Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/22/1999 01:11 PM 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
March 22, 1999
1:11 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chair
Representative Jerry Sanders, Co-Chair
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15
Relating to support for an "American Land Sovereignty Protection
Act" in the United States Congress.
- MOVED CSHJR 15(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Relating to management of Alaska's wildlife and fish resources.
- MOVED HCS SCR 2(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 28
Requesting that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
United States Congress act immediately to reverse the decline of
the Cook Inlet beluga whale population and to regulate the harvest
of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet until the beluga whale
population has recovered.
- MOVED CSHJR 28(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 15
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORT AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY ACT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) JAMES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/17/99 236 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/17/99 236 (H) WTR, RESOURCES
3/04/99 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/04/99 (H) MOVED CSHJR 15(WTR) OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/4/99 (H) MINUTE(WTR)
3/05/99 363 (H) WTR RPT CS(WTR) NT 5DP
3/05/99 363 (H) DP: MASEK, PHILLIPS, GREEN, COWDERY,
3/05/99 363 (H) BARNES
3/05/99 363 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (WTR/ALL DEPT'S)
3/05/99 364 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
3/22/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SCR 2
SHORT TITLE: MANAGEMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/22/99 64 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/22/99 65 (S) RES
2/03/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/03/99 (S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
2/03/99 (S) MINUTE(RES)
2/08/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/08/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/08/99 (S) MINUTE(RES)
2/10/99 199 (S) RES RPT 3DP 3NR
2/10/99 199 (S) DP: HALFORD, GREEN, PETE KELLY;
2/10/99 199 (S) NR: MACKIE, PARNELL, LINCOLN
2/10/99 199 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.RES)
2/11/99 (S) RLS AT 11:30 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
2/11/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
2/16/99 257 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1OR 2/17/99
2/17/99 272 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
2/17/99 272 (S) PASSED Y15 N5
2/17/99 276 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
2/19/99 247 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/19/99 247 (H) FISHERIES, RESOURCES
3/08/99 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/08/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/08/99 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
3/10/99 408 (H) FSH RPT 1DP 3NR
3/10/99 409 (H) DP: WHITAKER; NR: KAPSNER, MORGAN,
3/10/99 409 (H) HUDSON
3/10/99 409 (H) SENATE ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.RES)
2/10/99
3/10/99 409 (H) REFERRED TO RES
3/22/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 28
SHORT TITLE: COOK INLET BELUGA POPULATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) PHILLIPS, Ogan
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/10/99 410 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/10/99 410 (H) RESOURCES
3/22/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 15.
MYRNA McGHIE, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Jeannette James
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-5038
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 15 on behalf of sponsor.
DENNY K. WEATHERS
P.O. Box 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907)424-3745
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 15 and asked questions.
STAN LEAPHART, Executive Director
Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas
3700 Airport Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 451-2775
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 15.
ELZIE ISLEY
2533 3rd Avenue
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-4881
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 15.
DEAN CURRAN
P.O. Box 42
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-5604
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 15.
ERIC MUENCH
228 Martin Street
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-5372
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 15.
ERIC WEATHERS
P.O. Box 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907)424-3745
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 15.
DONALD WESTLUND
P.O. Box 831
Ward Cove, Alaska 99928
Telephone: (907) 225-9319
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 15.
LAIFE WEATHERS
P.O. Box 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-3745
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 15.
EDWARD FURMAN
(No address or telephone number available)
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 15.
MEL KROGSENG, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3717
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SCR 2 on behalf of sponsor.
DALE BONDURANT
31864 Moonshine Drive
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-0818
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SCR 2 and HJR 28.
DREW SPARLIN
37101 Cannery Road
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-4095
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SCR 2 and HJR 28.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SCR 2 and previous
year's legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 411
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2689
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HJR 28.
ROSETTA ALCANTRA
United Cook Inlet Drift Association
P.O. Box 589
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-4095
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 28.
DAN ALEX, Project Coordinator
Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council
P.O. Box 101846
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Telephone: (907) 688-6020
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 28.
DAVID VOLUCK, Attorney at Law
Copeland, Landye, Bennett and Wolf
701 West 8th Avenue, Suite 1200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-5152
POSITION STATEMENT: As legal counsel for Cook Inlet Marine
Mammal Council, testified on HJR 28.
RON SOMERVILLE, Resource Consultant
to the House and Senate Leadership
Alaska State Legislature
4506 Robbie Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3830
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered technical questions on HJR 28.
MARGARET ROBERTS, Chair
Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission
505 West Northern Lights
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 274-9799
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 28; supports CIMMC and NMFS
in their cooperative management agreement,
but not HJR 28.
DOLLY GARZA, Chair
Indigenous People's Commission on Marine Mammals
P.O. Box 200908
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
Telephone: (907) 279-2511
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 28; proposed amendments.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-16, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR JERRY SANDERS called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:11 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Sanders, Ogan, Morgan, Barnes
and Joule. Representatives Masek, Harris, Whitaker and Kapsner
were excused.
HJR 15 - SUPPORT AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY ACT
CO-CHAIR SANDERS announced that the first item of business would be
House Joint Resolution No. 15, relating to support for an "American
Land Sovereignty Protection Act" in the United States Congress.
Committee packets contained a sponsor statement; CSHJR 15(WTR); and
a compilation of faxed documents and Internet print-outs including
a copy of H.R. 883 and fact sheets about Biosphere Reserves.
Number 0110
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
came forward, introducing staff member Myrna McGhie, who has worked
for three years on this issue.
MYRNA McGHIE, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Jeannette James, told members this is the second
time they have put this legislation through, which is to support
Congressman Don Young's effort in Washington, D.C., on his
"American Land Sovereignty Protection Act." That federal
legislation had gone through the House, but not the Senate, in the
105th Congress. Ms. McGhie said HJR 15 reaffirms support for
Alaska State Legislative Resolve 31, sent to Congress in March
1997. Now, Congressman Young has a new bill, H.R. 883.
MS. McGHIE advised members that because of a technical error, she
proposes amending page 3, lines 12 and 14, to change the number
"833" to "883".
Number 0288
CO-CHAIR OGAN made a motion to adopt that as an amendment. There
being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 0330
MS. McGHIE explained that World Heritage Sites are being designated
in the United States without congressional oversight or approval,
and with little public notice; HJR 15 aims to ensure that Congress
has authority to designate lands in Alaska and elsewhere in the
United States.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked if Congress has taken any action on these World
Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves.
Number 0412
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she suspects that the Biosphere Reserves
are the more serious of the two, as those stem from the "Man and
the Biosphere Convention." Those designations have been accepted
by the President but not approved by the U.S. Senate, although
international conventions or agreements are supposed to be approved
by the Senate. Congressman Young's resolution is intended to not
allow any of that to happen without congressional approval.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated:
I think that we've all thought of the United Nations as
something of some kind of a benefit to all of us, and that
there shouldn't be anything bad about the United Nations.
And, of course, the thing about these World Heritage Sites and
Biosphere Reserves that are identified as special places, and
have a UN committee to oversee them and be sure that they're
protected, and so forth, doesn't sound bad. In fact, it's in
the writing, in the United Nations compact, it says that the
sovereignty of the United States, or the several states, will
not be affected. But you can't say that the sovereignty is
not affected when you have these voices that come and
interfere with what you're trying to do in your own state, or
in your own nation.
An example is in Yellowstone National Park; when they wanted
to do some mining outside of the park area, the international
committee came in and set the stage for a hearing, and it was
determined that the mine should not go forward because it just
might interfere with the Biosphere Reserve, the World Heritage
Site that Yellowstone National Park was. ... It sounds
innocent, but it isn't."
Number 0588
CO-CHAIR OGAN referred to page 1, lines 10 and 11 of CSHJR 15(WTR).
He asked what the buffer zones entail and how far they extend.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that a Biosphere Reserve consists of
a core area, in which it is intended that there is no interference
by man at all. Around that is another area, the buffer zone, in
which there is limited activity by man. Beyond that, they want to
measure all of the normal activity of man. The problem is that the
buffer zones extend far beyond the area of the park.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated, "They haven't been implementing this
very much, which is one of the reasons why that it is slipping in
under the rug, I believe, and part of the reason is because they
haven't been funded. But if they were ever to get funding, it
would be horrible, because a lot of the things that you're now
doing in and around parks would be prohibited because of their
scientific study of how the man and the biosphere affect one
another."
MS. McGHIE noted that packets contain information on that [see fact
sheets].
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked how far those areas extend.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said it can go as far as 250 miles, but each
is drawn independently, based on the core area and other
information. The proposed mine near Yellowstone National Park was
three miles outside of the park, in an area considered to be a
buffer zone.
CO-CHAIR OGAN declared that he intends to co-sponsor this
legislation, as one of the largest veiled threats to state and
national sovereignty is to allow a foreign entity to have this kind
of say.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated Northwest Alaska residents have been
fighting the designation of Cape Krusenstern National Monument, as
well as the Beringian Heritage International Park, which would
include portions of both the Seward Peninsula and Russia, across
the Bering Strait. There is also talk of making the Bering Sea a
"Marine Biosphere Reserve," although Representative James said
nobody can explain to her what that means.
Number 0902
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to Cape Krusenstern and said the road
from the Red Dog Mine to the port site goes through there; he
wondered whether such a designation could stop that activity.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed her belief that it could.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE mentioned the potential for stopping any
development, specifically with regard to Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) land throughout the state.
Number 0991
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES restated that the United Nations documents
seem benign, and the program doesn't appear to threaten
sovereignty. However, when they start to implement it, man is in
the way. She expressed concern about restrictions to snow machine
use on the sides of the highway in Denali National Park and
Preserve, then stated, "If we want to be controlling our own lands,
then we have to able to have the congressional process to determine
whether or not any of these ideas are good ideas, and that they're
best interests of us here in the United States."
Number 1093
CO-CHAIR OGAN acknowledged that the language states that nothing
will undo existing sovereignty. However, ANILCA [Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act] says the same thing, yet the state
is now looking at amending its constitution. He suggested the need
to be consistent whenever the state's sovereignty is challenged to
manage its resources.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that public opinion is the strongest
political power there is, and anything that persuades public
opinion is very likely to interfere with sovereignty.
Number 1238
DENNY K. WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova,
reading as follows: "Once again, Representative James is trying to
improve the lives and opportunities for Alaskans, and at the same
time trying to protect Alaska from foreign invasion by the United
Nations and regain our sovereignty. I commend her for this, but I
do not believe supporting Congressman Don Young or his resolution
is constitutional or right. If Congressman Young were truly
concerned about Alaska's sovereignty, he would propose a
constitutional amendment to remove a particular power from the
President, such as executive orders and proclamations."
MS. WEATHERS read from Article I of the federal constitution, then
asked members two questions. First, did the federal government or
the United Nations purchase any lands in Alaska with the consent of
the Alaska State Legislature? And second, did the state of Alaska,
with consent of the legislature, cede any lands to the federal
government or United Nations?
MS. WEATHERS asked legislators to make no bargains with the federal
government, saying, "We, the sovereigns, have other options if the
federal government and United Nations do not withdraw their illegal
invasion from the lands and waterways of Alaska." She suggested
supporting HB 109 and HCR 2, and, if that doesn't work, seceding
from the Union. She said if she could get answers to her
questions, she would really appreciate it.
CO-CHAIR SANDERS requested that Ms. Weathers fax her testimony,
offering to do research on her questions and get back to her.
Number 1484
CO-CHAIR OGAN concurred with Ms. Weathers about executive orders
that undermine state sovereignty; he cited the recent national
monument designation in Utah as an example.
Number 1605
STAN LEAPHART, Executive Director, Citizens' Advisory Commission on
Federal Areas (CACFA), testified via teleconference from Fairbanks,
noting that the commission had voted unanimously to support HJR 14,
a resolution similar to HJR 15, in the previous legislature. He
told members he would discuss how management of some areas
designated in Alaska as Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites
has played out. Mr. Leaphart then named the Biosphere Reserves in
Alaska.
[Documents provided by the sponsor's staff, obtained from the
Internet at www.mabnet.org/brprogram/usbrl.html, list current and
proposed sites as follows: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve;
Glacier Bay-Admiralty Island Biosphere Reserve/Admiralty Island
National Monument (2 units); Denali National Park and Biosphere
Reserve; Noatak National Preserve (2 units); Gates of the Arctic
National Park; and the Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge.]
MR. LEAPHART next listed the eight World Heritage Sites in Alaska,
two of which are "inscribed" and six of which have been nominated:
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; Denali National Park and Preserve;
Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve; Katmai National
Park; Wrangell-Saint Elias National Park and Preserve [inscribed
1979]; Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve [inscribed 1992];
Cape Krusenstern Archaeological District, which is a major portion
of the Cape Krusenstern National Monument; and the Aleutian Island
Unit of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. Leaphart
said he has discovered over the years that there is little
difference between nominating a site and actually inscribing it.
MR. LEAPHART emphasized that a number of areas have dual
designations, and the extra layer of recognition comes to play in
management decisions by the various federal agencies. For example,
when the Department of the Interior nominated Glacier Bay as a
World Heritage Site in 1991, the submittal letter noted
"environmental threats to the area proposed by the patented mineral
claims on the Brady Icefield, ten Native allotments within the
park, and the existence of commercial fishing in Glacier Bay." Mr.
Leaphart said that in the environmental impact statement (EIS) and
in virtually every meeting of the state-sponsored working group,
the issue of Glacier Bay's status as a Biosphere Reserve and a
World Heritage Site was brought up.
MR. LEAPHART told members there are no clear-cut regulatory
guidelines that the NPS, Department of the Interior, or other
managing agencies have for Biosphere Reserves. He stated, "They
will tell you that that designation does not supersede any of their
authorities under federal statute or federal regulation. However,
there is virtually no decision made, with respect to management of
any of these areas that are so-designated, where the issue of that
designation doesn't become a factor."
MR. LEAPHART referred to the closing of the bulk of the old Mount
McKinley Park to snow machine use, saying the status of Denali
National Park and Preserve as a Biosphere Reserve and World
Heritage Site had been cited extensively in those findings.
Number 1882
MR. LEAPHART next advised members that a bill before Congress,
H.J.R. 482, would regulate aircraft overflights or "flightseeing"
over Haleakala National Park and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park; in
it, the statement of purpose and findings prominently mention that
both areas are Biosphere Reserves. That legislation is being
watched closely by CACFA, although currently Alaska is exempt from
its effects. Mr. Leaphart noted that flightseeing over national
parks is a major industry in the Lower 48, and one that is growing
in Alaska. There is effort by the NPS, Department of the Interior,
to regulate such activity.
MR. LEAPHART stated his belief that Congressman Young's bill is
aimed at giving Congress a say in such designations, which affect
both sovereignty and private property rights of individuals. He
added, "I don't think anyone has to be opposed to the idea of the
notion of Biosphere Reserves or World Heritage Sites as recognition
for critical habitat areas, or some very special sites around the
world."
Number 2018
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Leaphart whether, when ANILCA was
considered, the environmental community had pushed hard to limit
aircraft flights over national parks and monuments. She stated her
belief that that had been rejected, and she requested confirmation.
MR. LEAPHART said he believes that is correct, adding, "That was
one of the major compromises that our delegation hammered out, as
part of that bill. Not only are the aircraft overflights not
regulated, but we also have guaranteed access rights ... in ANILCA,
which allows aircraft landings. So, as I said, the several bills
that are in Congress right now that address this issue of aircraft
overflights do contain specific exemptions for ... aircraft
activities in Alaska."
Number 2090
ELZIE ISLEY testified briefly via teleconference from Ketchikan,
saying, "I'm a citizen of the state of Alaska. I am against any
other country or organization telling us what we can do in our own
country, so I fully support this resolution."
Number 2137
DEAN CURRAN testified via teleconference from Cordova on his own
behalf, as follows:
I am glad to see the state taking a stand to get its rights
back. The federal government has been overstepping its
boundaries for a long time. The constitution is very explicit
about keeping foreign powers out of the United States. The
President has no power to cut deals with the UN and give them
the use of any land in the United States, and especially land
in the state of Alaska.
I want this misuse of designating lands stopped immediately.
Not only that, all lands that have been designated to the UN
previously must be revoked, as well. You cannot allow a
foreign entity to have power in this state of Alaska or any
part of the 50 states. If you do, you are setting up the
demise of this great nation. It will eventually be taken over
by the UN if we don't get them out now.
Number 2206
ERIC MUENCH testified next via teleconference from Ketchikan,
saying he supports HJR 15 and hopes it is the strongest action the
legislature can take in this regard. Any government organization
in which the citizens of the United States are not represented, any
non-government organization, and any international organization
including the United Nations should have absolutely no say in the
United States or Alaska. He concluded by saying the
representatives of the United Nations don't represent United States
citizens, and he completely supports HJR 15.
Number 2279
ERIC WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova, saying he
is a "sovereign from the republic of Alaska." He referred to
Article I, Section 8, clause 17, of the federal constitution and
stated:
Alaska cannot be owned or suppressed by the federal government
or the United Nations. The government did not buy Alaska; the
people of the United States of America paid the money, and the
U.S. government did not and has not paid them back. The state
of Alaska is, and should be, sovereign to themselves as one of
these states of the United States of America.
One of the first acts of war is to take land that no one has
direct interest in. The UN is a foreign power by definition,
and it is a foreign enemy by its actions. ... In the United
States, persons who promote the United Nations, and
organizations that advance it, are domestic enemies and
traitors.
Executive orders designating land to the United Nations or any
foreign or special entities is treason. Congress can and must
stop these unconstitutional executive orders and
proclamations. It is their constitutional duty. If the
federal government and the United Nations refuse to withdraw
from the sovereign state of Alaska, then they must be
forcefully removed.
Number 2409
DONALD WESTLUND testified next via teleconference from Ketchikan,
stating, "I want to commend you on this line of sight. I support
this resolution, and I tend to agree with the last person that
spoke, and also the lady that spoke earlier: If you can't get 'em
out, then we'll secede."
CO-CHAIR OGAN commented that Alaska wouldn't have the fortitude to
secede "because we have to follow the money, and too much money
comes from the federal government."
Number 2467
LAIFE WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova in support
of HJR 15. A commercial fisherman, he said it is no coincidence
that "unconstitutional" starts with "UN," and the United Nations
needs to be kicked out of Alaska and the United States. He added,
"I believe in 'constitution or revolution,' no compromise."
Number 2513
EDWARD FURMAN testified next via teleconference from Cordova,
saying he is retired from the military after 20 years of service.
He expressed concern about Alaska, cautioning that someone who lies
where a dog has been will have fleas. He said he loves his
country. He offered to send a fax to the committee about executive
orders, written by an unspecified well-known writer, then
discussed Executive Order "1383" (1998), signed by President
Clinton [much of that brief discussion was indiscernible due to
poor sound quality].
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that if Alaska were to secede, it
could probably receive foreign aid, with fewer strings attached.
CO-CHAIR SANDERS asked whether anyone in Juneau wished to testify;
there was no response.
Number 2628
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move CSHJR 15(WTR), as
amended, from the committee with individual recommendations and
accompanying fiscal note(s); she asked unanimous consent. There
being no objection, CSHJR 15(RES) moved from the House Resources
Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR SANDERS turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Ogan.
SCR 2 - MANAGEMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
CO-CHAIR OGAN announced that the next item of business would be
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 2, relating to management of
Alaska's wildlife and fish resources.
Number 2673
MEL KROGSENG, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward on behalf of the sponsor. She
noted that SCR 2 is very similar to the resolution of the same
number passed by this legislature last year, then stated:
The resolution is intended to send a strong message to the
Governor, the Board of Fisheries, the Board of Game and the
Department of Fish and Game that you, the legislature, want
the wildlife and fish resources of our state to be
aggressively biologically managed on a sustained yield basis
for abundance.
Mr. Chairman, over the last few years we've seen a decline in
several of our wildlife and fish stocks in certain areas.
This decline has continued to the point where serious
shortages currently exist and are continuing unabated. Last
year, before this very committee, you heard testimony about
moose shortages in the Aniak area, and moose and caribou
shortages in the Dot Lake area. There are ongoing shortages
in fish stocks in several areas, as well. Bristol Bay has
been considered a disaster area for the last two years. In
1997, the Kenai River had very few coho salmon, and just this
past year the Kenai was closed down June 5th, very early, to
catch-and-release for the first run of Chinook salmon. The
Mat-Su streams, Mr. Chairman, as you well know, have had
ongoing shortages in coho, sockeye, chum and Chinook stocks.
Cook Inlet commercial fishing was closed down early just this
past year because of a low sockeye run there.
Management of these resources, Mr. Chairman, was delegated by
the legislature to the Board of Fisheries, the Board of Game
and the Department of Fish and Game, and, therefore, it is
incumbent upon you, the legislature, to tell the agencies the
management philosophy that you want followed. This resolution
will send that message - and it is a crystal clear message -
that the legislature wants these resources biologically
managed on a sustained yield basis for abundance.
MS. KROGSENG read from page 2451 of the original Alaska
Constitutional Convention proceedings [copy provided in committee
packets]: "... we have in mind no narrow definition of sustained
yield as is used, for example, in forestry, but the broad premise
that insofar as possible a principle of sustained yield shall be
used with respect to administration of those resources which are
susceptible of sustained yield, and where it is desirable. For
example, predators would not be maintained on a sustained yield
basis." She suggested that having an abundance of wildlife and
fish resources in our state would go a long way towards resolving
the ongoing subsistence issue, as there would be enough of these
resources for all user groups: personal use, commercial and sport.
Number 2815
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES clarified that the legislature delegates
authority to the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game, not the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and members of the
department work for those boards. She added, "We are the only ones
that can appropriate money, so they do work for us, but we do not
delegate our powers to them, but to the board of fish and game,
because we, under the constitution, are charged with ... the
management of all of Alaska's resources."
Number 2864
CO-CHAIR OGAN said he supports this resolution but has a
reservation about the same-day airborne hunting of brown bears. He
stated, "A good example is some action that the board took here
recently, that they rescinded their action and held it over to, I
think, January of next year, and that was same-day airborne brown
bear hunting in Unit 13; and I think there's a cost-benefit
analysis we have to look at when we do those kind of things." He
noted that he has lived in this state since 1975, during which time
he doesn't believe that there has been same-day airborne hunting
for bears.
CO-CHAIR OGAN noted that there had been same-day airborne hunting
for wolves, deer and caribou, however. He then stated, "I'm a
little concerned, at a time when we're talking about some
constitutional amendments to limit or prohibit the public's
involvement in fish and game matters, or resource matters, this ...
literally interpreted would almost instruct them to do whatever
they can. I'm just concerned about the same-day airborne [hunting]
of bears. ... While it might be sound biological management, it
would certainly be a fund raiser for 'Friends of the Animals' and
'Sierra Clubbers' and those kind of things, ... which could end up
countering what we're trying to do with some of the initiatives."
Number 2955
MS. KROGSENG responded that there are many ways that the department
could manage predators, including brown bears. They could increase
bag limits, or annual harvests, for example. She said although she
wasn't aware of it at the time, she understands that in the Forty
Mile area there was a special program under which trappers in the
area took, she believes, 80-some wolves, then tanned the hides and
sold them at auction. It didn't cost the state any money; it
accomplished the project at hand, which was to lower the wolf
population in the area; and it made money for the trappers.
TAPE 99-16, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. KROGSENG said she knows the sponsor wouldn't want to do
anything to jeopardize any of the other resolutions. What they are
trying to do with this resolution, as they tried last year, is to
tell the Board of Fisheries, the Board of Game and the department
that they need to manage the resources in conformity with the
constitutional mandate of sustained yield. She concluded by saying
she had read the quotation from the constitutional convention
proceedings to point out that when the constitution talks about
sustained yield, it is not necessarily talking about wolves, bears
and other predators.
Number 2925
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE recalled that the legislature had passed some
legislation the previous year about managing for abundance. He
asked how HJR 15 works with that.
Number 2906
MS. KROGSENG responded that a similar resolution on abundance had
been passed last year.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that this year, the resolution includes
fish, whereas last year it just pertained to wildlife. In
addition, this one talks about passive management. He said he
recalled a bill, however, having to do with managing for abundance,
which he believed to be SB 250, by Senator Sharp. He indicated he
would ask an ADF&G representative about it.
Number 2850
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to page 2, line 4, of SCR 2, which
read, "wildlife and fish resources on a biological basis for
abundance". She asked whether, to alleviate Co-Chair Ogan's
concerns, it would be appropriate to add wording along the lines
of, "with the exception of predators that the board of fish and
game have determined to be a detriment to the other wildlife
population".
MS. KROGSENG responded that she believes Senator Taylor would
support that proposed amendment. She stated, "It is not his intent
to have this resolution imply, in any way, shape, size or form,
that we should be managing wolves and bears on a basis for
abundance - or other predators, for that matter."
CO-CHAIR OGAN suggested saying something about human consumption.
MS. KROGSENG mentioned the ungulate population, then said she would
work on the proposed amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES offered Ms. Krogseng the language she herself
had written down.
Number 2709
DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Kenai. He stated
support for SCR 2 and agreed with Representative Barnes that the
legislature is the trustee of Alaska's fish and wildlife resources,
with responsibility to manage those resources for abundance, for
the sole benefit of the users - the public.
Number 2650
DREW SPARLIN testified via teleconference from Kenai. A commercial
fisherman for 35 year in Cook Inlet who resides in Kenai, he told
members he supports SCR 2. He has great hopes that it will go
towards eliminating politics from the decisions being made, because
of the need to make decisions through biological data. Mr. Sparlin
expressed belief that if everyone made the best decisions, based on
the best biological information available to them, the resource
would be the benefactor.
Number 2564
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked Geron Bruce of the ADF&G whether the
bill passed last year and SCR 2 were connected in any way, in terms
of intensive management and managing for abundance.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), answered that he
doesn't recall a piece of law on this subject that passed last
year. Although a number of bills addressed this general topic, the
only bill that he remembered passing was SB 250, which was
significantly amended as it went through the process. In its final
version, he doesn't believe it addressed abundance; rather, it
addressed how to account for and track federal aid money, where it
was going to be appropriated.
Number 2323
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said he was wondering whether, in managing for
abundance, especially for salmon stocks, there may be conflict
between some of the user groups, such as commercial and sport
interests.
MR. BRUCE first offered some background, saying it is hard to talk
about fish and wildlife in Alaska in general, because this is such
a huge state, and there is so much difference in the species, the
productivity in different regions, the patterns of use, and so
forth. While some populations are low or declining, overall both
our fish and our wildlife populations are quite strong.
MR. BRUCE next said he would discuss an area that embodies the kind
of problems that Representative Joule is talking about. He stated:
I think for the managers - for the people on the Board of
Fisheries, Board of Game, and the department staff that has to
implement the management plans that they pass, and carry out
the statutes that you folk pass - it balances. You know,
"balance" is a key word, trying to balance abundance of
different species that may be running at the same time, and
may be subject to harvest at the same time.
And I think probably there's no better example of this in the
state than Cook Inlet, where you have a very large sockeye
producer in the Kenai River. You have a number of other
small-to-medium-size producers of sockeye, Chinook salmon,
coho salmon, chum salmon and pink salmon scattered through the
drainage. These fish generally enter Cook Inlet together, and
when you say "manage for abundance," ... you have to decide
what that means in terms of a management program. Does it
mean maximizing the production of the strongest stock and
maximizing the harvest of that? Because that's where you
might actually produce the maximum numbers of fish, and
harvest the maximum numbers of fish. But what that is going
to mean is that for some other stocks, they are going to be
less abundant than they could be ... if they weren't mixed
with this stronger stock and subject to incidental harvest
during the prosecution of the fishery for the stronger stock.
So, that's why the board tries to balance between ... the
abundant resources, the smaller resources that may never have
the potential to be as abundant as some of the larger ones,
and then the various users. It's a very complicated ...
process; it's one that you never get 100 percent right. But
I think the key term there is "balance," and trying to balance
all these different production goals, capabilities, the
environmental factors are certainly one, and then the
preferences ... that people have for the different uses of
these resources.
Number 2323
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to the zero fiscal note. He asked
whether, if the ADF&G managed for abundance, there would be a
fiscal impact, using salmon as an example.
MR. BRUCE replied that human resources - staff - are a constraint
in terms of trying to maximize production for the whole range of
resources. He pointed out all of the information they would have
to gather from all the systems in Cook Inlet, for example, to be
applied, in season, to management of the fisheries, to try to
separate the systems in order to get maximum production from each
individual unit. It would be costly. It would also be very
difficult to accomplish, given the overlap, even with unlimited
funds; but certainly funds and manpower are factors in determining
how much information they can gather, and how many stocks they can
manage with that level of precision.
Number 2226
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to page 1, lines 10 and 11, which
read, "WHEREAS the passive monitoring of declining wildlife and
fish populations is no longer acceptable". He asked whether Mr.
Bruce would say that passive management is the ADF&G's current type
of management.
MR. BRUCE replied, "I guess we read the resolution as implying that
that is passive and somehow not good or not what we should be
doing." He told members he would echo the testimony of Wayne
Regelin, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, ADF&G, in the
earlier hearing on SCR 2 in the House Special Committee on
Fisheries. Mr. Regelin had strongly stated that basic data
collection - including data on harvests, resource inventory and
productivity - is the heart of any successful fish and wildlife
management program. They have to have it. Without it, they would
be shooting blind, with no idea what they were doing.
MR. BRUCE emphasized that Alaska has a reputation as a leader in
fish and wildlife management, primarily because of the data
collection and analysis carried out on a systematic and regular
basis; that is also the reason why there are fish and wildlife
resources here in this state.
Number 2145
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "Mr. Bruce, you would, then, concede
that because we have this ongoing research all the time, in our
fish and wildlife population, that it would be hard to determine if
you needed additional funds for the research activity, since it is
an ongoing process, and that that would not, in any way, take from
the zero fiscal note that was attached to this bill?"
MR. BRUCE replied that he doesn't believe this resolution requires
a positive fiscal note from the ADF&G; it is an expression of the
legislature's will and desires.
Number 2093
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES moved to adopt the previously discussed
conceptual amendment, which had been typed up as follows:
On page 2, line 4, insert:
"with the exception of predators that the Board of Fish[eries]
and the Board of Game have determined to be a detriment to the
resources used for human consumption."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked unanimous consent. There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. [Further
clarification of this amendment by Representative Barnes is found
at Number 1079 during the hearing on HJR 28.]
Number 2025
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move SCR 2, as amended, from
committee with the accompanying zero fiscal note and individual
recommendations; she asked unanimous consent. There being no
objection, HCS SCR 2(RES) moved out of the House Resources Standing
Committee.
CO-CHAIR OGAN called an at-ease at 2:20 p.m. He called the meeting
back to order at 2:21 p.m.
HJR 28 - COOK INLET BELUGA POPULATION
Number 1980
CO-CHAIR OGAN announced the next item of business would be House
Joint Resolution No. 28, requesting that the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the United States Congress act immediately to
reverse the decline of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population and
to regulate the harvest of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet until
the beluga whale population has recovered. In packets was a
proposed committee substitute, version 1-LS0649\G, Utermohle,
3/19/99. Co-Chair Ogan noted that he is a co-sponsor of the
resolution.
Number 1973
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, advised members that the language in this revised
resolution has been agreed-upon and supported by the parties
involved in this issue. She noted that Ron Somerville, Resource
Consultant to the House Majority, was present to answer any
technical question.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS explained that Cook Inlet beluga whales are
currently managed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Under
provisions of that Act, Alaska Native harvest of marine mammals
cannot be regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
until a specie has been declared "depleted." The number of Cook
Inlet beluga whales has drastically declined in the past five
years. According to NMFS and the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), the annual harvest needs to be reduced from about 75
to less than 7, to allow for recovery.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS told members that since 1974, organizations
with a strong interest in the Cook Inlet beluga whales have been
working to promote conservation of those whales. The Cook Inlet
Marine Mammal Council (CIMMC), whose members include Native tribes
and groups, and the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee recognize the
need for a joint effort with NMFS to maintain a sustainable harvest
for local traditional subsistence use.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS explained that recently, environmental and
animal rights groups petitioned NMFS to undertake the emergency
listing of this stock under the Endangered Species Act. However,
such a listing would erode the ability of the local Native
community to participate in the management of these resources. It
could mean that subsistence harvesting would not be allowed, for
example, and it could cause irreparable harm to all of the major
industries of Cook Inlet, including commercial and sport fishing,
oil and gas, shipping and tourism.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS advised members that the CIMMC and the
Alaska Beluga Whale Committee believe that such a listing would be
counterproductive at this time, because they are working together
diligently to finalize an interim agreement for managing this
stock. This resolution calls for NMFS and Congress to address this
issue before it is determined that an endangered specie listing is
warranted. The resolution recommends that NMFS begin a specie
status review under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and that
Congress amend that Act to give the agency authority to control the
harvest, at least for a specific period of time. It also calls for
Congress to fund adequate research and management programs for
NMFS, to address the data deficiencies and to provide adequate
funds for the management needs.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS emphasized that nothing in HJR 28 precludes
continuing efforts by NMFS and local beluga whale hunters to work
cooperatively. She concluded, "The time for action is now. This
is an urgent issue for Alaska Native populations and the major
economies invested in the Cook Inlet region. Continued delays and
agency foot-dragging will lead to severe personal and economic
consequences. Many organizations and Cook Inlet users support the
language in this resolution, and I ask for your support today."
Number 1752
CO-CHAIR OGAN advised listeners that the proposed committee
substitute (CS) wasn't yet before the committee because they had
temporarily lost a quorum.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS confirmed that her testimony had been based
on that proposed CS, a copy of which had been sent to the
Legislative Information Offices (LIOs).
Number 1675
ROSETTA ALCANTRA, United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA),
testified via teleconference from Kenai, noting that UCIDA
represents the 585 salmon drift permit holders in the Upper Cook
Inlet, 350 of whom are current members. In addition, UCIDA is
active at the federal and state levels as a member of the executive
committee of the United Fishermen of Alaska.
MS. ALCANTRA said UCIDA would like to go on record as supporting
HJR 28. While they are concerned about the decline of beluga
whales in Cook Inlet, in light of the inconclusive data available
they feel it would be detrimental to both Cook Inlet and the state
to list the beluga whales as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act until further studies can determine accurate
numbers and the reasons for decline. In fact, this summer the Cook
Inlet drift fleet is scheduled to participate in the NMFS observer
program, and UCIDA has committed to assist NMFS in its efforts to
gain additional information regarding the beluga whales. In
addition, they have indicated to NMFS that they would participate
in other studies, if deemed necessary.
MS. ALCANTRA said she believes that conclusive numbers can be
established regarding Cook Inlet's beluga whales. Although UCIDA
does not support listing of the specie as threatened or endangered,
UCIDA does support a request to have NMFS manage the harvest of
beluga whales until the population has recovered. Furthermore,
UCIDA believes that it is imperative to have financial security for
the necessary research to establish concrete numbers of beluga
whales.
Number 1558
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether there is ever any bycatch of beluga
whales in driftnets for salmon. He noted that sometimes Steller
sea lions are caught in trawls, for example.
MS. ALCANTRA replied that to her knowledge, there has been no
interaction between beluga whales and the drift fleet.
Number 1501
DAN ALEX, Project Coordinator, Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council
(CIMMC), testified via teleconference from Anchorage, specifying
that the CIMMC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation chartered under
the laws of the state of Alaska. He told members that the CIMMC
and the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee had asked United States
Senator Stevens for an emergency amendment to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, which has been accomplished. They had also asked
for funding for co-management. Mr. Alex said that the CIMMC is not
new to co-management proposals to NMFS; the first time that was
done was in 1994.
MR. ALEX told members that the CIMMC, along with RurAL CAP [Rural
Alaska Community Action Program] and the Alaska Beluga Whale
Committee, recently co-sponsored a symposium forum, where there was
a consensus on some key points on a draft interim co-management
agreement. They have had one session already, and they expect to
have one or more negotiating sessions this week, with expected
conclusion of an interim co-management agreement to be in place by
April 1. Mr. Alex mentioned the perception of overharvesting, then
concluded by saying the CIMMC plans to do accurate harvest and
population counts, as well as additional scientific studies upon
which meaningful and valid decisions can be made.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Alex whether he is a whale hunter.
MR. ALEX said he is not, although he is the project coordinator for
CIMMC, which represents beluga whale hunters in the Cook Inlet
area.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Alex to describe how beluga whales are
hunted.
Number 1324
MR. ALEX replied, "It's actually not very difficult. You take an
open-top dory and a spear, you know, a harpoon, and harpoon the
whale with a float on it. And once the whale comes back up, you
kill it and then take it to shore and cut it up."
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE pointed out that in Cook Inlet that is quite
a challenge because of the murky waters there.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS mentioned the huge tides, as well.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE observed that harpooning the whale before
shooting it takes quite a bit of skill. Furthermore, by harpooning
it first, it ensures that the hunter will catch that whale because
of the attached float, and it is really quite a conservation
measure. In contrast, if a person shot a whale first, wounding it,
the chances of harvesting that particular animal would be greatly
diminished.
Number 1216
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether any current regulation requires that
the whale be harpooned first.
MR. ALEX answered, "We are proposing a set of rules that the
hunters have proposed, that would require that."
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked for confirmation that now a hunter could shoot
first, then harpoon later.
MR. ALEX affirmed that.
Number 1170
CO-CHAIR OGAN stated that he supports that type of rule, which he
believes would ensure that any whales that are struck would most
likely be taken. He asked whether non-Natives can participate in
hunt like that, as observers.
MR. ALEX specified that non-Natives can be observers, but the only
people allowed to harvest the whales are Natives.
CO-CHAIR OGAN commented, "Well, if anybody wants to take me whale
hunting, I'm game." He noted that there was now a quorum.
Number 1079
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to adopt the proposed CS,
version 1-LS0649\G, Utermohle, 3/19/99, as a work draft; she asked
unanimous consent. There being no objection, that proposed CS was
before the committee. [HJR 28 continues after short discussion of
SCR 2.]
SCR 2 - MANAGEMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
Number 1079
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 2, relating to management of
Alaska's wildlife and fish resources, was brought up again briefly.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to Conceptual Amendment 1, adopted
earlier that meeting. She pointed out that the boards don't meet
jointly. Therefore, the amendment needs to say, "the Board of
Fish[eries] or the Board of Game". She suggested that because it
is a conceptual amendment, hurriedly drafted, there is no problem
with making that change, as the drafters could have changed it
themselves.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether anyone objected to that change to
Conceptual Amendment 1; no objection was heard. [End of this
section.]
HJR 28 - COOK INLET BELUGA POPULATION
CO-CHAIR OGAN returned the committee's attention to House Joint
Resolution No. 28, requesting that the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the United States Congress act immediately to reverse
the decline of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population and to
regulate the harvest of the beluga whales in Cook Inlet until the
beluga whale population has recovered.
Number 0958
DAVID VOLUCK, Attorney at Law, Copeland, Landye, Bennett and Wolf,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage, noting that his law
firm provides legal counsel to the CIMMC. He told members, "We're
encouraged by the state's support of co-management agreements with
Alaska Native organizations. My only issue with the resolution, as
drafted, is that it refers to local Native subsistence hunters or
users, which is basically incorrect. It should refer to the Cook
Inlet Marine Mammal Council, as they are the only body with the
authority of the tribes in the Cook Inlet region to manage the
beluga whales in Cook Inlet." He said the first reference to
Alaska Native organizations begins at line 13; it mentions local
Native subsistence users at page 2, lines 21 and 26, and in both
places it should refer to the CIMMC.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that she believes that Mr. Voluck
is probably quite correct. She asked whether she could move that
as an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS requested that Ron Somerville speak to
that, because it had been a consideration.
Number 0832
RON SOMERVILLE, Resource Consultant to the House and Senate
Leadership, Alaska State Legislature, came forward. He reminded
members that a similar resolution would be up in the Senate that
afternoon, then said these amendments that were provided by the
council were discussed among some of the leadership; the only
reason that was dropped was because there are people other than
from Cook Inlet who come to Cook Inlet to harvest belugas. He
stated, "And so, the council itself is not totally able to control
the harvest, if you will, so just referencing the council does not
cover all of the Native people who, in fact, could legally
participate in the harvesting. It doesn't preclude the
co-management agreements. It doesn't preclude the council's being
the lead agency in the co-management. It just was dropped as a
specific reference here in the resolution."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she would remove her reference to an
amendment.
Number 0742
MR. VOLUCK responded, "While it is true that there are other
Natives from the various areas of the state that can hunt in Cook
Inlet, the only body that has the authority of the tribes which
control the geographical area is the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal
Council, that I'm aware of. And so, by just referencing local
Native subsistence users, you are denigrating the efforts and the
authority of the council to manage that beluga whale take. The
result of the symposium that was held - I guess about a week and a
half ago; [it] was from the hunters and all the various users that
showed up in Anchorage to deal with this issue - was to support the
Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council as the managing body for this
area."
Number 646
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS referred back to her opening remarks,
emphasizing that nothing in this resolution precludes continuing
efforts by NMFS and the local beluga whale hunters to work
cooperatively.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether the CIMMC is a tribe.
MR. VOLUCK indicated CIMMC is a nonprofit organization that has
been chartered by the Cook Inlet treaty tribes: Tyonek, Eklutna,
Chickaloon, Seldovia and Ninilchik, that he is aware of. He added,
"[U.S. Senator] Stevens refers to it in his legislative amendment,
so it's not without precedent."
Number 0544
CO-CHAIR OGAN emphasized that they are dealing with a nonprofit
corporation here, not a tribe.
Number 0492
DALE BONDURANT testified again via teleconference from Kenai,
stating, "I truly believe that we need something like this,
especially when we're talking about a depletion of a resource in
Cook Inlet." He said it would be much better to work this out
among ourselves and show a responsible plan for all users, rather
than having it be forced under application of the Endangered
Species Act. Mr. Bondurant said he was glad they had cleared up
the status of the CIMMC as a nonprofit organization, as he doesn't
believe this should talk about dealing with a certain tribal
entity. He supports this effort and believes that it is the right
way to go.
Number 0357
DREW SPARLIN testified again via teleconference from Kenai, noting
that he is a Cook Inlet drift fisherman who resides in Kenai. He
expressed appreciation to the sponsor for her work on HJR 28, which
he supports. A member of UCIDA, he feels very comfortable with
their representing him and his fellow fishermen on this issue. He
expressed great hopes that they will be able to accomplish what
they've set out to do, which is to determine the cause of the
decline of the beluga whale population in Cook Inlet. He concluded
by emphasizing that never, in 35 years of fishing, had a beluga
whale hit his net, let alone be entangled.
Number 0216
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Mr. Sparlin had ever had beluga whales
around the area where he was fishing. He noted that driftnetters
fish in the tide rips in the inlet, and when he himself dipnets for
salmon on Fish Creek, beluga whales sometimes show up at the mouth
of the creek and the fishermen then catch no fish. Co-Chair Ogan
commented that he assumes those whales have a healthy appetite for
salmon. He asked whether the belugas are smart enough and have
good enough sonar that they can avoid the nets, or whether Mr.
Sparlin had just not encountered them.
MR. SPARLIN replied, "Yes, in fact, I would say that they are
intelligent enough, or have the sonar equipment necessary, to avoid
the nets." He pointed out that in days past, when there were more
belugas, they certainly had the opportunity to have nets set
whenever the belugas arrived. He stated, "The old fishermen, the
first thing they would put on the radio for information would be
the fact that 'you now have belugas around you, and you'd better
get your gear up and get out.' What it does is it sounds the
salmon. So, consequently, ... there has been interaction, but I
don't think that it has ever caused any kind of a problem and
concern of damage to the beluga, and, quite honestly, we are going
to have a tendency to try to avoid a pod of beluga while they're
feeding."
TAPE 99-17, SIDE A
Number 0001
MARGARET ROBERTS, Chair, Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion
Commission, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She told
members, "Our commission is a statewide tribal consortium. Our
board represents six coastal regions, from Southeast, Chugach, Cook
Inlet, Kodiak, Bristol Bay and the Aleutians. We have been very
active in cooperative management for the last three years, with
regional and local management plans for sea otters, and we've done
a lot of research with the federal agencies. We support the
efforts of the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council and National Marine
Fisheries Service to sign a co-management agreement for the
conservation of beluga in the Cook Inlet region."
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Ms. Roberts supports HJR 28.
MS. ROBERTS specified that she was speaking only in favor of
supporting CIMMC and NMFS in their cooperative management
agreement, not in support of the resolution.
Number 0250
DOLLY GARZA, Chair, Indigenous People's Commission on Marine
Mammals (IPCOMM), testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
Formed in the mid-1980s, their membership includes the Alaska
Beluga Whale Committee, the Eskimo Whaling Commission, the Alaska
Sea Otter and Sea Lion Commission, the Alaska Native Harbor Seal
Commission, the Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP),
the Bristol Bay Marine Mammal Commission, the Eskimo Walrus
Commission, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the North Slope
Borough, the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management,
the Pribilof Aleut Fur Seal Commission, the Southeast Native
Subsistence Commission, Maniilaq Association, the Alaska Nanuuq
Commission, and the Sitka Marine Mammal Commission.
MS. GARZA told members that she was there to testify in favor of
HJR 28, provided that there are two changes, as noted in the
commission's letter of March 19. She acknowledged that she has a
copy of the proposed CS, also dated 3/19/99, which incorporates
some of their requested changes. She said, "We speak in favor of
what Dan [Alex] and David [Voluck] had spoken to earlier, that on
page 2, line 13, line 20 and line 26, that it does need to
specifically state, 'Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Commission.' That
commission has worked very hard with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and with the local hunters, to establish the protocol and
process to regulate the hunt."
MS. GARZA continued, "In addition, Senator Stevens' rider
specifically states the marine mammal council - and we believe that
also, the second amendment, on the second page, starting with line
18, the 'FURTHER RESOLVED' that the Alaska State Legislature
respectfully support Senator Stevens' rider to regulate the harvest
of Cook Inlet beluga whales ... with the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal
Council - if that amendment is not incorporated, then, as it reads,
amending MMPA [Marine Mammal Protection Act] would not happen until
this fall or winter, or till next year, and that would have no
impact on this year's hunt of marine mammals." Ms. Garza said that
Senator Stevens' rider would allow CIMMC and NMFS to come up with
that management for this year. She added, "We've already heard
testimony that April 1, or by April 15th, that that management
would be in place. Mr. Chairman, we do support the resolution, but
we are hoping for those amendments."
Number 0461
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said he was wondering whether, in the three
areas of HJR 28 (page 2, lines 12, 21 and 26) referenced by the
groups involved with the beluga commission or CIMMC, it would be
appropriate to accommodate language that specifically cites CIMMC
and others. He suggested that would garner a whole lot of support.
Number 0580
MS. GARZA responded, "I guess the concern we have is that by adding
other Alaska Native organizations, it will actually make it much
more difficult to set up regulations and enforcement. Cook Inlet
Marine Mammal [Council], in itself, has become the leadership, and
that is the group that National Marine Fisheries Service is working
with. If National Marine Fisheries Service is then required to
work with any other Alaska Native organization, then it could make
it much more difficult to come up with a harvest level and
regulation plan. So, by leaving it as one, Cook Inlet Marine
Mammal Council, it will be more likely that those regulations will
be established and implemented for this year."
Number 0668
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS emphasized that the wording of HJR 28 was
very, very carefully crafted to allow the organizations that need
to put the co-management agreements together to do that. Nothing
in the resolution prohibits - in any way, shape or form - any of
those groups getting together for co-management, and nothing in it
will affect any co-management agreement or any decisions that any
of those groups want to put together. "We did not want the
legislature to be involved in that co-management decision," she
added, saying that is between the Native populations that take the
belugas and NMFS. She asked Mr. Somerville to expound on that.
MR. SOMERVILLE said in talking to some of the people concerned, it
is very understandable that they would like to push the
co-management agreements. However, the resolution was purposefully
designed so that there isn't a big floor debate about the
definition of "co-management." He stated:
Even as successful as the co-management agreements have been
on bowhead whales or, in some cases, with walrus and other
species, as pointed out, it is not clear in some cases to what
extent the National Marine Fisheries Service ... delegates its
authority to the tribes. What they've been able to do is work
out some sort of agreement as to issuance of permits ... and
the development of cooperative regulations in this sort of
thing. But the extent of the enforcement in this sort of
thing is really still kind of up in the air.
And so, if we get into a big debate about what you're
endorsing or not endorsing on the House and Senate floors, you
know, that's a decision you have to make. But the point was
we were ... requested to try and avoid that, and still
allowing for these cooperative agreements to be developed and
go forward without having a debate as to what they entail.
Number 0832
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether Mr. Somerville concurs with the
sponsor's assessment that being silent on it basically leaves it up
to those that will enter into these agreements.
MR. SOMERVILLE replied, "Mr. Chairman, I'm silent in the respect
that the people that I've been told to work with, and helping craft
some of this language, it was the best way of avoiding it. It's
not my decision to make; that's your decision as to whether we'd
want to do that."
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether anyone else wished to testify, then
closed public testimony.
Number 0903
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked for confirmation that Senator Stevens'
amendment specifically talks to the NMFS and the CIMMC.
MR. SOMERVILLE nodded in assent.
Number 0950
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move CSHJR 28 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note; she asked unanimous consent. There being no
objection, CSHJR 28(RES) moved out of the House Resources Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0970
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|