Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/19/2004 01:57 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 19, 2004
1:57 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Cheryll Heinze, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Nick Stepovich
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Lynn
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 531
"An Act relating to natural gas exploration and development and
to nonconventional gas, and amending the section under which
shallow natural gas leases may be issued; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 531(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE AGAIN
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 329(RES)
"An Act relating to control of nuisance moose."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 364
"An Act establishing a moratorium on the issuance of state
shallow natural gas leases in the vicinity of Kachemak Bay, and
directing the commissioner of natural resources to reacquire
shallow natural gas leases on the Kenai Peninsula within the
moratorium area; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 531
SHORT TITLE: CONVENTIONAL & NONCONVENTIONAL GAS LEASES
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
03/04/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/04/04 (H) O&G, RES, FIN
03/16/04 (H) O&G AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 124
03/16/04 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/04 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
03/18/04 (H) O&G AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 124
03/18/04 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/04 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
03/22/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/22/04 (H) <Pending Referral>
04/01/04 (H) O&G AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 124
04/01/04 (H) Moved CSHB 531(O&G) Out of Committee
04/01/04 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
04/05/04 (H) O&G RPT CS(O&G) 7AM
04/05/04 (H) AM: HOLM, KERTTULA, MCGUIRE, ROKEBERG,
04/05/04 (H) CRAWFORD, HEINZE, KOHRING
04/14/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/14/04 (H) Heard & Held <Assigned to Subcmte>
04/14/04 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/16/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/16/04 (H) Moved CSHB 531(RES) Out of Committee
04/16/04 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/19/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 329
SHORT TITLE: NUISANCE MOOSE
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) BUNDE BY REQUEST
02/13/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/04 (S) RES, FIN
03/24/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/24/04 (S) Moved CSSB 329(RES) Out of Committee
03/24/04 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/26/04 (S) RES RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
03/26/04 (S) DP: OGAN, DYSON, WAGONER, STEVENS B,
03/26/04 (S) SEEKINS
04/01/04 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
04/08/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/08/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 329(RES)
04/13/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/13/04 (H) RES
04/19/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
MARIE CROSLEY, Natural Resource Specialist
Division of Oil & Gas
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 531, answered
questions.
SENATOR CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor by request of the
Alaska Moose Federation.
MATT ROBUS, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 329, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-22, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:57 p.m. Representatives Masek,
Dahlstrom, Gatto, Heinze, Stepovich, Wolf, Guttenberg, and
Kerttula were present at the call to order.
HB 531-CONVENTIONAL & NONCONVENTIONAL GAS LEASES
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 531, "An Act relating to natural gas
exploration and development and to nonconventional gas, and
amending the section under which shallow natural gas leases may
be issued; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0085
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM moved that the committee rescind its action
in reporting CSHB 531, Version 23-LS1818\V, Chenoweth, 4/15/04,
from committee on April 16, 2004. There being no objection,
Version V was before the committee.
[Although the motion originally referred to Version U, the
committee, before taking any action on Amendment 1, corrected
the motion to refer to Version V.]
CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that Representative Kerttula wanted to
offer amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered [Amendment 1], which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 39, Line 31 - Page 40, Line 11;
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) for a nonconventional gas lease, rights
under the reservation as set out in AS 38.05.125 may
not be exercised under the lease unless
(A) the owner and the state and its
lessees, successors, or assigns reach a prior
written agreement under which the state and its
lessees, successors, or assigns may enter upon
the land in the exercise of the reserved right;
only one written agreement authorizing entry onto
the land may be required under this subparagraph
to authorize activity by the state and its
lessees, successors, or assigns, or by their
agents, attorneys, and servants as allowed under
this subsection; an agreement entered into under
this subparagraph is
(i) for the duration of the
period of production or recovery
operations unless the parties agree to
a different duration; and
(ii) a covenant running with
the land;
(B) the director, after notice and an
opportunity to be heard, determines that, to
exercise rights under the reservation and the
lease, the lessee has no other reasonable means
of entry than access and entry upon the land of
the owner; the lessee has the burden of
demonstrating compliance with this subparagraph;
and
(C) the state, its lessees, successors,
or assigns make provisions to pay the owner of
the land full payment for all damages sustained
by the owner by reason of entering upon the land
for the purpose of exercising rights under the
lease, by posting a surety bond determined by the
owner and by the state, its lessees, successors,
or assigns to be sufficient as to form, amount
and security to secure to the owner payment for
all damages, subject to the following:
(i) if a provision of this
subparagraph conflicts with a
requirement of AS 38.05.130, the
provision of this subparagraph
prevails; and
(ii) in addition to the coverage
for actual damages required by AS
38.05.130 or this subparagraph, as
appropriate, the parties shall make
provision for payment of reasonable
compensation to the owner for any loss
by the owner of the owner's use and
enjoyment of the property."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that since the legislation has
been changed to refer to nonconventional gas rather than shallow
natural gas, the owner and the state need to reach a prior
written agreement so that people can enter upon the land. She
acknowledged that it's undecided with regard to whether such
prior written agreement can be required. She further
acknowledged concern regarding how stringently to require it in
order that it remains constitutional. "But my reading on this
is that I would rather that the landowners have this power and
that if there is going to be a lawsuit, that they're the ones
that start out holding the right," she opined. Therefore, this
amendment is to place the authority in the hands of the
landowners.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH asked if the agreement would be in lieu
of payment as well.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA answered that such would have to be a
separate agreement. [Amendment 1] merely requires written
agreement before anyone can enter the land.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH inquired as to whether Amendment 1 is
constitutional.
Number 0365
MARIE CROSLEY, Natural Resource Specialist, Division of Oil &
Gas, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), deferred to the
Department of Law.
CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that there was not a representative from
the Department of Law.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA acknowledged that there will be a
constitutional issue because of the reserved rights, but she
felt that it's more appropriate to place the property owners in
the top position.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related that Amendment 1 was offered in
the subcommittee, but it was the desire of the chair [of the
subcommittee] to hold it and place it before the full committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked if there is any way to determine
whether Amendment 1 would be constitutional or not.
CO-CHAIR MASEK recalled the testimony of Jack Chenoweth,
Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services, and Mark
Myers, Director, Division of Oil & Gas, at a prior hearing when
they said it would be unconstitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA interjected that Mr. Chenoweth was
concerned, but didn't know how the courts will rule on
[Amendment 1] because there is no case law on the matter.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA opined that adoption of Amendment 1
would be a strong statement that the committee believes the
property owners should be in the driver's seat. She noted that
she has a possible conflict of interest on any coal bed methane
matter because her family owns property that may be in the
leasing area.
Number 0916
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH commented that he liked the idea
encompassed in Amendment 1, but was concerned with regard to
wasting time and money if it's unconstitutional. He said he
would like to here from other committee members on the matter of
passing legislation that may be frivolous.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO inquired as to what would happen if the
amendment was determined to be unconstitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that the state could choose not to
enforce it or it could be severed from the rest of the
legislation. Representative Kerttula said she understands the
concern, but without any case law directly on the matter it
would be more appropriate to adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF opined that there are probably people in the
Legislative Legal and Research Division and the Attorney
General's Office who could answer whether Amendment 1 is
constitutional. Therefore, he requested that Amendment 1 be
withdrawn until the answer can be obtained.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA declined to withdraw the amendment.
Number 1133
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE remarked that the entire coal bed methane
issue seems to boil down to the people [property owners], their
land, and their rights. "I know we're in murky waters right
now, but if there's a clarity out there somewhere and it ...
puts the people in the driver's seat, ... that's what this is
all about ...," she opined.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM commented that those committee members not
present last Friday are at a disadvantage because they didn't
here Mr. Chenoweth's statements. Although Mr. Chenoweth didn't
specifically say that Amendment 1 would be unconstitutional, he
gave the strong impression that there would be many problems.
Co-Chair Dahlstrom related her understanding that Mr. Chenoweth
was suggesting that the committee "not act in that manner."
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG reminded the committee that voters,
citizens, and landowners of the state have voiced strong
objection to [their] lack of involvement in the process.
Barring any clear legal opinion, property owners deserve to have
a say in who enters their property and barring that, to also
have their day in court. Therefore, he felt that this might be
a good place to make the bright line decision.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH related that the surface owners, the
property owners, and the subsurface owners, the state, will be
competing to sell the resources.
CO-CHAIR MASEK interjected that Amendment 1 would also be
problematic with the Statehood Act.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM turned to a memorandum Mr. Chenoweth sent to
the Senate Resources Standing Committee, from which she read the
following:
Taken together, the state must abide by provisions of
federal law, the Alaska Statehood Act, and State
Constitutional provisions under which the state has
consented to the terms and conditions applicable to
Statehood Act land grants and has a constitutional
obligation to provide what I believe would be
determined by the court to amount to a guaranteed
access to the resources that underlay those land
grants. To the extent that the property owner's bill
of rights would propose to make access to those
resources fully dependent on the surface owner's prior
written consent, it would raise questions of
compliance with terms and conditions of the Statehood
Act.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM remarked that there has been no discussion of
the subsurface rights on the North Slope, although subsurface
rights across the state will be impacted by this.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA reiterated that there isn't a clear
answer regarding whether Amendment 1 is unconstitutional. Mr.
Chenoweth would've said it was if that was the case, she noted.
Therefore, she said she didn't believe Amendment 1 is frivolous.
She reiterated her belief that the property owners should "have
the leg up" in this situation.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM objected to Amendment 1.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Guttenberg,
Kerttula, and Gatto voted in favor of the adoption Amendment 1.
Representatives Wolf, Lynn, Dahlstrom, Masek, Heinze, and
Stepovich voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a
vote of 3-6.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH reiterated that he likes the idea of
Amendment 1, and added that perhaps in the future surface and
subsurface rights could be addressed.
Number 1812
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA moved that the committee adopt Amendment
2, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 47, Line 31; after "AS 46.04.900(25)", insert,
"AS 46.40.205"
Page 48, Line 11 - Line 12; delete all language
CO-CHAIR MASEK objected.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA reminded the committee that part of what
the legislature did last year with SB 69 was to remove local
control from these decisions through the coastal management
program. However, the entire leasing program no longer falls
under the ambit of coastal zone review and the coastal zone
management program has been changed significantly. Therefore,
the first part of Amendment 2 would bring coastal leasing back
under some sort of coastal zone management review. She then
turned to the second part of Amendment 2 and page 48, lines 11-
12, of Version V. The language on page 48, lines 11-12,
basically says that lease applications under the old shallow
natural gas program that were received by DNR before January 1,
2004, would proceed as under the old program. Therefore, about
80,000 acres would be left under the old program. She clarified
that these applications haven't been processed or approved, and
therefore she opined that any applications should have to come
under any new program that the legislature institutes.
Amendment 2 would provide the state more control, she noted.
Number 1952
MS. CROSLEY acknowledged that DNR has received certain
applications prior to the December 31st deadline. From the
department's perspective, it's an issue of fairness, she opined.
She informed the committee that there are five applicants,
including Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc., and Holitna Energy who have
filed shallow gas applications prior to the deadline. The
leases would've normally already have been issued under the
existing program, but DNR put in place a moratorium and began a
public process to address concerns held by the public.
Therefore, DNR felt it was fair to grandfather in lease
applications filed by a certain date. The specified date is
necessary in order to avoid any party from taking advantage of
whatever the legislature decides.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked if the cutoff dates coincide with the
dates specified in the legislation, which Amendment 2 would
delete.
MS. CROSLEY said that Version V mirrors the cutoff dates DNR
thought would be fair. In further response to Co-Chair
Dahlstrom, Ms. Crosley confirmed that the language on page 48,
lines 11-12, should remain in the legislation. In response to
Representative Guttenberg, Ms. Crosley specified that
approximately 157,000 acres would be impacted by this
moratorium. The acreage is in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley,
Healy, and Holitna.
Number 2154
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM objected to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she respected what Ms. Crosley is
saying. However, she reminded the committee that the moratorium
is arbitrary to begin with. She reiterated that 80,000 acres
are in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. If there's a concern with
regard to a certain geographic area, perhaps a geographic area
needs to be exempt. "I think that, again, it's a really
important statement that we expect this program to change
because it certainly hasn't worked for our citizens," she
remarked.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if Ms. Crosley has been in any
discussion with the lease applicants regarding the status of
their lease. He asked if the lease applicants are looking to
withdraw their lease or change the conditions of it if the
situation were to change.
MS. CROSLEY said she didn't believe so, and therefore she didn't
know what would happen if the situation changed.
Number 2276
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO declared a conflict of interest because he
is a resident of the Matanuska-Susitna Valley and has leases
under his property.
CO-CHAIR MASEK reminded the committee that there was an
objection to Amendment 2, and therefore requested a roll call.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kerttula, Gatto,
Heinze, and Guttenberg voted in favor of the adoption of
Amendment 2. Representatives Lynn, Stepovich, Masek, Dahlstrom,
and Wolf voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a
vote of 4-5.
Number 2349
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 531, Version 23-
LS1818\V, Chenoweth, 4/15/04, out of committee again with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gatto, Heinze,
Stepovich, Wolf, Guttenberg, Kerttula, Masek, and Dahlstrom
voted in favor of reporting Version V from committee again.
Representative Lynn voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 531(RES),
Version V, was again reported out of the House Resources
Standing Committee by a vote of 8-1.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:32 p.m. to 2:37 p.m.
SB 329-NUISANCE MOOSE
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 329(RES), "An Act relating to control
of nuisance moose."
Number 2449
SENATOR CON BUNDE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor by request
of the Alaska Moose Federation, informed the committee that some
years ago 190 moose were killed in the Anchorage area. The
aforementioned led him to hold public hearings regarding the
notion of having a special hunt in order to reduce the number of
moose. A substantial number of people came out and testified
that they didn't want the moose hunted. Although the public
seemed to have a high level of tolerance for the public being
injured by moose, the public didn't address the moose being
injured.
SENATOR BUNDE explained that the Alaska Moose Federation
proposes that if there is a problem/nuisance moose in one area,
the moose could be transported to another area rather than be
killed. The committee substitute (CS) before the committee is a
compromise between the Alaska Moose Federation and the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). This legislation would allow
ADF&G to authorize a private group or individuals to relocate
nuisance moose from urban to rural areas. He specified that a
nuisance moose is defined as a moose located in area of human
concentration that poses a significant risk to the health,
safety, or economic well being of the people in the area. The
group relocating the moose will cover the relocation costs and
the state is protected against any liability arising from
actions taken by the group. Senator Bunde pointed out that the
committee packet includes information from the Alaska Moose
Federation, which details the high number of moose-related
trooper calls as well as wide support for the legislation. The
packet also contains the opinions of three biologists regarding
the relocation of moose. While all three biologists have vast
experience with wildlife management, one must remember the
following: adult moose relocation programs in the US and Alaska
have been successful; ADF&G must approve any private group's
plan; ADF&G has experience darting large animals; there is
appropriate liability protection [for the state]; the program is
conducted at no cost to the state; people are killed and injured
by moose and the financial costs are great; and the legislature
is responsible for protecting Alaskans and its wildlife.
Senator Bunde reiterated that there is a wide variety of support
[included in the committee packet].
Number 2760
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF surmised that under this program urban
dwelling moose would be transferred to rural wilderness areas.
Therefore, he inquired as to whether disease would be spread
with these relocation efforts.
SENATOR BUNDE deferred to ADF&G, but noted that to his knowledge
there aren't any communicable diseases involving moose.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF maintained his concern with the possibility
of transmission of disease through these relocation efforts.
Number 2870
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN posed a situation in which a darted moose
dies in transport to its new location. He asked if the meat
would be edible and would be given to charity in such a
circumstance.
SENATOR BUNDE specified that meat from a moose that has been
darted shouldn't be consumed by humans for 45 days. He
acknowledged that some relocated moose will die during
relocation, although he pointed out that currently all nuisance
moose die and in this case the relocated moose could provide
"brood stock."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired as to how a hunter would know
whether 45 days had passed since a moose he or she killed was
darted.
SENATOR BUNDE answered that darted animals are collared and
tagged so that a hunter would know not to eat the meat.
TAPE 04-22, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO requested that Senator Bunde walk the
committee through a scenario in which a nuisance moose is
ultimately relocated.
SENATOR BUNDE posed a scenario in which a moose is frequenting a
schoolyard, or other location in which the moose could be a
danger to human life and health. The ADF&G is called and the
moose is labeled as a nuisance moose. Assuming that the Alaska
Moose Federation is the entity that transports the moose, the
moose is darted, tagged, and placed in wheeled transportation
and transported to the release site if on the road system. If
the release site isn't on the road system, helicopter transport
would occur.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO related his understanding that there would
be a holding facility so that the moose would have time to
metabolize the darting chemical, and therefore would be able to
recover prior to being relocated.
SENATOR BUNDE said that the Alaska Zoo has offered its
facilities to do what Representative Gatto described. However,
he specified that he didn't view that as an extended holding
area but rather an area for a two- or three-day stay.
Number 2829
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said she finds it interesting that the
Alaska State Constitution mandates moose management by sustained
yield principles and moose are considered a natural resource
owned by all Alaskans. She inquired as to why it took the
pipeline being shot at for Alaska Moose Federation to be
founded.
SENATOR BUNDE answered that he didn't know.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG related his understanding from ADF&G
that when moose are relocated habitat sustainability is critical
for the relocation area. Therefore, he inquired as to where the
moose would be relocated. He also inquired as to whether it's a
situation in which the [priority] is to remove the moose from
the area in which it's causing a problem.
SENATOR BUNDE responded that ADF&G will determine the area to
which the moose will be relocated. He explained that there is
the desire to relocate moose to areas where the habitat will
sustain more animals and there is a low density of population.
There is also the desire to move the moose from harm's way.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF restated his earlier question regarding the
transportation of disease by moose.
Number 2645
MATT ROBUS, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), said that he didn't know of
any commonly found diseases that would be of concern. However,
ADF&G would take interest in any moose that didn't look healthy.
He predicted that once such a moose is identified, he didn't
believe that moose would be relocated. In further response to
Representative Wolf, he explained that CSSB 329(RES) is the
result of meetings with the Alaska Moose Federation and the
sponsor because ADF&G was concerned with regard to how such a
program would draw off staff and fiscal resources. The current
legislation illustrates one of the agreements reached, which is
the third-party organization will have to agree to pay the
state's costs and illustrate that it can pay those costs prior
to entering the project. However, how this will actually work
between the third party and the department is yet to be
determined. He related that one scenario could be a third-party
organization with qualified individuals, and therefore the
third-party organization would have the program on its own and
the department would merely help identify which moose are to be
considered nuisances and where those moose should be relocated.
Another scenario could be one in which ADF&G could possibly have
some personnel involved, but the third-party organization would
reimburse the department for it's staff time. This all depends
upon the nature of the agreement, the size of the project, and
things yet to be determined.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the moose would be darted when
picked up and again when relocated from the zoo.
MR. ROBUS said that he hasn't been involved with moving moose or
any other animal that size without immobilizing it. Although
there may be mechanical techniques that could be utilized to get
the moose in the trailers, he indicated that there could be two
immobilization periods.
Number 2482
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if performing this relocation effort
and staging the moose at the zoo during the rut would be
problematic.
MR. ROBUS answered that during the rut one would need to take
care if placing multiple moose of different sex in the same
holding area. There would have to be some careful big game
management considerations during that time of the year.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that the goal is to ensure that
the state doesn't end up spending a lot of money for a nuisance
moose when the animal could easily be dispatched in place and
the meat distributed to the charities.
MR. ROBUS related that when animals move into the Anchorage area
and become nuisances, it is typically during the winter season
and probably post-rut. Mr. Robus related ADF&G's concern that
[relocation efforts] done in late winter when the animals are in
the worst condition of the year mean that the moose will
probably do the worst in terms of capture mortality.
Number 2378
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH inquired as to the qualifications
necessary to move moose.
MR. ROBUS answered that he didn't believe there to be hard and
fast qualifications, except in the area of handling the drugs
involved. Due to the types of drugs used, a veterinarian will
have to be in charge of the drugs. The aforementioned could be
performed under the department's authority and third-party
individuals work under that umbrella or a third-party
organization could have a separate operation with veterinarian
help that qualifies to possess and dispense the necessary drugs.
In terms of laws, rules, and safety, the handling of the drugs
is the most critical part of this whereas much of the handling
of the animals is merely good practical sense. In further
response to Representative Stepovich, Mr. Robus pointed out that
the legislation specifies that there will be a written
application and proposal. He confirmed that there could be more
than one third-party organization and it could take on different
forms. With regard to a moose returning to the spot from which
it was taken, he suggested that there would be relatively little
problem with it returning.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM declared a conflict of interest because she
is a member of the advisory board for the Alaska Moose
Federation. With regard to moose meat going to charities, Co-
Chair Dahlstrom said that the Alaska State Troopers have a list
of charities that are interested in moose meat. She related
that many of those involved with the Alaska Moose Federation and
promoting this program are individuals with a genuine love for
the animals. She highlighted that the legislation specifies on
page 1, lines 13-15, that the group(s) or individuals will
reimburse the state for all costs incurred for relocating
nuisance moose. She further related that the folks she knows
who are involved in this all have professional veterinarians and
equipment. Furthermore, folks who raise these animals on an
ongoing basis undergo inspections and must comply with state and
federal regulations.
Number 2076
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if there are regulations in
place for this process.
MR. ROBUS replied yes, and explained that ADF&G has collecting
permits which allow the department to take and handle animals
and there is a staff veterinarian who can hold and dispense the
necessary drugs. Mr. Robus noted that ADF&G staff go to
training. He said that it's a matter of regulations as well as
training, practice, and expertise.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if this is going to be a
statewide effort or merely an Anchorage basin effort.
MR. ROBUS explained that in the negotiations that resulted in
CSSB 329(RES), everyone agreed that the legislation will be a
pilot effort for the Municipality of Anchorage.
Number 1931
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF related his understanding that are
approximately 190 moose in the Anchorage area.
MR. ROBUS stated that in a winter such as this, there are
probably nearly 1,000 moose in the Anchorage bowl.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF questioned how one organization can take on
a task that size.
MR. ROBUS answered that he wasn't sure, but opined that's part
of why it's a pilot project. The question regarding whether the
nuisance moose problem can be whittled down over time with this
approach has yet to be seen. Given the compromise encompassed
in CSSB 329(RES), ADF&G is willing to give this proposal a try
and possibly even help some moose populations.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF remarked that the idea has merit, although
he felt that it would be more economical to provide moose meat
to [charitable organizations].
Number 1845
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that SB 329 would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|