manipulation of the political
system. He noted, "Today we are seven years into our request to
the department to correct the problem which the graph on the wall
demonstrates. First, we tried, through the public process, Board
of Game proposals (indiscernible) human harvest biology and the
department said no. Second, we tried going from the Governor down
using (indiscernible) constitutional mandate and the department
said no. Third, we tried going to the legislature, resulting in SB
77, but the department is still saying no."
MR. HAGAR said the fact that the people in the state have to resort
to legislative direction indicates the department has gone off
track in respect to what Alaskans need. He stated the department
has not used the latitude to the point where legislative
intervention is necessary to bring the agency into conformity with
constitutional philosophy through the legal process of representing
government. He stated after reading the department's position on
SB 77, he is convinced the department still does not get it.
MR. HAGAR said "We are challenging the department's
unconstitutional philosophy, not the constitutionally achievable
biology". The department has known for over 20 years of the
constitutional mandate. He stressed the report card hangs on the
wall (the graph). He stated any one of the biological principles
contained in the pie charts in members folders is achievable--
biodiverse, ecosystem, equality, or human management. He noted
there are only two philosophies, equal allocation and human
management, which reflect the constitutional mandate.
MR. HAGAR pointed out that the department for the past seven years
has, and is still, rejecting implementation of the constitutional
requirement. He stressed the department admittedly needs more
legislative direction. Removing the game shortages spells a much
needed relief. He said this will benefit the entire state and will
help remove the conflicts associated with the constant shortage.
The department now has over 325 registration permits for Tier 2
hunts on the wolf.
MR. HAGAR stated after three years worth of research, he offered
and developed the pie charts (indiscernible) the primary purpose
was to find out where all the harvestable surplus goes and why
there are so many shortages. (Indiscernible) demonstrates the
department's philosophical management practices and (indiscernible)
eco-management. He said if a correction is not made now, the state
will be in a biodiverse management scenario. He noted there is now
one bear for every two people in the state or approximately 250,000
bears. He felt the department has not been held accountable
because the department was trusted when it said there was a sound
biological reason for the shortage, which turned out not to be the
case.
MR. HAGAR said the charts further demonstrate a breach of trust by
the department to the constitution, the people and resources of the
state. He stated once again there is legislation to close the
department's, the commissioner's and the administration's legal
loophole to mandate the Board of Game to return Alaska to an
abundance of all wildlife.
Number 237
WARREN OLSON, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and expressed
support for HB 170. He said Alaska has tremendous capabilities and
has the land base and habitat. He stated the browse is definitely
not being over-utilized. He noted there is proof from the 1960s of
the state's capabilities. He felt if there is a need to give ADF&G
experience in looking at habitat which has been browsed by moose,
etc., the department should go up north to get some practical hands
on experience.
MR. OLSON stressed there are a tremendous number of people coming
into the state. He noted the average residency in Anchorage is
five years or less. He said if the state goes on people's
expectations (who come into the state) to determine the counts on
game and what is available, he would be very apprehensive. Years
ago it was not unusual to see a number of moose when driving down
the Kenai Peninsula. He noted that experience is not available
today. Yet, the state has residents who lack the experience and
knowledge of Alaska and the habitat and their expectations are much
lower. He felt these expectations show up at advisory boards and
ADF&G takes advantage of these advisory boards. He pointed out he
does not want to hear what ADF&G cannot do, he wants to hear what
they can do.
Number 298
DAVID OLSON, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and stated he
remembers while growing up, seeing a significant number of moose
along the roads any time of the year, which is not the case now.
He stated an effort is needed to bring back populations to levels
in years past. He stated there is also a need for accountability
and mandates to bring back prey animals to populations at previous
years highs. The goal of ADF&G should be to maximize the
population and give them prey species using any and all means
available. He felt it is impossible to satisfy the consumptive
desires or needs of every household in Alaska but that does not
mean the state cannot have this as a mandated goal.
Number 330
LYNN LEVENGOOD, FAIRBANKS, testified teleconference and stated that
Representative Barnes is very astute at her perception that HB 170,
with the definitions given, returns and provides meaning to the
constitutional mandate of sustained yield. He thought it was
interesting that Mr. Regelin said the department's goal for Unit 13
is to harvest between 8 percent to 10 percent of the moose
population, which would involve the human harvest of 2,500 moose.
He pointed out that last year, humans harvested less than 1,000
moose.
MR. LEVENGOOD noted that proposal number 55 in the proposal booklet
for the March Board of Game meeting further restricts human harvest
in that area. He stated the department indicated a problem with
the moose calf survival and said it was poor. Calves were down in
1994 from the previous two years and were the lowest since 1991.
He said the calf/cow ratio was 17 to 100 compared to 28 to 100 when
moose were increasing in Unit 13. Over the winter, calf survival
has been very low for a number of years. He noted the winter of
1993/1994 was the fifth severest winter in Unit 13. Winter
severity is determined by measuring snow depth at survey stations
throughout the Unit (indiscernible) where snow has exceeded 30
inches for a long period.
MR. LEVENGOOD recalled that Mr. Regelin had told the committee the
department desires to have the human harvest in that game
management unit at ten percent. He felt that figure is still
ridiculously low. He reiterated the human harvest in Unit 13 was
less than 1,000 last year and noted the department wants further
restrictions, blaming it on the weather. He stated the definition,
which would give one-third for human harvest, is tied to sustained
yield and will correct the problem. He urged committee members to
pass HB 170 out of committee.
Number 370
TOM SCARBOROUGH, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
expressed support for HB 170. He felt it was necessary for the
legislature to take action and put in statute a directive for the
management philosophy.
Number 393
JACK COGHILL, stated during the time he served as Lieutenant
Governor, a staff person Bruce Campbell and he put together a
sustained yield pamphlet. He gave one to each committee member.
He said when he served as one of the delegates to the Alaska State
Constitution in 1955 and 1956, everyone wanted to make sure that
the sustained yield principle of the state's fish and wildlife was
maintained. He pointed out, referring to page 11 of the pamphlet,
that on January 29, 1956, an attempt was made to remove the word
"maintain" and insert the word "conserve" in Section 4 of Article
VIII but that attempt failed. Therefore, there was a very clear
intent on the part of the movers and shakers of the constitution,
the desire to maintain the principle of sustained yield for the
purpose of ensuring that human use was the first use.
MR. COGHILL said HB 170 is a very clear constitutional mandate on
the part of the legislature. He noted the first article of the
state constitution is the human rights section and the second
article establishes the legislature. He stressed the legislature
is responsible for maintaining the principle of law and setting
policies for the state.
MR. COGHILL stated HB 170 amends a section within that law which
directs the Boards of Fish and Game to consider certain aspects of
the management of fish and game on the sustained yield principle in
the constitution. He expressed support for HB 170.
Number 457
JOEL BENNETT, REPRESENTATIVE, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, stated his
organization opposes HB 170 as unnecessarily duplicative of the
board's existing authority--managing predators and game
populations. Such legislation duly restricts the flexibility of
the board which should employ a variety of management tools in a
variety of ways according to the best information from the
department in order to achieve management goals. He noted that
past history has shown with the Board of Game, to the extent the
legislature involves itself in very specific regulation by statute,
there has been no end to the problems in achieving responsible and
reasonable management goals for the state.
MR. BENNETT said his organization also feels legislation mandating
intensive management in general, so that specified levels of human
harvest can be maintained, fails to recognize non-consumptive use
of wildlife as an important component of management goals. He
stated Defenders of Wildlife objects to any language in such
legislation that seeks to maintain prey populations at historic
high levels. He felt this standard creates unreasonable high
expectations and fails to recognize changing habitat conditions,
human population pressures, and other factors, all of which make
returning to historic levels unrealistic.
MR. BENNETT told committee members that his organization shares the
department's concern that defining high levels of human harvest at
one-third of the harvestable surplus of a game population exceeds
commonly accepted target levels of harvest on a biological basis.
He said this would lead to sex and age taken which would be
undesirable. He stated his organization feels this legislation is
ultimately counter-productive to the best interests of the state of
Alaska. There is a need to recognize that the image of the state
is at stake when considering legislation.
MR. BENNETT pointed out that the wolf is a high profile species
across the country and Alaska has to be very careful not to appear
unduly liberal in its attitude about predators--liberal in the
sense of artificially depressing them in order to push prey
populations to unrealistically high levels for human use. He noted
what happens is it produces reactions nationally and in-state that
undercuts Alaska's ability to regain management over wildlife on
federal lands. He stated increased federal intervention will be
the result of such legislation as HB 170 and will ultimately reduce
consumptive uses that the bill is intended to promote.
Number 515
MOLLY SHERMAN, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY (AEL),
stated the AEL has serious concerns about HB 170. She wondered if
it is deemed essential, as HB 170 says, to use intensive management
techniques to enhance, extend and develop a population, why would
it then be considered appropriate not to diminish human consumption
in concert with intensive management. Prior to human consumption,
predation was even greater. She stressed wanting to kill more
game, particularly ungulate populations, is only one user source
within the state. Wolf, bear and other predators are part of a
healthy wildlife system. She felt predator control should only be
discussed as an option when other pressures on game populations are
also addressed. These pressures include habitat loss, recreational
hunting and interference with migratory routes. She noted there
had also been talk about not being able to get the game desired on
a road system and stated that is something one gives up when
deciding to live in an urban area.
MS. SHERMAN noted another concern is that harvest levels are in
direct correlation to fluctuations in big game prey populations.
These populations often fluctuate dramatically--this fluctuation is
natural and dependent upon many factors; weather, food supply,
bull/cow ratios, conception rates, calf condition, hunting pressure
and predation, among others. She said when intensive game
management is conducted, it is an attempt to manipulate the natural
oscillation so more sport hunting permits may be issued. While
sport hunting is a valid use of Alaska's resources, it is not the
only acceptable use. Currently, the Board of Game is required to
consider the interests of all user groups. She stressed HB 170
would mandate that the board consider the interests of a single
group--big game hunters.
MS. SHERMAN stated the legislature, through HB 170, is usurping the
authority of the Board of Game by mandating policy. This
diminishes the mission of the board, which is to provide a forum
wherein different, often competing interests can debate issues and
arrive at consensus. She stressed this process is the very soul of
democracy and a vital element in keeping game policy just for all
Alaskans. She said if the intent of HB 170 is to increase the
ungulate population in the state, it seems senseless, irresponsible
and immoral to concentrate only on non-human consumptive uses.
MS. SHERMAN said intensive management is costly. She stated wolf
control is frequently linked to intensive management of game
populations so it seems reasonable to consider these costs when
discussing changes. She noted the ADF&G's Wolf Control Program is
being audited by the state. She pointed out that any fiscal notes
accompanying HB 170 will show only a portion of the cost of this
intensive management. There are vast discrepancies between the
projected costs and the actual payments made. She noted the total
expenditures charged to the Unit 20A program for the 1993-94 wolf
season exceed $220,000. The published/authorization total for the
1993-94 Wolf Control Program was set at $100,000. She stressed
that is an increase of over 100 percent.
MS. SHERMAN stated at a time when the state is in need of frugal
fiscally responsible programs which capitalize on existing
legislation, it is essential that all costs for HB 170 be carefully
outlined and understood.
Number 578
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES noted people continually come before the
committee or other committees saying the legislature has
overstepped its bounds when passing legislation directing the ADF&G
to do something. She pointed out the ADF&G has no authority other
than that which the legislature gives them. She said it is the
legislature's responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 80 (CRA).
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 169(RES).
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 169(RES) with
accompanying zero fiscal notes out of committee with individual
recommendations.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 80(CRA) with
accompanying fiscal notes out of committee with individual
recommendations.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the committee will revisit HB 170 at
another meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Co-Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 10:06 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|