Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/21/2004 01:37 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 21, 2004
1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Nick Stepovich
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Co-Chair
Representative Cheryll Heinze, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 329(RES)
"An Act relating to control of nuisance moose."
- MOVED CSSB 329(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
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
04/19/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/19/04 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/21/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
LOUIS "TEX" EDWARDS, Director
Alaska Zoo
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 329, answered
questions.
GARY OLSON, Chair/Founder
Alaska Moose Federation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Related the problems with growing moose
populations on school grounds and the surrounding neighborhoods
in the Anchorage area.
VIC VanBALLENBERGHE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Drawing upon his 30-year experience as a
biologist, expressed concerns with SB 329.
KAREN DEATHERAGE, Alaska Program Associate
Defenders of Wildlife
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with SB 329.
MARIE WARNKE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to hold SB 329.
LINDA DONEGAN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with SB 329.
TOM HARRIS, President/CEO
Alaska Village Initiatives
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 329.
MATT ROBUS, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 329, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-23, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. Representatives Masek,
Lynn, Stepovich, Wolf, Guttenberg, and Kerttula were present at
the call to order.
SB 329-NUISANCE MOOSE
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 329(RES), "An Act relating to control
of nuisance moose."
Number 0104
LOUIS "TEX" EDWARDS, Director, Alaska Zoo, related that the
Alaska Zoo has partnered with the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G) for over 35 years, during which the department has
cared for a number of orphaned moose calves. Therefore, the
Alaska Zoo has developed the expertise to care for young moose
calves. He informed the committee that at the end of the
summer, the Alaska Zoo shifts a number of moose calves to a
variety of zoos in North America as well as the Moose Research
Federation at the Kenai Peninsula. Mr. Edwards concluded by
relating that the Alaska Zoo will continue to work with ADF&G as
well as with the Moose Research Federation.
Number 0340
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired as to the risk a moose being
transported faces. He inquired as to the danger of a moose
dying from the tranquilizer.
MR. EDWARDS clarified that he isn't the veterinarian or the
curator, but offered his experience that the risk to the animals
increases with the animal's age. He explained that most moose
calves are dropped in the last week of May and ADF&G and the
Alaska Zoo have mutually agreed to stop picking up calves by
July 4th unless a tranquilizer gun and special equipment is
used. When moose have been shipped at the end of the summer,
there really haven't been any problems.
Number 0580
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG surmised that moving calves during the
spring or summer is low stress [on the calves]. However, he
questioned the stress of [moving moose] during the winter.
MR. EDWARDS said that moose haven't been gathered and brought to
the zoo in the winter. He indicated that the highest risk time
[to transport and do other things] would be during the rut. In
further response to Representative Guttenberg, Mr. Edwards
acknowledged that a few calves are lost. However, he noted that
usually calves are lost because they were damaged in the event
that resulted in them being orphaned. Mr. Edwards clarified
that mature moose have not been brought to the Alaska Zoo.
Number 0775
GARY OLSON, Chair/Founder, Alaska Moose Federation,
characterized SB 329 as public safety legislation, first and
foremost. He related the problems with growing moose
populations on school grounds and the surrounding neighborhoods
in the Anchorage area. The children of Anchorage are the ones
being most effected by the moose problems in Anchorage. Mr.
Olson related that private industry and others are lining up in
support of this legislation. "We will be funding this entire
project and reimbursing the state for any expenses that they
have," he stated. The key is that so many moose are ending up
on the front of cars; there has been a 75 percent increase in
moose-vehicle collisions since 1992 in Anchorage alone.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF opined that this proposal sounds too good to
be true. He suggested including a sunset or look-back provision
in this legislation.
MR. OLSON related that of the almost $2.5 million Alaska's
congressional delegation brought back to Alaska, there are
provisions dedicated to known vehicle wildlife areas to be
"fixed with funding from these sources." He indicated that
there are a lot of people on board with this plan and it's
coming from a federal perspective.
Number 1282
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH surmised that Mr. Olson means that
federal funds can be obtained for this proposal.
MR. OLSON replied yes, adding that there is also substantial
input from private industry. In further response to
Representative Stepovich, Mr. Olson confirmed that the intent is
for this legislation to only apply to Anchorage, although the
legislation is written such that [any] city that decides not to
have a hunt can use this proposal as a tool.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH drew attention to the language in the
legislation referring to "suitable habitat" and the desire to
send moose to rural areas where moose are in demand. He
inquired as to how [ADF&G] would determine where to send the
moose.
MR. OLSON pointed out that ADF&G is given the authority to
determine the definition of "nuisance moose." In regard to
"suitable habitat," Mr. Olson indicated that such would be areas
in which there are predator control programs or programs to
increase moose populations.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH highlighted that the costs would differ
for transport of moose due to the distance transported.
Therefore, he asked if there would be one cost for everyone.
MR. OLSON informed the committee that private industry is lined
up with heavy aircraft similar to a C-130. There is also the
possibility of using the railroad for long distance transport
and rebuilding populations along the tracks. In response to
Representative Stepovich, Mr. Olson specified that there won't
be a set cost for [transporting] a moose.
Number 1582
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE highlighted that the Alaska Moose
Federation was created after the Alyeska Pipeline was shot. "Is
it the connection to the value of oil and the value of the moose
that brought this to the forefront," she asked.
MR. OLSON replied yes, and emphasized the need to properly
manage moose as a resource.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO recalled the earlier testimony that there
has been a 75 percent increase in the number of moose-vehicle
collisions since 1992. However, there was no mention that there
has also been an increase in the number of vehicles. Due to the
aforementioned, Representative Gatto questioned whether there
has really been an increase in the number of moose-vehicle
collisions.
MR. OLSON noted that there has also been a tremendous increase
in the number of houses and roads. He acknowledged that the
total equation looks grim if nothing is done to proactively
handle this problem. He said he was sure there is a connection
with the increase in the number of cars, not to mention that
cars are getting smaller and roads are being built to drive
faster. All of the aforementioned heads toward a very poor
environment for moose and people without forwarding proposals
such as SB 329.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO recalled that in the Mat-Su Valley there's
a stretch of road with a sign specifying that 300 moose have
been killed this season. He said that's a high number and he
didn't know whether the number refers to the moose killed on
that stretch of road or statewide. Representative Gatto
inquired as to how many moose Mr. Olson felt could be saved with
the proposed program.
MR. OLSON indicated his opposition to a sunset clause because
it's going to take many years to get the program working to
reduce the number of moose-vehicle collisions. He informed the
committee that moving 250 moose a year from the downtown
Anchorage area merely keeps the moose population constant. He
further informed the committee that on average 150-200 moose are
hit by vehicles. However, for a heavy snow year DOT&PF
statistics indicate the need to multiply that by a minimum of
two. He reiterated that it will take many years before the
numbers turn around.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG related his understanding that Mr.
Olson expects 250 moose to be moved per year.
MR. OLSON informed the committee that there are 1,000 moose in
the Anchorage core area and a 25 percent recruitment rate.
Therefore, 250 moose need to be transplanted merely in order to
keep the population stable. If there is a pursuit to reduce the
population in order to keep moose off school grounds and away
from the ever-increasing population, that 250 number may
increase. However, ADF&G will need to identify the safest
number. He recommended that the Department of Public Safety
participate in the process of determining the acceptable moose
population in the area. In regard to the costs of moving moose,
Mr. Olson explained that if the intent is to be proactive and
follow up with the calves, the moose population reduction effort
could be done for a far less cost. He noted that [the Alaska
Moose Federation] was just given the go ahead to use a 500-acre
area at Point MacKenzie in conjunction with this program. Mr.
Olson emphasized that if this problem is addressed after the
harsh winters, the costs are going to be higher than addressing
it proactively by relocating calves. Depending upon the time of
year, the [relocation] of one animal will be between $600-
$1,000. However, he noted that relocating multiple animals [at
once] will be cheaper. Given that flight time and other aspects
of this process have been donated, the cost will be
significantly cheaper than if the state handled this on its own.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the Alaska Moose Federation
is willing and able to reimburse ADF&G with regard to its
habitat studies and mortality rates. He also asked if ADF&G has
released those numbers.
MR. OLSON informed the committee that the Alaska Moose
Federation was just given the go ahead to use a Cessna 180 with
an optic belly in order to perform moose counts and other data
collection. Mr. Olson said that a lot more work needs to be
done to reach the goal of the Alaska Moose Federation, which is
planning to do much more than is encompassed in this
legislation. The Alaska Moose Federation is fully [prepared] to
have habitat biologists and wildlife biologists on staff who can
perform work such as determining ample habitat and other aspects
or the state can perform such work.
Number 2090
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH posed a situation in which a moose is
causing a nuisance around an apartment building. In such a
situation, he questioned whom - the owner of the land or ADF&G -
labels the moose as a nuisance. He also questioned who would
pay for the removal of the moose.
MR. OLSON confirmed that the Alaska Moose Federation would pay
for the removal of the moose from the property. In further
response to Representative Stepovich, Mr. Olson clarified that
ADF&G will determine that there is a nuisance moose. The
department will determine whether the moose will be removed from
an area or destroyed.
Number 2222
VIC VanBALLENBERGHE informed the committee that he has been a
moose biologist for 35 years, has captured over 500 moose, and
has published 60-70 technical papers on various aspects of
moose. He expressed his concern with this proposal, although he
commended the Alaska Moose Federation's proposals to address the
moose-vehicle accident problems through the creation of habitat
to draw moose from roadways. However, the current proposal to
transport moose out of Anchorage has some serious problems, and
therefore he urged the committee to hold SB 329 until there is
time to address some of the questions and allow the citizens of
Anchorage to have some discourse on the matter. Mr.
VanBallenberghe related that he has moose in his yard all winter
and his neighbors observe those moose and enjoy their presence.
After talking with some of his neighbors, he discovered that
they hadn't heard of SB 329 and were appalled that they hadn't
been informed or allowed the opportunity to provide input.
Therefore, he reiterated the need to step back and solve some of
the problems with SB 329.
MR. VanBALLENBERGHE pointed out that recently he e-mailed each
committee member eight different points regarding the proposed
capture and transport program encompassed in SB 329. He
highlighted that there are serious issues with regard to the
dangers of very potent narcotic drugs laying around. A single
drop of the anesthetic used for moose contains enough drug to
kill several people. He posed a situation in which a dart
misses a moose and is buried in the snow to be discovered during
the winter thaw. Contrary to earlier testimony by a biologist,
the anesthetic used for moose is highly stable and loses no
potency by freezing. Mr. VanBallenberghe turned to the earlier
mentioned intent of reducing the moose population in Anchorage,
which is a large scale [proposal] requiring a sustained
operation over many years and involving hundreds of [folks]. He
questioned the real objective of this proposal and the level to
which the moose population in Anchorage would need to be reduced
in order to significantly reduce car accidents. However, he
didn't believe anyone could determine the relationship between
taking a certain amount of moose from the Anchorage area in
terms of reducing car accidents.
MR. VanBALLENBERGHE opined that there are serious problems with
stocking moose in order to increase low-density populations. He
related that during a recent discussion with his moose
colleagues none of his colleagues could cite an example in North
America in which a moose population was augmented by a stocking
program. Furthermore, it's a "horse of a different color" for a
city moose to be turned loose in winter with deep snow to
compete with local residents while not knowing where to go feed
or escape predators. He opined that to his knowledge augmenting
populations hasn't been done successfully in North America.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH related his understanding that Mr.
VanBallenberghe alluded to some transportation relocation
problems.
MR. VanBALLENBERGHE said that he hasn't seen any concrete plans
other than those related today regarding building a trailer for
vehicle transport and the use of large aircraft. He turned
attention to his written comments, which relate that there are
serious problems keeping animals anesthetized for long periods.
As with humans, the rule is to do it for the minimum amount of
time. Transporting animals via aircraft requires an extended
amount of time under anesthesia, which places the animals at a
high risk of mortality.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG related Mr. VanBallenberghe's comments
that [maintaining the current] population would [require the
removal of] 250 a year. To do the aforementioned would require
a much larger program. In some ways it sounds as if the Alaska
Moose Federation is willing to take over ADF&G's
responsibilities in the Anchorage basin. "Is this as extensive
a program as that," he asked.
MR. VanBALLENBERGHE answered that he would hope not, and added
that ADF&G must adhere to legal and regulatory requirements to
which the department must adhere. He emphasized the need for
there to be expertise in administering these drugs, which are
the highest category of narcotics. The department is the holder
and dispenser of these drugs and those that use these drugs
should be trained. In fact, these individuals would preferably
be veterinarians. Even if private individuals could eventually
do this, these individuals will need training and supervision
that ADF&G would have to provide.
Number 2756
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG recalled Mr. VanBallenberghe's earlier
testimony regarding his involvement with numerous relocations.
He inquired as to the number of times Mr. VanBallenberghe has
missed the moose when using the anesthetic.
MR. VanBALLENBERGHE clarified that he has not been involved in
relocating moose, but rather has captured moose for research
purposes. Therefore, the procedure with which he has been
involved required "knocking them down" with a dart gun, placing
a collar on the moose, and gathering some data. In the
aforementioned situation, the moose get up and leave under their
own power. Mr. VanBallenberghe informed the committee that the
rule of thumb with wildlife capture operations is to be able to
immobilize animals with less than 5 percent mortality. He
opined that his own personal mortality rate with the capture of
moose is around 2 percent. He noted the potential of animals,
after being darted, running away and injuring themselves or the
dart hiting the moose in a vein or an artery which kills the
animal.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired as to how specific the Drug
Enforcement Agency's (DEA) regulations are with regard to who is
allowed to handle the moose anesthetic.
CO-CHAIR MASEK stated that perhaps the aforementioned question
would best be directed to a department official.
MR. VanBALLENBERGHE said that ADF&G typically purchases and
dispenses the drug. Furthermore, ADF&G typically has one or
more veterinarians on staff who hold the proper licenses. Also,
ADF&G has the proper storage facilities, which are carefully
regulated. Those to whom the drug is dispensed are typically
researchers with training in the use of the drug.
Number 2948
KAREN DEATHERAGE, Alaska Program Associate, Defenders of
Wildlife, related that the Defenders of Wildlife have serious
concerns with SB 329. She informed the committee that she
served on the Urban Wildlife Task Force for Anchorage, the
purpose of which was to develop a plan for managing the city's
wildlife and to identify priority actions to help enhance the
benefits of wildlife to the community while minimizing human-
wildlife conflicts.
TAPE 04-23, SIDE B
MS. DEATHERAGE indicated that the plan [for managing the city's
wildlife] was completed in April 2000, after exhaustive public
input. The aforementioned plan was adopted under the Anchorage
20/20 Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Deatherage
explained that the plan recognized that moose provide residents
and visitors in Anchorage with exceptional viewing
opportunities. A poll conducted in the mid 1990s showed that 87
percent of Anchorage residents believe that while moose can
cause some problems, they make life in Anchorage interesting and
special. The poll further showed that an even higher percentage
of residents take pride in the city's wildlife and believe that
people should learn to live with some conflict.
MS. DEATHERAGE related that although the Defenders of Wildlife
respect the efforts of the Alaska Moose Federation to reduce
conflicts between moose and Alaska residents, Defenders of
Wildlife doesn't believe that relocation is a feasible or
reasonable solution to resolving the conflicts between moose and
people. However, she noted that the Defenders of Wildlife would
support the transport of any road killed or dispatched moose
meat to rural areas. Still, the Defenders of Wildlife believes
that the most effective long-term solution for minimizing
wildlife conflicts is public education. The aforementioned has
been recently proven with the collective efforts of ADF&G and
groups such as Defenders of Wildlife, which have resulted in a
large reduction of bear conflicts in Anchorage. She noted that
Defenders of Wildlife also partnered with the National Park
Service to prevent conflicts with wolves in Denali National Park
and Preserve. Ms. Deatherage suggested that perhaps an
alternative solution to SB 329 is for the legislature to support
the establishment of an Anchorage Moose Planning Task Force,
similar to the Anchorage Bear Committee. Under the
aforementioned solution, education and conflict resolution
efforts can be addressed at a comprehensive level by multiple
agencies and the public. "We're just taking a piece of an issue
and we're going to try to resolve it with something that will
likely be unacceptable to residents. And I think if we look at
having just a small task force, we could put out a really good
plan and some actions in a very short period of time that will
greatly reduce the conflicts between moose and people in the
city," she opined.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired as to the recommendations of
the task force working on this problem.
MS. DEATHERAGE related that in the [task force's] plan a
nuisance moose "wouldn't be herded from yards, gardens, school
bus tops, roads, or recreational plans but an education program
designed to develop and distribute information on these type of
situations is a high priority action in this plan." Ms.
Deatherage recalled a recent incident in which a young boy [was
hurt] by a moose and there was evidence that those children were
harassing the moose with water guns and other things.
Therefore, more education with regard to how to respect moose,
would greatly reduce conflicts. Ms. Deatherage emphasized that
the plan never really looked at relocation at the level it is
put forth in SB 329. The [recommendations of the plan] haven't
been implemented at the level [the Defenders of Wildlife] would
like.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that there are only so
many things that can be done to mitigate the conflicts between
moose and people. Therefore, he questioned what can be done
with an animal that becomes a nuisance and is dangerous to life
and property. He asked if the Defenders of Wildlife believe
it's appropriate to dispatch an animal.
MS. DEATHERAGE replied yes, which is why a nuisance moose in the
plan is defined as an aggressive moose. She informed the
committee that about 5-10 moose are [classified as aggressive
moose], and therefore she wasn't sure that [relocation] would
have the impact the Alaska Moose Federation indicates in regard
to vehicle collisions. Ms. Deatherage reiterated support for
dispatching an aggressive animal, adding that she wasn't sure
there would be support for relocating an aggressive animal.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH opined that due to a moose's size, it
doesn't have to be aggressive in order to be dangerous.
Number 2687
MARIE WARNKE informed the committee that she lives in an
apartment complex with six other families. Moose are in the
yard all winter and it's a positive experience for all of us.
Anchorage is the only metropolitan site in the U.S. with a major
population of moose. She opined that most people enjoy the
opportunity to see and experience the moose and don't want to
reduce the moose population. Although there are occasional
problems with moose, she related her belief that ADF&G does a
good job managing the problems. Most moose and human contact
are preventable with education information. Ms. Warnke said she
would be willing to volunteer her time to educate people on this
matter. In conclusion, Ms. Warnke urged the committee to hold
SB 329 until Anchorage residents could obtain all the facts and
provide comments.
Number 2564
LINDA DONEGAN said that she was unclear as to the purpose of and
beneficiaries of SB 329. She pointed out that if [SB 329] is
addressing nuisance moose that ADF&G would normally destroy,
that's only about 10 animals a year. Ms. Donegan said that she
didn't oppose destroying [nuisance moose], and furthermore she
said she hasn't heard any public outcry against the practice.
"It appears that the purpose of this legislation is to provide
hunting opportunities with these moose in a suitable, designated
hunting area," she opined. However, transporting 10 moose a
year that may not even survive a transplant and predators won't
significantly influence the harvest rate. She also mentioned
that the meat may be tainted by drugs. If the purpose is to
remove moose posing a significant risk to the health, safety, or
economic well being of persons in the area, then why does the
legislation include a disclaimer against lawsuits for damages or
costs that arise from the practice. Ms. Donegan pointed out
that if the definition of "nuisance moose" is to extend to a
population reduction program for Anchorage and the moose were
transplanted to areas where more moose are desirable, the
motivation becomes clear. However, the majority of Anchorage
residents don't want the moose population reduced. When
Anchorage residents were surveyed in 1997, 78 percent claimed
that they saw the right amount of moose or would like to see
more moose. In fact, a planning group following [the survey]
found that the tolerance for moose was for far greater numbers
than the habitat could support. Additionally, two-thirds of
[Anchorage] residents tolerated encounters with moose in
neighborhoods, on trails, and in their garden. The
aforementioned is why there is no moose hunt in Anchorage. Ms.
Donegan said that she didn't need Senator Gary Olson, who
represents a minority viewpoint, doing thinking for her. She
related that there are other options, besides removing moose, to
reduce moose-vehicle encounters. The moose population in
Anchorage is stable and controlled by the habitat.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE related her understanding that Ms. Donegan
believes the habitat supports the moose population [in
Anchorage]. She inquired as to where Ms. Donegan is obtaining
her information.
MS. DONEGAN clarified that socially the residents of Anchorage
would accept a higher moose population than the habitat could
support. The population is controlled by the amount of food
available. In further response to Representative Heinze, Ms.
Donegan specified that she obtained that information from the
planning group, Living with Wildlife Planning Group for
Anchorage, that followed the 1997 survey. All of the statistics
came from ADF&G, she confirmed.
Number 2314
TOM HARRIS, President/CEO, Alaska Village Initiatives, informed
the committee that Alaska Village Initiatives represents Bush
organizations and rural communities throughout Alaska. The
aforementioned areas are experiencing a significant reduction in
the moose population. The Alaska Village Initiatives exists to
help rebuild those economies because the reduction of moose in a
community requires approximately $4,000 to replace that protein.
Alaska Village Initiatives supports SB 329 since it allows new
stock to be brought into areas that have been depleted. Mr.
Harris stated that the habitat is part of the issue, the moose
population [in Anchorage] isn't stable but rather is very
dynamic. The development of subdivisions is forcing moose into
traffic areas, which he predicted will cause more collisions.
Furthermore, because of the planting of certain plants in these
subdivisions more moose are being attracted to these areas. Mr.
Harris characterized the current situation as the beginning of
the problem and highlighted Anchorage's approach to the Canadian
geese problem. Mr. Harris urged the committee to take a close
look at this issue.
CO-CHAIR MASEK closed public testimony.
Number 2081
MATT ROBUS, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, turned to the immobilizing agent,
anesthetic, used for moose. He said that it's a high order
narcotic that's extremely potent. The drug is used in a high
concentration because it's used to immobilize a very large
animal quickly. The aforementioned is advantageous because the
large animal can't go very far and can't cause much damage to
itself, others, or property. However, the drug is extremely
potent and requires much care.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired as to the training required to
administer this drug. She questioned whether there are any DEA
rules regarding this drug.
MR. ROBUS explained that [ADF&G] has its staff attend training
courses with regard to properly handling this drug, which he
assumed would be the case for any third party staff involved in
the captures. The department and its veterinarian have the
authority to procure, store, and dispense this drug. Under the
aforementioned authority trained staff are allowed to use the
drug. Mr. Robus said that many of the details have to be worked
out, but noted that [the use of this drug] would either fall
under ADF&G's authority or the third party organization's
authority.
Number 1918
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired as to how long the tranquilizer
stays in an animal's system. She related her understanding that
any animals that are transported will have to be tagged so that
it couldn't be taken for human consumption. However, she
questioned what would happen to an animal that ate moose meat
[before the tranquilizer had left the moose's system].
MR. ROBUS informed the committee that with this tranquilizer the
animal goes down and is stable for a long time, when those
effects need to be reversed another drug is injected and within
a few minutes the animal is back to normal. In terms of the
drug being in the moose's system, he related his understanding
that the drugs would be fairly well metabolized out of the
system. However, due to federal government guidelines and
sensible guidelines the department [requires] a 45-day period
before the meat can be consumed. Therefore, animals being
relocated that could potentially be taken during a hunting
season are tagged with information specifying that the meat
can't be consumed until a certain date. The aforementioned is
commonly done with black bear in Juneau. In further response,
Mr. Robus said he thought it would be highly unlikely that a
moose would face predation three days after being handled. He
said he didn't have an answer with regard to the effects on a
predator eating tainted meat.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG turned to the information saying that
250 or more moose need to be moved from the Anchorage basin
annually. He asked if Mr. Robus viewed [SB 329] as a reduction
in ADF&G's workload or an increase due to additional monitoring.
MR. ROBUS said that those were primary concerns during the
initial discussions of SB 329, which is why CSSB 329(RES) isn't
going to cost the department anything. In one scenario there
could be a third party that could be trained and certified to go
out and perform these [relocations] without any cost to the
department. This third party would work with the department to
determine which moose are targeted and where the moose would be
released. There could also be a scenario in which ADF&G
personnel are involved, but the expenses could be reimbursed by
the third party organization. He specified that there are many
details to be addressed. In further response to Representative
Guttenberg, Mr. Robus confirmed that ADF&G was involved with the
Living With Wildlife study. In fact, he related his belief that
the study was either sponsored or partnered by the Division of
Wildlife Conservation. After the plan went through the entire
process, it was incorporated into a larger municipal planning
process.
Number 1541
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if Mr. Robus saw a conflict with
this growing from the public involvement [of the aforementioned
study and plan]. He also asked if this relocation program would
mesh with anything [in the Living With Wildlife study].
MR. ROBUS said that he isn't equipped with the details of the
plan. However, the identification of whether a moose is a
nuisance or a valuable piece of Alaska is controversial and will
have to be addressed. Furthermore, some moose will not survive
the relocation efforts, which will also create some controversy.
Mr. Robus characterized SB 329 as an alternative to the current
status in which ADF&G and the Department of Public Safety face
dispatching a moose or advising people to give it space.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG recalled earlier testimony regarding a
city moose having difficulty once located in a rural
environment.
MR. ROBUS indicated that's a challenge, which led the department
to request that it be involved with determining the destination
habitat. A moose placed in an area where the moose population
has been driven down due to factors in the area, such as
predation, deep snow, and hunting pressures, is unlikely to be
very successful. However, placing a moose in an area where the
state is involved in active management, predation levels are
low, the habitat is of high quality, the moose may have a fair
chance of succeeding. Like much of this, it will depend upon
the implementation of the program, he said.
Number 1341
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO remarked that moose are in yards because
they are looking for a good, nutritious source of food that's
easy to get. However, now the desire is to force them out.
"Are we doing something that's helpful and beneficial and are we
looking at it from the moose's point of view or are we just
trying to protect ourselves," he asked. He noted the enjoyment
he has with the one to two moose a year he has visiting.
CO-CHAIR MASEK pointed out that it's illegal to feed or attract
moose into an area.
MR. ROBUS commented that a high-density moose population has
been created in urban areas where the moose come down from the
mountains when the snow is deep, where there isn't much
predation, and there are yard plants that attract moose. The
department and law enforcement have to deal with these large
wild animals and their public safety implications no matter the
decision on this legislation.
Number 1026
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE inquired as to whether a moose would have
a long, happy life coming down into the bowl or being relocated.
MR. ROBUS said that's difficult to answer. The department's
basic job is to provide wildlife for the people of the state to
use. Urban moose [serve the purpose] of being enjoyed, except
when that's not the case, while those moose in hunting areas are
used in a different manner. "From our perspective, ... our
greatest purpose is not to prolong the moose's life for the most
time, it's in order to provide moose for people to use," he
clarified. If conflicts can be minimized along the way, that
would be great.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if most of the moose that are
relocated would be placed in areas where they would be hunted.
MR. ROBUS answered that such as been worked out. However, he
related his understanding that one of the purposes behind the
legislation is reducing problems at the municipal end while
allowing the animals to be available for harvest.
Number 0669
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if ADF&G is prepared to authorize a third
party organization or individual to carry out the proposal in SB
329 and determine the designated habitat area.
MR. ROBUS pointed out that all of the tasks for the department
rely on a written application and proposal. He surmised that
organizations would approach the department with their ideas
regarding how this should be done and ADF&G would work them in
an attempt to strike an agreement. He highlighted that ADF&G
will always be involved in what moose will be moved or not
moved. Mr. Robus said the department is prepared to take on the
tasks. In response to Representative Stepovich, Mr. Robus
indicated that the notification process could happen in a
variety of ways.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if there is a public process for
evaluation or a private contract without oversight.
MR. ROBUS read the language to be in the nature of a cooperative
agreement in which the state and the party would negotiate with
regard to what's agreeable. Once the department agreed, it
would go into effect. Therefore, he didn't envision it as a
large public process.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired as to how an individual would
be able to influence the department that a moose in his or her
yard isn't a nuisance.
MR. ROBUS said that would have to be determined in the
agreement. He emphasized that the moose is the property of the
state and thus is managed by ADF&G no matter whose property it's
on. However, he acknowledged that there are access issues and
the private property owner would be involved in determining what
happens with a state animal on private property. In further
response to Representative Guttenberg, Mr. Robus suspected that
this transfer of authority to a third party does exist
elsewhere. He noted that there is a new nuisance wildlife
statute that allows ADF&G to authorize others to handle other
nuisance wildlife, but most of those are done under permits or
licenses.
CO-CHAIR MASEK closed public testimony.
Number 0093
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM moved to report CSSB 329(RES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected. Although he applauded the
Alaska Moose Federation and it's goal, there are many unanswered
questions.
TAPE 04-24, SIDE A
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG opined that the Anchorage area has
done a lot of research on this matter and it seems that needs to
be coordinated with this legislation.
Number 0082
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that this is legislation for which
the case can be made either way. He noted that although he has
some [concerns] with this legislation, he applauds the efforts
of the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH related that his friend was killed when
a moose ran across the road. This legislation seems to be a
step in addressing the issue of moose crossing the highways.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE agreed that this legislation is a large
step in the right direction because she would rather see a moose
in a better environment where it is away from harassment.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that she has some questions, which
she believes ADF&G can address. She also said she believes if
the third party doesn't create a practical alternative and there
aren't areas with suitable habitat that the proposal won't
happen. She expressed that both sides of this issue can find a
solution so that the moose aren't automatically destroyed.
Although she noted her skepticism, she said she is willing to
give the proposal a chance.
Number 0542
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG withdrew his objection.
CO-CHAIR MASEK, upon determining there was no further objection,
announced that CSSB 329(RES) was reported out of the House
Resources Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:20 p.m. to 3:22 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:22 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|