02/04/2008 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB256 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 4, 2008
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Co-Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Roses
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 256
"An Act relating to active game management and to the airborne
or same day airborne taking of certain game animals; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 256
SHORT TITLE: ACTIVE GAME MANAGEMENT/AIRBORNE SHOOTING
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
05/11/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/11/07 (H) RES, JUD
01/30/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
01/30/08 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/08 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/04/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
RON SOMERVILLE, Member
Board of Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 256.
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 256.
DOUG LARSON, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 256.
NICK JANS
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 256.
ROD ARNO, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 256.
JOE KLUTSCH, President
Alaska Professional Hunters Association
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 256.
WADE WILLIS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 256.
CLIFF JUDKINS, Chair
Board of Game
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 256.
PATRICIA CUE
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 256.
DAVID OTNESS
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 256.
YOLANDA DE LA CRUZ
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 256.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03:25 PM. Representatives
Edgmon, Kawasaki, Seaton, Gatto, and Johnson were present at the
call to order. Representatives Guttenberg, Fairclough, and
Wilson arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 256-ACTIVE GAME MANAGEMENT/AIRBORNE SHOOTING
1:03:50 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 256, "An Act relating to active game
management and to the airborne or same day airborne taking of
certain game animals; making conforming amendments; and
providing for an effective date."
1:05:09 PM
RON SOMERVILLE, Member, Board of Game, testified in support of
HB 256 on behalf of the Board of Game and himself. He said the
bill clarifies things and makes them less cumbersome. Article 8
of the state constitution has four sections dealing with natural
resources, he related. He read Section 4 of Article 8 regarding
sustained yield which states (original punctuation provided):
Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other
replenishable resources belonging to the State shall
be utilized, developed, and maintained on the
sustained yield principle, subject to preferences
among beneficial uses.
MR. SOMERVILLE said it is clear that the state, legislature, or
Board of Game - depending on who the authority is delegated to
and, in this case, it is the board - has the option of
determining what the best beneficial use is. He read Section 3
of Article 8 regarding common use which states (original
punctuation provided):
Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish,
wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for
common use.
MR. SOMERVILLE read Section 1 of Article 8 regarding statement
of policy which states (original punctuation provided):
It is the policy of the State to encourage the
settlement of its land and the development of its
resources by making them available for maximum use
consistent with the public interest.
1:08:17 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked how long Mr. Somerville has been on the
Board of Game.
MR. SOMERVILLE responded five years. In further response to Co-
Chair Gatto, Mr. Somerville stated that his thought on maximum
use, when tied to Section 2 [of Article 8], is that when there
is a resource that presently has no value to the citizens of the
state, then there is an obligation to figure out a way to use
the resource so it benefits Alaskans. It does not mean to abuse
it, he said, but it does mean to use it.
1:09:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether the directives in HB 256
- "shall" identify those ungulate populations where human use is
desired, "shall" establish the level of human use that is
desired, and "shall" manage for that purpose - take away the
Board of Game's flexibility to manage "among beneficial uses" as
written in Alaska's constitution.
MR. SOMERVILLE answered no. He said the question is whether the
beneficial uses of particular resources are being taken away in
the process of providing other beneficial uses. As long as it
is biologically possible and not a conservation concern, then it
is not right to take away the use of those particular resources,
he said. The flexibility remains because in some cases
nonconsumptive use can be provided in a particular area by
allowing additional consumptive use in an adjacent area or for
another species. For instance, he said, there are wolf viewing
areas around [Denali National Park and Preserve] and non-hunting
areas for a variety of species throughout the state, yet the
state still tries to provide for the maximum beneficial uses of
those resources by Alaskans.
1:11:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that the Board of Game currently
has the flexibility statutorily and constitutionally to provide
for various uses. However, Section 3 of HB 256 [lines 12-14]
directs that, "The Board of Game shall identify moose, caribou,
and deer populations that are important for providing for a high
level of human harvest and shall establish objectives for human
harvest..." and Section 4 [line 16] directs that, "The Board of
Game shall adopt regulations to achieve the objectives...."
Will the Board of Game lose its flexibility because HB 256
dictates that it must manage for certain things, he asked.
MR. SOMERVILLE replied he does not think it takes away the
flexibility. The statutes require the Board of Game to identify
those populations of moose, caribou, and deer that are used
primarily for food, it does not say all populations. The board
has the option of identifying those populations and that is not
a bad system.
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural
Resources Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), stated that he is the attorney general assigned to the
Board of Game. He said HB 256 would not change the obligations
that the Board of Game currently has. Under current statute,
the board is obligated to identify for intensive management
those ungulate populations that are important for high levels of
human consumptive use. This bill just makes those obligations
clearer and less complicated. As far as removing some of the
board's discretion, the discretion comes in at the outset when
the board decides which populations are important to manage for
high levels of human consumptive use.
1:15:39 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether HB 256 clarifies the statute or
overrules the statute.
MR. SAXBY responded he thinks it is clear in the earlier statute
but it is a much more complicated process, and HB 256 simplifies
it down to its bare essentials. He reiterated that the Board of
Game's discretion is exercised at the outset, but once a
population is identified there would still be discretion to
manage it for other uses so long as the intensive management
goals are met.
1:16:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG related that there are differences in
interpretation of what a scientist considers a sustained yield
and what the Board of Game considers a sustained yield for human
use. How is this difference in interpretations - the conflict
between sustained yield and intensive management - reconciled in
HB 256, he asked.
MR. SAXBY said HB 256 would remove the definition of sustained
yield from current law because it is a narrow definition that is
problematic and does not coincide with the broader
interpretations of sustained yield. Sustained yield varies from
population to population or place to place or time to time and
removing this narrow definition will allow more flexibility.
The constitution requires sustained yield management and the
constitution always trumps any statute, he said. So, intensive
management could never legally result in a situation that
violated the sustained yield principle.
1:19:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether this means that the
legislature's definition of sustained yield would no longer be
in statute and would become something that the Board of Game
establishes to coincide with this intensive management theory.
MR. SAXBY stated, "The board will operate under the sustained
yield principle on intensive management questions just like it
does for every single other decision it makes. There is
currently no statutory definition of sustained yield except for
the intensive management process itself." Every decision that
the board makes on seasons, bag limits, and whether animals
should or should not be harvested, is made without a
legislatively designated definition of sustained yield and is
prompted by scientific information from the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game about sustained yield parameters. This will be
treated the same way, he said.
1:20:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG requested Mr. Saxby to provide him
with a copy of what the Alaska Department of Fish & Game defines
as sustained yield.
MR. SAXBY deferred to Doug Larson of the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said he would wait until Mr. Larson
testifies.
1:20:56 PM
MR. SOMERVILLE quoted Article 8, Section 2, of the constitution
which states (original punctuation provided):
The legislature shall provide for the utilization,
development, and conservation of all natural resources
belonging to the State, including land and waters, for
the maximum benefit of its people.
MR. SOMERVILLE said the legislature and Board of Game are always
faced with the basic principle that 60 percent of Alaska is
federal land and 80 percent of those are off limits to any sort
of intensive or proactive management. Thus, the state must
provide these maximum benefits to its residents on essentially
150 million acres of state and private lands. There is no
luxury not to have the legislature give direction to the Board
of Game to identify and establish population objectives and
harvest objectives, he opined. In a good part of the state,
moose, caribou, and deer are virtually the livestock of
Alaskans. The legislature is saying that these three important
food species shall be given the highest priority. He said he
does not think HB 256 takes away scientific justifications.
1:22:42 PM
MR. SOMERVILLE added that any lawyer can craft up disagreements
in statistics or objectives. He acknowledged that good
scientists have said that what the board is doing is not
scientifically credible. The point is, he said, the board has
taken the information presented to it, along with
recommendations from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, and
decided on specific actions designed to provide the maximum
benefit to Alaskans. He addressed the criticism that the five
[predator control] areas selected by the board only benefit
urban sportsmen. A lot of people are looking for areas to go
hunting, he said, and the Board of Game has a hard time
accommodating all of those. Providing places for urban people
to go hunting takes pressure off some of the rural areas that
are receiving too much competition. The largest Native
community in Alaska is Anchorage and the Board of Game is as
obligated to them as it is to the people in outlying areas.
1:24:31 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether the Board of Game has a charter,
bylaws, or some other document that gives it direction.
MR. SOMERVILLE replied the legislature has identified in statute
the overlying obligations and responsibilities of the
commissioners as well as each of the boards. The statutes
provide for a variety of uses, including subsistence, hunting,
fishing, and trapping.
1:25:15 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO said the word maximum is clear to him, but he
wrestles with the word benefit because he has been unable to
make benefit inclusive to include everybody agrees. For
instance, when someone takes a moose did that benefit me?
MR. SOMERVILLE responded that it could, but that Co-Chair Gatto
is not the maximum of the population of Alaska and that is the
point. The federal government controls 60 percent of Alaska and
it does not provide what he considers the maximum benefits to
Alaskans - some benefits, yes; but the maximum, no. One of
those benefits is taking animals for food. The federal
government does not participate in any proactive management of
these food species, he said. There is a critical biological
situation in Game Management Unit 9 related to caribou and
moose, but the federal refuge people do not help in alleviating
the problem, so it falls back on the state to provide this.
Regarding maximum benefits, if the population is prohibited from
doing something on 60 percent of the state, is there not some
benefit in providing for that on the 150 million acres? The
legislature and the boards must balance that, he said. If 5
people benefit from one thing and 600,000 benefit from something
else, obviously the latter is the maximum benefit.
1:27:10 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether the word critical is the same as
emergency.
MR. SOMERVILLE replied not in his opinion. He asked if the
question is in regard to the use of the word emergency in the
2008 Airborne Wolf Ballot Initiative.
CO-CHAIR GATTO said the initiative uses this reference.
MR. SOMERVILLE understood the term used in the initiative to be
biological emergency.
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked how a situation would be determined an
emergency as would be directed by the 2008 initiative versus
heading it off beforehand.
MR. SOMERVILLE said he is speaking for himself when addressing
the terms used in the 2008 initiative and that determining what
constitutes a biological emergency has never been agreed upon by
three different judges. Regarding irreversible decline, he said
he is unaware of any active managers in the United States who
would say management of a population should only start when it
is in irreversible decline. Allowing a moose or caribou
population to reach a point of irreversible decline would be
biologically irresponsible, he said. What if fisheries were
managed this way? That is the situation Alaska was in at
statehood.
1:28:46 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO agreed that the state was previously in an
irreversible decline and serious prohibitions were required to
reverse that decline.
MR. SOMERVILLE pointed out that it took a long time to reverse
that decline. Why would the state want to wait 50-70 years for
a moose population to recover from a predator pit when it has
the responsibility to provide food for its residents, he asked.
1:29:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked for Mr. Somerville's opinion
regarding the importance of having someone on the Board of Game
who resides in rural Alaska.
MR. SOMERVILLE noted that he worked for the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game for 24 years during which time he worked with both
the Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries. He said there
were very few times when Alaska Natives were not represented on
the board, but that did not mean their interests were not
represented. It is hard to get rural people to step up to the
plate because there is not much benefit to being on the boards.
However, he said, it is politically prudent to [have a rural
resident on the Board of Game].
1:31:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON requested Mr. Somerville's opinion
regarding the changes in Section 2 of HB 256 which would delete
the term "intensive management" and change "big game prey
populations" to "game populations".
MR. SOMERVILLE said he looks at this as a simplification.
Intensive management conjures up all sorts of misconceptions.
Taking out the words big and prey does not change anything
because it still identifies game populations and thus remains
consistent. He said he thought intensive management was struck
from all of the existing law in this redraft, not just Section
2. He deferred to Mr. Saxby, drafter of the bill.
MR. SAXBY explained that in HB 256 "intensive management" has
been changed to "active management". In Section 2 it is
unnecessary to include the term "intensive management" because
the reference is to the controlling statute, AS 16.05.255(f).
He directed attention to Section 5 where the term "intensive
management" has become "active management" and is defined. In
further response to Representative Wilson, Mr. Saxby said active
management is defined only in [Section 5(j)(1)], but it could be
defined more precisely if the legislature chooses. The reason
predator control is specifically stated in the definition is to
make it clear that the use of predator control continues to be
approved by the legislature.
1:35:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired what the Board of Game does that
is not included in the definition of active management.
MR. SAXBY noted that intensive management is currently defined
as active management. Active management is viewed by biologists
and game managers as something beyond the passive management of
setting seasons and bag limits, and could include among other
things habitat manipulation, predator control, supplemental
feeding, medical treatments. He deferred further explanation to
Mr. Doug Larson.
1:37:05 PM
DOUG LARSON, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, said several definitions would be
removed from existing [law] and sustained yield is a good
example of why that is appropriate. He read the existing
definition of sustained yield which states: "Achievement and
maintenance in perpetuity of the ability to support a high level
of human harvest of game subject to preferences among beneficial
uses on an annual or periodic basis." He said this definition
is far reaching and includes some subjectivity which is
inappropriate. This is not the definition that was in any of my
science textbooks, he pointed out. A more appropriate
definition of sustained yield would reflect what state
biologists attempt to achieve with wildlife populations, he
said, and state something similar to the following: "The
numbers of animals in any given population that can be taken
without adversely affecting that population and that provides
for perpetual use of that population." It does not necessarily
have to be high levels, he said, because sustainability is not
necessarily going to be high depending on populations.
1:39:11 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether harvestable surplus is the same
thing as sustained yield.
MR. LARSON replied that harvestable surplus is the amount of
animals that could be harvested in any given year that is beyond
births and mortality. As populations increase, some animals
will die from disease, accidents, and predation. He said the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game would argue that predation is
part of what comes out of that equation when talking about
harvestable surplus, which is then the amount of animals above
that that could be taken out. Harvestable surplus is different
in terms of sustained yield in that harvestable surplus varies
from a number of factors that are part of the equation. So,
they are not really the same, he said, but they have
similarities because of having to do with what is above and
beyond maintenance. In terms of what the harvest can be, there
are other variables that play in beyond just what is
sustainable.
1:40:34 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO surmised that there is a very real danger in
harvestable surplus because it requires knowing literally
everything for every population, including the habitat, birth
rate, and mortality rate. It would be difficult to know what
the right formula is for every single place.
MR. LARSON said that is exactly the difficulty that biologists
face in trying to get good information upon which to make
decisions relative to populations of wildlife. The Alaska
Department of Fish & Game recognizes that it cannot do that on a
detailed level all across the state. Consequently, the
department focuses on the places where it has the most concerns,
and those concerns can come to the department through public
input. Obviously, he said, the department most needs good
information for those places where populations have been
identified for high levels of human harvest. Biologists provide
the best information they have to the Board of Game, and it is
always a given that there could be more information. The
department tries to get the information that is necessary to
make sound decisions about how to ensure the long term
sustainability of both predator and prey populations, he said.
1:42:41 PM
MR. SOMERVILLE stated that the Board of Game has been tied up in
court on these issues for years. He said predator control has
not jeopardized any predator population in the state. In the
early 1970s, he related, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
went into a research area in the upper Nelchina and took out
every wolf in the area for the purpose of finding out what was
causing the rapid decline in moose calf survival. The cause
turned out to be bears and that discovery was important in terms
of how to manipulate the bear population to benefit the moose.
But, he said, the point is that within five years of being taken
out, the wolves had reestablished themselves throughout the
entire area. All the time spent in court is a waste of time, he
said, the legislature needs to make it simple. Tell the board
what should be done and then let the board and the department
exercise their best judgment in getting there. He said less
than 700 wolves have been taken from the five predator control
areas over a five year time period. In comparison, in 2002 the
U.S. Department of Agriculture took 86,000 coyotes in 37 of the
Lower 48 states and, of those, 35,000 were taken by the use of
aircraft. Yet there is this disproportionate interest in
Alaska. Predator control is not hunting or fair chase, it is
implementing programs. It is not whether the state is making
good judgments, it is whether a procedural problem can be found,
and that is the problem with the existing law and the purpose
for getting HB 256 before the legislature. There are
differences of opinion as to what the mandate to the board and
the department is.
1:45:39 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO commented that the predators will disappear when
their prey disappears and there is nothing left to eat. He
agreed that wolves have no trouble reproducing and asked how big
a wolf litter is and how often are litters born.
MR. SOMERVILLE said the average litter size is 8-10 once a year.
CO-CHAIR GATTO remarked that prey populations in irrevocable
decline cannot find one another in order to reproduce. He said
he is concerned about doing nothing in areas where there is a
catastrophic decline because the decline will just continue.
1:48:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that even if predators are
eliminated, prey populations will still go through up and down
cycles due to other reasons. Thus, the dispute is over what it
is that the state is trying to control. He drew attention to
page 2, line 29, of HB 258 and asked what criteria the Board of
Game will use to determine a high probability of success for
human harvest. That may become the crux of the decision making
process as to how much predator control there must be because
the definition is high probability of success.
MR. SOMERVILLE said the board faces that a lot. A 35-50 percent
success ratio is a high probability of success, he stated, and
records of past success are kept by the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game. Right now moose populations are very high south of
Fairbanks and the board is trying to push people into that area
by methods and means and relaxation. The success ratios will be
watched closely because they indicate, in some cases, whether
the regulations are doing any good.
1:51:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the definition for achieving a "high
probability of success for human harvest" [line 29, page 2]
seems to be a definition without any definition because it does
not say what ratio constitutes a high probability of success.
MR. SOMERVILLE said his hesitancy for giving a figure is because
anything that the legislature does not clearly define will be up
to the Board of Game to define. The board makes definitions all
the time to further elaborate or interpret what it thinks the
legislature meant. This is probably one of those that the board
deals with, he said, but it is on a species-by-species basis. A
30 percent success ratio for moose hunting would be considered
terrible by deer hunters, and a 30 percent success ratio for
caribou would be considered terrible by residents of western
Alaska. There has to be some flexibility, but high probability
means it cannot be five percent, he said. Expectations vary by
unit and by population as to what is an acceptable ratio.
MR. SOMERVILLE concluded his testimony by requesting the
legislature to make things as clear, precise, and simple as
possible so the Board of Game is not stuck in court and can get
its mandates done. If the Board of Game cannot do it, he said,
money must be given to [the Alaska Department of Fish & Game] to
use helicopters to take those animals. He questioned the
statements of opponents who said they supported predator control
being done by trained biologists. When that was done before in
some of the department's research programs the opponents were
not supportive, he said.
1:56:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON drew attention to page 4, line 17, and
noted that he is trying to get a handle on what the standard
would be for the decision to take an action that "would be
conducive to achieving the objectives established for high human
harvest...." He asked whether that standard is so broad that
the Board of Game would be required to adopt practically any
proposal put before it, even if the causal relationship is
unknown because HB 256 requires that the board "shall".
MR. SOMERVILLE said he thinks the intent of the rewrite is that
the board must, at the least, be moving in the direction
conducive to achieving those objectives. When requested to
implement predator control the board considers whether it has
the ability to implement a successful program, he explained.
Unless there is a chance for success at predator control the
board will not do it. He said the previous wolf control in Game
Management Unit 13 demonstrated that it was still worthwhile -
even though bears were the major problem - because wolves take
1,000 to 4,000 moose a year in that unit. Thus, the board
decided to affect a predator control program in this area.
However, there have been times when the board has decided
against taking action in an area because it knew that taking
measures would not result in moving in the direction of being
conducive to achieving the objectives.
1:59:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how much more would it cost to
conduct predator control by helicopter than by [fixed wing
aircraft].
MR. LARSON responded he does not have the exact figure but could
get that to the committee if requested. He said the private
citizens involved in the program are qualified and go through a
screening process before they are allowed to participate. These
citizens use and invest their own resources, he said, which
means it is resources that the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
and the state do not have to invest. Helicopters are extremely
expensive and would cost many times more than what is currently
being expended on the program.
2:01:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON related that, according to critics, the
present method of predator control is inhumane. What does the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game do to ensure that it is done in
as humane a way as possible, she inquired.
MR. LARSON said the department looks at a person's longevity in
and knowledge of a specific control program area and the person
must prove his or her expertise in using the machinery. Many of
the people permitted by the department were actively involved in
land and shoot hunting before it was disallowed. Thus, many of
them are quite efficient and best qualified to do this in a
humane manner. Absent an aerial technique, the department would
have to use ground techniques which are inhumane, he pointed
out. For example, snares are useful but not very palatable and
not the best technique. If it is the public's and the
legislature's will that the department practice active
management, it important that the department have the best
available tools to get the job done effectively, efficiently,
and as humanely as possible.
2:04:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON agreed that shooting would be more humane
than trapping.
CO-CHAIR GATTO added that snares and traps are indiscriminate
and he has seen ravens and other animals caught in traps.
Additionally, trappers sometimes have trouble with weather and
finding their own traps. Therefore, he is adverse to both
trapping and poisons. A helicopter and a state employee gunner
is unaffordable and would make it impossible to do, he opined,
but Supercubs are a good device.
MR. SOMERVILLE explained that a predator control program must
take 75-85 percent of the wolf population to be effective.
Sometimes helicopters are actually better than fixed wing and
can be used to "clean up". So, helicopters should not be taken
off the table, he advised.
CO-CHAIR GATTO said he did not want to take helicopters off the
table, but pointed out that the 2008 Airborne Wolf Ballot
Initiative would require helicopters and disallow fixed wing
aircraft.
2:08:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that hunting and trapping take
far more predators than aerial hunting. Will aerial control
that reduces a predator population by 85 percent put hunters and
trappers out of business, he asked.
MR. SOMERVILLE replied that the aerial control program conducted
in the five areas was done in conjunction with trappers. The
problem with only using trapping in a predator control program
is that few animals can be taken beyond 40-45 percent of the
population. He said he has never seen trapping be able to take
85 percent. The Alaska Department of Fish & Game works with
trappers to ensure that they have good opportunities to
participate in predator control, he related.
2:10:46 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked what kinds of firearms are used to take
predators in relation to practicing a humane method.
MR. LARSON answered that shotguns with 00 buckshot are used from
aircraft because there are more projectiles and a rifle is used
for land and shoot. In further response to Co-Chair Johnson
about the possibility of using automatic weapons from airplanes,
Mr. Larson explained that the issue has not been what firearm is
used to harvest the wolves. There has been good success using
shotguns, he advised.
2:13:32 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON surmised that once an animal is targeted, the
success rate is good so that wounding and suffering of the
animals is a nonissue.
MR. LARSON said the Alaska Department of Fish & Game expects
that every effort will be made to kill these animals as humanely
as possible. This is done by making sure that the permitted
individuals have a record that shows they can do this
effectively and humanely.
2:14:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether removal of a certain
animal from a pack will result in a higher reproductive rate
within the pack or change where the pack or individuals range.
MR. LARSON acknowledged that wolf dynamics do play a part in the
ultimate population levels throughout the state. However, the
predator control programs are focused on removing a certain
number of animals relative to the existing numbers, and social
dynamics are not part of the consideration because it is not
something in the department's control.
2:15:50 PM
NICK JANS said he spent 20 years living in Alaska's western
villages and has killed many wolves and caribou himself. In
general a wolf dies hard, he related, and there is no humane way
to kill anything. However, that is a separate issue, he said,
and he is here on behalf of himself to represent a viewpoint
that does not get much representation. By constitution,
Alaska's wildlife belongs to all Alaskans, including the rural
residents not represented on the Board of Game. He said Mr.
Somerville's support of HB 256 is a red flag to him because he
feels that Mr. Somerville does not support his views.
Supposedly this program is to benefit the poor rural Native
Alaskans. Yet, said Mr. Jans, he has never heard any Eskimos
say they could not get a moose or caribou because of wolves.
Rather, he related, they say it is because white airplane
hunters from somewhere else got in the way. Rural residents are
concerned about the wealthy outside sport hunters who arrive in
their own personal airplanes to hunt. He is for predator
control, he said, but it should be done in a science-based
manner by the experts. It should not be at the behest of
political appointees, and HB 256 gives a lot of discretionary
power to political appointees who do not represent all of the
people of Alaska.
2:19:40 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether predator control could include
removing outside airplane hunters who come to hunt in an area
where they do not live.
MR. JANS said he is sure there would be rural residents who
would make that argument. However, it is state land and it is
legal; sport hunting and subsistence can co-exist in certain
areas if they are well managed. This hearing is not a general
stump speech for or against predator control, he said, it is
about what HB 256 would do. The bill gives too much
discretionary power to a group of political appointees who are
charged with representing all the people of Alaska whom they do
not represent. For instance, these political appointees do not
represent the 56,000 registered voters who signed the petition
for the last ballot initiative.
2:21:33 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO said the legislature approves the political
appointees to the Board of Game. Thus, in all fairness, the
blame should be shared by the legislature.
MR. JANS allowed that it is hard to get rural residents to do
something like being on the Board of Game. What the people he
knows care about, he related, is whether or not they see animals
when they go out. They are voting residents of the state on
whom outsiders' views are imposed. He acknowledged that he is
an outsider, but that he can report what he hears being said.
2:23:37 PM
MR. JANS continued his testimony. He said the maximum use
consistent with the public interest is a curious and bothersome
phrase to him. He asked, "If all Alaskans ... are represented
here, what about the nonconsumptive user which does not include
me?" All Alaskans should be represented by the intent of HB
258. In a democracy where all people are represented there
would be a management plan that represents everyone, he opined.
In an ideal world wildlife management would be based only on
science, but instead it is highly politicized and predator
control even more so. Scientists can disagree with each other,
he said, and the National Academy of Sciences disagrees with
Alaska's predator control program.
2:26:12 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether there is an inherent conflict
between users and nonconsumptive users.
MR. JANS answered that he thinks there can be. Management must
be for both because everyone is part of the deal, he said, and
there must be management for rural preference. "If we are going
to give all this lip service to the poor people of rural Alaska
who can't get ... their moose or caribou, why ... aren't we
managing it for them first and foremost all the time." he asked.
In further response to Co-Chair Gatto, Mr. Jans confirmed that
he believes in rural preference because he has lived with people
who walk the walk - what is on the table is whatever animal was
around. He reiterated that he supports science-based predator
management, not management by a committee that can override, and
has overridden, the recommendations of the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game's scientists. He said controversy among scientists
is a red flag to him, such as when hundreds of very well
respected scientists are critiquing Alaska's predator control
program. Additionally, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game has
been stripped to the bone and there is no enforcement out there.
2:33:22 PM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
stated that he has been in the hunting guide business for the
last 40 years. He informed the committee that the Alaska
Outdoor Council has 2,876 current paying members, a database of
about 4,000 people, and is an umbrella organization for 47
clubs. So, he said, he is easily representing close to 7,000
Alaskans who choose to harvest a wild food source. The
important thing about [HB 256] is who it is benefitting. The
point of the intensive management law was to provide active
management of populations with a long history of human use so
their numbers would be the same as in the past, he related.
About 25,000 caribou and about 7,000 moose are taken annually by
people in Alaska. At 500 pounds of meat per moose and 150
pounds per caribou, that is over 7 million pounds of wild food
per year. Sixty percent of the state will never have any
predator control. More than 85,000 people purchase a hunting
license and feed their families, he said, and that is the reason
the Alaska Outdoor Council worked so hard to get the intensive
management law passed in the first place.
2:36:10 PM
MR. ARNO submitted that both the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game and the Board of Game used an incredible amount of
scientific information gathered by the department to implement
predator control in the five areas. The department will still
have its same authority and same mission statement under HB 256,
he maintained. Turn around is just starting to be seen in Game
Management Unit 13, so predator control does work. He said that
when he first started guiding in Game Management Unit 16B in
1970 there were 10,000 moose. Now there are less than 3,000 and
the harvest has dropped from 500 to 160. It is the same thing
for Game Management Unit 13 where 1,000 moose a year used to be
taken and now it is down to 300. [The predator control areas]
encompass less than 10 percent of the state, so saying that the
state is headed towards game farming is far from the truth, he
opined. The Alaska Outdoor Council recommends the committee
pass HB 256.
MR. ARNO, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, said he has been the
AOC executive director for the last four years, its president
for nine years, and a lobbyist for two years. In further
response to Co-Chair Gatto, Mr. Arno confirmed he has been
involved in both fish and game issues as well as access to
public lands.
2:39:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what criteria someone submitting a
proposal to the Board of Game would expect the board to follow
to determine whether to adopt or reject the proposal in regard
to achieving a high probability of success for human harvest as
directed on page 2, line 29, of the bill.
MR. ARNO replied the Board of Game went through a long process
to arrive at the current harvest objectives that are deemed
sustainable for the game management units. He said the board
considered the carrying capacity and the previous harvest
records. A population at half the carrying capacity is
considered the most productive, he noted. Based on the
aforementioned information, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
and various hunting organizations and individuals submitted what
they believed the harvest objectives should be. He said some
people believe the current harvest objectives are too high and
some believe they are too low. Areas that can be accessed
easily will have a higher success rate, he noted. Right now
about 30,000 people a year report getting a moose tag and 7,000
moose are taken. So the state is at 30 percent, the success
rate that is typically sought, he said.
2:41:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said his concern is that HB 256 would not
just set a harvest objective. It would set a new standard of a
high probability of success that will drive the Board of Game's
decisions, and whenever this standard is not achieved more will
have to be done, whether it is habitat manipulation, predator
control, or something else.
MR. ARNO responded he does not think that is a new criteria. It
is the same process that was used for each of the five [current
predator control] areas. If 30 percent of the hunters are not
getting a moose, that does not mean going in and burning down
the area to rebuild the habitat, he said. Each one of those
different factors that can be done in active management is, and
has been, discussed. "We've looked at quite a few of the
implementation plans that have gone through their five-year
cycle, and then now every year there has to be a report back on
them. There [have] been incremental changes - 16B is an example
of that where they were not seeing a recovery in that population
so they added bear control to that." In none of those cases is
it saying that if the 30 percent success rate is not achieved by
the hunters choosing to hunt in an area that it will go to
additional levels, he maintained. The biology of it has been
tied more to factors used by the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game such as cow-to-bull ratios and calf survival rate - a two
percent survival rate of calves means there is no recruitment.
Those have been the triggers that have stepped up the active
management in the past, he related, not that the success ratio
was less than 30 percent.
2:45:12 PM
JOE KLUTSCH, President, Alaska Professional Hunters Association,
spoke on behalf of himself and the hunting guides belonging to
his organization. He said he has spent nearly 40 years living
in rural Alaska and has hunted and been a big game guide
throughout the state. Mr. Klutsch spoke from the following
written testimony (original punctuation provided):
There is a great hunting tradition in our state, as
stated in the [Alaska Department of Fish & Game]
publication Predation Management in Alaska. "It is
integral to lifestyles, traditional cultures, the
economy and basic food needs for many Alaskan
families." I will add that many of those families are
guiding families who share substantial amounts of meat
with people who would otherwise not have access to
wild game.
The issue at hand is the dwindling numbers of moose,
caribou, Dall sheep and other ungulate species that
has occurred over the last 15 years. Most of these
declines can be directly attributable to ever
increasing number of predatorsparticularly
wolvesespecially in western and south central Alaska.
Historically active predator management resulted in
higher numbers of game species allowing for
sustainable long term use by hunters. Since the
1980's, efforts to manage predator numbers has been
curtailedthe result being continuing loss of
opportunity.
Opponents of this bill would like you to believe that
no predator control efforts should be undertaken until
a threshold of "biological emergency." This is simply
unacceptable. It intentionally ignores the fact that
at that point in the allocation equation non-resident
and general resident seasons are closed and in most
cases subsistence seasons are curtailed to Tier I or
Tier II where there are not enough animals to allow
for sustainable harvest. Allowing this to occur, we
will find many of our game species in the proverbial
predator pit where recovery may take decades. We have
a constitutional and even moral obligation not to
allow this to happen.
Nothing in this legislation spells doom for predators.
To the contrary it gives ADF&G and the Alaska Board of
Game (with thorough public input from all effected
parties) the ability to authorize and undertake
properly justified and measured predator management
programs. It allows us to act before we find
ourselves in a management crises. Acting only in the
case of a biological emergency is acting too late.
Failure to actively manage predator species,
particularly wolves is and will continue to have a
devastating effect on all Alaskan[s] who rely on prey
species.
In conclusion:
I urge you to do what is right and move this
legislation on to passage.
MR. KLUTSCH disagreed with a previous speaker's statement that
the Board of Game is unresponsive to rural residents. Previous
controversies over fish and game show there are times when not
everyone gets what he or she wants, he said. The Board of
Fisheries, Board of Game, and Alaska Department of Fish & Game
have been incredibly responsive and willing to listen, and have
tried to accommodate the Alaska Professional Hunters Association
where possible.
2:50:12 PM
WADE WILLIS stated he is disappointed at the amount of frivolous
testimony allowed by the committee in order to squeeze the rest
of the witnesses out. He is a 20-year Alaska resident and a
biologist formerly with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game and
he strongly opposed HB 256, he said. Representatives from the
Department of Law and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
testified that they are cleaning and clearing up the language,
but not once have they also made it clear that they are removing
the words, "based on scientific information". Why would they
completely omit that, he asked. Why get rid of all the
scientific information being talked about and not replace it?
MR. WILLIS spoke to an earlier statement regarding the killing
of coyotes in the Lower 48. He said this issue is not getting
the wrath of the scientific community because it is probably
based on science and private citizens are not doing the killing
- and that is why Alaska is getting pegged. That is why 57,000
Alaskan residents signed the last petition to tell the
legislature for the third time that aerial wolf hunting by
private citizens is not acceptable. Eighty-five percent of the
public in Alaska does not hunt, he related. Even though he is a
hunter, he said, what scares him is the amount of bullets the
Board of Game is putting into the non-hunting community. If
anything is ruining his ability to go out and get a moose, he
said, it is the Board of Game ignoring the strongly stated
position of Alaskans for the third time.
MR. WILLIS addressed the recruitment of rural Alaskans to the
Board of Game. He noted that Governor Palin is replacing a
rural Native Alaskan on the board with the past president of the
Alaska Outdoor Council, and Mr. Somerville is being replaced by
Governor Palin's high school basketball coach. This is not good
representation, it is monopolization by independent user groups.
He said his own hunting rights cannot be protected by ignoring
the vast majority of Alaska's residents.
MR. WILLIS pointed out that boat-based shooting of wildlife by
shotgun or scatter gun is illegal in Alaska. This prohibition
is because animals cannot be efficiently dispatched from an
unstable substrate and results in the harming and maiming of
wildlife, he related, and a Cessna is every bit as unstable as a
boat.
2:54:29 PM
CLIFF JUDKINS, Chair, Board of Game, told the committee that Mr.
Somerville and the staff said most of what needed to be said.
He noted that he is a 45-year Alaska resident, has fished and
hunted from Craig to the North Slope, and has a Bachelors of
Science in wildlife biology. He said he has spent 15-20 years
following wildlife management through the state's 85 advisory
committees. All of the advisory committees have testified
before the Board of Game in support of predator control programs
and have asked for more, he related. Even when there is
contention with the board about other issues, communities end
their testimony by thanking the board for predator control and
requesting it not be stopped. He said the board will continue
to make decisions based on scientific input from the staff
because that is the way it is done. When the public comes to
the board asking for predator control, [Alaska Department of
Fish & Game] staff is asked to make recommendations, he
explained. Usually, staff will be asked to conduct research to
determine the real cause of population declines in that area.
If staff determines it is a predator problem, then the Board of
Game will look at implementing a predator control plan. This is
a two year process, he said. He added that the court process is
a difficult situation as far as determining what is an emergency
and when should action be taken. This bill will simplify that
process, he opined, and clarify it to the judges and the public
and thus be beneficial to the program. He urged the committee
to support HB 256.
2:57:01 PM
PATRICIA CUE stated she has lived in Alaska since 1989. She
asked the committee to oppose HB 256. She specified:
In 1996, 60 percent of Alaskans voted to ban same day
airborne hunting. In 1998, a statewide poll indicated
70 percent of Alaskan voters were opposed to repealing
the ban, and in 2000 Alaskans voted to reinstate the
ban on same day aerial wolf hunting by a margin of 54-
46 percent. As you can see by these statistics, the
citizens of the state of Alaska are opposed to this
practice. Yet, Governor Palin and other state
officials, including the Board of Game, continue to
pursue same day aerial hunting as a form of predator
control. According to HB 256 the Board of Game must
adopt a predatory control program before reducing
hunting of an identifiable wildlife population unless
there are findings or an emergency action which is
deemed unworkable. The only part of the process that
is so unworkable is the conclusion that predation by
wolf, bears, wolverines, or other species is the
result of poor game numbers. In many instances, the
real reason is that these areas are under-regulated by
state officials and over-hunted by residents and
visitors. The governor's office must have hired a
spin director to reword the terminology in this
legislation. For example, HB 256 wants to replace
intensive management and predator control with a term
active management. This bill does not in any way
reflect a broad-based action plan for improving game
numbers. The scenario being proposed is predator
control using big game guides to reduce predator
numbers to purportedly increase game populations.
Another piece of this legislation allows for the open-
ended harvest of Alaska's game. The reference is to
providing for a high level of human harvest including
all hunter demand. This all hunter demand is endless
and it is this endless demand that has resulted in the
loss of game. Game management in this state is not
working and HB 256 is not the answer. Active game
management is a multi-faceted approach including
improved oversight of hunting, reduced wanton waste of
resources, and an understanding that this resource
does not belong to one person or one group. We need
leadership on game management and Governor Palin and
the Board of Game do not provide the state with a
long-term vision or a way to sustainably manage our
precious wildlife. Please vote against HB 256.
3:00:15 PM
DAVID OTNESS thanked the committee for taking up HB 256. He
said he is hearing a significant amount of noise from opponents
of predator control that needs to be backed up with data. He
questions the great number of scientists outside of Alaska who
do not believe in the state's data collection and policies
because those scientists and their own personal biases are not
identified. A scientist is not necessarily the paradigm of
morality when it comes to issues near and dear to his particular
outlook, he argued. As a 57-year resident of Alaska who has
hunted all of his life, he said he doubted that the people
signing the petitions at Wal-Mart in Anchorage had ever seen
Bush Alaska. Yes, he said, their signatures count as much as
anyone else's, but as nonusers of the resource they do not count
morally. The people moving into the state do not have the
traditional values.
3:03:42 PM
YOLANDA DE LA CRUZ urged the committee to reject HB 256 because
it is disgusting and the governor needs to listen to Alaskans.
If the governor cares about Native people, then why are there no
Native representatives on the Board of Game, she asked.
[HB 256 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|