Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/07/1994 08:15 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 7, 1994
8:15 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Pat Carney
Representative John Davies
Representative David Finkelstein
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eldon Mulder
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Joe Green
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Mike Navarre
Senator Bert Sharp
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HJR 17: Relating to reauthorization of the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
ADOPTED AND MOVED CS HJR 17(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
HB 404: "An Act relating to the authority of the
commissioner of natural resources to reconvey, or
relinquish an interest in, land to the United
States if that land or interest being reconveyed
or relinquished is identified in an amended
application for a land allotment under federal law
and the original claim for an allotment described
land that is now within, or managed as a unit of,
the state park system."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
HB 448: "An Act relating to waste and use of salmon and
parts of salmon; relating to permits for and
operation of a salmon hatchery; and providing for
an effective date."
ADOPTED AND MOVED CSHB 448(RES) OUT OF
COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
SB 77: "An Act relating to the powers of the Board of
Game and to intensive management of big game to
achieve higher sustained yield for human harvest."
MOVED HCS CSSB 77(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH
INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
(*First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE NAVARRE
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 521
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3779
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor HJR 17
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 17
ROGER MCKOWAN, Aide
Representative Lyman Hoffman
State Capitol, Room 503
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4453
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement on HB 404
PETE PANARESE, Chief
Field Operations
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 107001
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Phone: 762-2603
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 404
DAN HOURIHAN, Area Ranger
Wood-Tikchik State Park
P.O. BOX 107001
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Phone: 762-2603
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 404
PERRY AHSOGEAK, Realty Director
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 1st Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Phone: 452-8251
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 404
DUGAN NIELSEN, Realty Officer
Bristol Bay Native Association
P.O. Box 103
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Phone: 842-2743
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 404
DONALD TAYLOR
P.O. Box 3118
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Phone: 835-4358
POSITION STATEMENT: Raised questions regarding HB 404
Supported HB 448
LAWRENCE MCCUBBINS
P.O. Box 1656
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Raised questions regarding HB 404
Supported HB 448
RAY GILLESPIE, Representative
Association of Aquaculture Associations
9478 Riverbend Court
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 789-3946
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 448
DON AMEND, Representative
Southern Southeast Regional
Aquaculture Association
2721 Tongass Avenue
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-9605
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 448
TOM MEARS, Executive Director
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
HC 2, Box 849
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Phone: 283-5761
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 448
PETE ESQUIRO, Representative
Northern Southeast Regional
Aquaculture Association
1308 Sawmill Creek Road
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Phone: 747-6850
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 448
SENATOR BERT SHARP
State Capitol, Room 514
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3004
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor SB 77
DAVE KELLEYHOUSE, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Phone: 465-4191
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77, version W
LEE PUTNAM, Representative
Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club
6005 Roosevelt Drive
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-7694
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77
DICK BISHOP, Representative
Alaska Outdoor Council
1555 Gus's Grind
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Phone: 455-6151
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77
GEORGE YASKA, Director of Wildlife
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 1st Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Phone: 479-2362
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77, present version
ROD ARNO
P.O. Box 2790
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Phone: 376-2913
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77
RANDY FRANKLIN
P.O. Box 1924
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-7104
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77 concept
SANDRA ARNOLD, Representative
Alaska Wildlife Alliance
P.O. Box 200606
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
Phone: 276-3670
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
CHRIS MAACH, President
Anchorage Audubon Society
P.O. Box 101161
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Phone: 278-4265
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
TRACY ABELL, Representative
Alaska Chapter Sierra Club
13030 Bates Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Phone: 345-0132
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
GEORGE MATZ
14345 Cody
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Phone: 345-3135
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 17
SHORT TITLE: MAGNUSON FISHERY CONSRV & MGT ACT
SPONSOR(S):REPRESENTATIVE(S) NAVARRE,Ulmer,Grussendorf,
Davidson
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/20/93 113 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/20/93 113 (H) FISHERIES, RESOURCES
02/09/94 2311 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 4DP
02/09/94 2311 (H) DP: NICHOLIA, DAVIDSON, OLBERG,
MOSES
02/09/94 2311 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.FSH)2/9/94
02/09/94 2327 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAVIDSON
02/09/94 (H) FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17
02/09/94 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/07/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 404
SHORT TITLE: NATIVE ALLOTMENTS IN STATE PARKS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HOFFMAN,Foster,Williams
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/26/94 2155 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/26/94 2155 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES
03/01/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/01/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/94 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/02/94 2574 (H) STA RPT 3DP 1NR
03/02/94 2574 (H) DP: KOTT, VEZEY, G.DAVIS
03/02/94 2574 (H) NR: OLBERG
03/02/94 2574 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 3/2/94
03/02/94 2574 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
03/07/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 448
SHORT TITLE: WASTE & USE OF SALMON; HATCHERIES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/04/94 2268 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/04/94 2269 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, JUDICIARY
02/04/94 2269 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G) 2/4/94
02/04/94 2269 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/18/94 (H) FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17
02/18/94 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/22/94 2475 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 2DP 1NR
02/22/94 2475 (H) DP: MOSES, OLBERG
02/22/94 2475 (H) NR: NICHOLIA
02/22/94 2476 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE
(F&G) 2/4/94
03/07/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 77
SHORT TITLE: INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME RESOURCES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP,Frank,Taylor,Miller;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Therriault,James
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/29/93 188 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/29/93 188 (S) RESOURCES
02/03/93 227 (S) COSPONSOR: MILLER
02/10/93 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
02/10/93 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/19/93 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
02/24/93 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
02/24/93 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/26/93 500 (S) RES RPT CS 2DP 3DNP 1NR NEW
TITLE
02/26/93 500 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB &
CS (F&G)
02/26/93 (S) RLS AT 01:15 PM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
03/09/93 (S) RLS AT 12:15 PM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
03/09/93 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/10/93 710 (S) RULES RPT 3 CAL 1NR 3/10/93
03/10/93 719 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/10/93 719 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/10/93 719 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y9 N10 E1
03/10/93 721 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG FAILED
Y11 N8 E1
03/10/93 721 (S) THIRD READING 3/11 CALENDAR
03/11/93 756 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME
CSSB 77(RES)
03/11/93 756 (S) PASSED Y11 N8 E1
03/11/93 756 (S) DONLEY NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
03/12/93 783 (S) RECON TAKEN UP-IN THIRD READING
03/12/93 784 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION
Y11 N8 E1
03/12/93 786 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/15/93 643 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/15/93 643 (H) RESOURCES
03/15/93 658 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): THERRIAULT
04/17/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/19/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/21/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
01/13/94 2056 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): JAMES
02/16/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
02/16/94 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/07/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-26, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by
Chairman Bill Williams at 8:23 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Bunde,
Carney, Davies, and Finkelstein. Members absent were
Representatives Green, James, and Mulder.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced there is a quorum present. He
said the meeting is on teleconference with Anchorage,
Barrow, Cordova, Delta Junction, Dillingham, Fairbanks,
Glennallen, Homer, Kodiak, Kotzebue, Ketchikan, Mat-Su,
Seward, Sitka, Kenai/Soldotna, Tok, Valdez and McGrath.
HJR 17 - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act
MIKE NAVARRE, PRIME SPONSOR, stated HJR 17 is a general
statement in support of the Magnuson Fishery Act, which is
up for reauthorization in the U.S. Congress and it is a
specific statement in support of keeping the current
geographic composition of the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council. Alaska currently has the majority of
seats on the council. He said there are other issues which
the Magnuson Fishery Act will address and the Act has been a
benefit to the state since its inception in 1976. He urged
committee members to pass the resolution out of committee.
He noted there has been a suggestion to add Senator Hollings
to the resolution because of his chairmanship of the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON MOVED to AMEND HJR 17 to add the
name Senator Ernest Hollings.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the AMENDMENT was ADOPTED.
GERON BRUCE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH
AND GAME (ADF&G), expressed support of HJR 17.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a MOTION to MOVE CSHJR 17(RES)
with a zero fiscal note out of committee with INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 058
HB 404 - Native Allotments In State Parks
ROGER MCKOWAN, AIDE, REPRESENTATIVE LYMAN HOFFMAN, stated HB
404 is a technical correction to a statute under Title 38.
He said there is a substantial number of people in
Representative Hoffman's district who have Native allotments
within what is now a state park, which the state holds
title. There are alternative lands outside the state park
which the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agrees the
landowners should have. However, the state is not in a
position statutorily to relinquish the alternative land to
relocate the landholder out of the state park. HB 404
allows the commissioner of DNR to reconvey the land back to
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) which is the entity able
to make the exchange.
PETE PANARESE, CHIEF, FIELD OPERATIONS, DIVISION OF PARKS
AND OUTDOOR RECREATION, DNR, testified via teleconference
and expressed support for HB 404. He said the bill will
allow the state to reconvey land to the federal government
if that land was identified in an amended application for
Native allotment under federal law and the original land
claimed is within the state park. Allowing the applicants
to relocate to state land outside state parks will reduce
public impact and speed up finalization of the applications,
some of which have been pending for over thirty years.
Number 095
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES requested a brief overview of
what the problem is and how HB 404 solves the problem.
MR. PANARESE replied Alaska received title to the land in
Wood-Tikchik State Park in 1970. It became a state park in
1978. After the land had received title, allotment
applications were filed on the premise that the land was
used before it became a state park. The dilemma is the
state owns the land and the allottees are claiming that
prior use and occupancy. He stressed it will take the
federal government many decades to adjudicate all of these
lands. The state is attempting to create options for the
allottees to relocate outside of the state park and HB 404
provides one of those options. It will provide the DNR
commissioner a tool to provide other state land for the
allottees.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked what process is involved for the
allottees to get the other land.
MR. PANARESE responded the allottees need to amend their
application from one location to the other.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if it was then up to the
commissioner to make the decision through normal Title 38
processes.
MR. PANARESE said that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked how much land is involved.
MR. PANARESE replied there are 159 total allotments
throughout the state park system and this is just an option
for the allottees. Allottees may wish to stay within the
park. He added the acreage involved is approximately 10,000
acres.
Number 124
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked what limitations are
currently in place for owners of the land claimed within the
state park other than not being able to sell the land.
MR. PANARESE stated for those who own the allotment and
received a patent, there are no restrictions on how they use
the land. He said the department has numerous applications
which HB 404 will provide a tool to finalize. Those
applications are affected in that they have to use the land
in a very simple manner such as putting up a cabin.
Number 140
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked where the additional lands are
located which the allottees will receive in exchange for the
park land.
MR. PANARESE responded the commissioner is going to allow
the exchange to take place on all unappropriated lands which
the state owns that have no third party interest on them.
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER asked if land received in the
exchange will be of similar size and value.
MR. PANARESE replied the land will be of like size and
value.
Number 155
DAN HOURIHAN, AREA RANGER, WOOD-TIKCHIK STATE PARK,
testified via teleconference and reiterated Mr. Panarese's
remarks. He said the state selected land within Wood-
Tikchik State Park in 1961 as part of its statehood
entitlement, which at that time was unappropriated federal
land. The state then began receiving tentative approval
(TA) of patent to that land in 1963. The process was
completed by 1964. He stated in 1971, the 1906 Native
Allotment Act, which entitled an individual Native allotment
to select up to 160 acres of unappropriated federal land
based upon certain use and occupancy criteria, was sunsetted
with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
Therefore, a number of people with applications who thought
they had a valid claim were tendered in 1971 as a part of
the sunset.
MR. HOURIHAN said in Wood-Tikchik State Park, the
applications amounted to 121 parcels of land with an average
size of 88 acres. At this date, the vast majority of those
applications have not been adjudicated by BLM, which is the
agency responsible for adjudicating the validity of those
applications based upon use and occupancy criteria. He said
the department would like to help expedite the process of
transferring lands to Native allotment applicants. That
process is complicated for BLM because the land is now owned
by the state, and in an attempt to resolve those
applications, DNR has worked closely with Native
organizations, individual allottees, and state government to
identify certain negotiable options which can be made
available to allotment applicants.
MR. HOURIHAN remarked the idea of relocation is one of the
options. In 1992, the U.S. Congress passed a bill,
sponsored by Representative Young, which allows an
individual allottee to amend his/her original application by
identifying different lands in instances where an agreement
with the state has been reached on substitute lands. He
stressed that bill is in effect and that mechanism is
available to allotment applicants. This change in Title 38
will allow those changes to take place and allow the
commissioner of DNR to reconvey substitute lands to the
federal government. The department feels HB 404 is a
valuable option and may be a lucrative option to
(indiscernible) allotment applicants.
Number 208
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked how many acres there are in the
entire Wood-Tikchik State Park and how many acres the 104
applications represent.
MR. HOURIHAN replied there are approximately 1.5 million
acres in the state park and there are 104 applications for
allotment parcels within the park with an average size of 80
acres. He said what is unique about the acreage applied for
is that in many cases, the acreage is in areas with a large
amount of public use. In many instances, allotment
applicants may elect to remain (indiscernible) they have
applied to that land and DNR will work closely with those
individuals to ensure that in those instances where
applications are valid, the allottees receive title to that
land as quickly as possible. DNR will work closely with the
allottees in order to reach agreement on certain types of
land uses which will protect their interests on a long-term
basis in terms of subsistence uses and current traditional
uses, as well as protect public interest in the park. He
added that relocation provides an alternative for those who
are interested.
Number 232
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked when the original applications
were made, were applicants able to apply for more than their
allotted share.
MR. HOURIHAN responded they were not.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked in the land which the allottees
will receive in the exchange, will the state's interest in
mineral rights apply.
MR. HOURIHAN replied yes. There is no change in the
substitute land.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
JAMES joined the committee at 8:30 a.m.)
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated it appears that many of the
allotments are in access points and asked if applicants
could control access points, charge trespass fees, develop
the land privately, etc.
MR. HOURIHAN stated in the instance of an individual
receiving a (indiscernible) allotment to a piece of land,
they still maintain a trust relationship with the federal
government but on a long-term basis, it is private property
and any uses of the land are unrestricted. He cannot
speculate on what an individual might do with their private
property in the park.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE clarified there is nothing preventing
the proliferation of commercial enterprises in the park if
people receiving the property wish to do so. In addition,
he said the land was claimed by the state in 1961 and asked
if the applications were existing at that time or were they
filed after the park was established.
MR. HOURIHAN said the state selected the land in 1961 and
the majority of the applications for the land were received
in 1971.
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY asked when the land is reconveyed
to the federal government, is the state compensated in the
state's land selection.
MR. HOURIHAN replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES wondered if there are
additional unknown situations of people anxious to take more
state land.
Number 300
MR. HOURIHAN said there is a mechanism existing in Title 38
which allows the DNR commissioner to reconvey lands to the
federal government. (Indiscernible) instances where there
may have been an existing valid use at the time of state
selection and received a title. He stated that continues to
be true in HB 404. Any (indiscernible) of state lands would
be predicated upon the state agreeing that an individual had
a valid Native allotment application and that although an
application had not been filed, the use and occupancy
required in the 1906 Native Allotment Act was ongoing.
MR. HOURIHAN stressed HB 404 simply follows up on valid
applications for allotments. He said HB 404 is not an
attempt by individuals to secure state land outside of a
program. He felt HB 404 addresses the state's need to
recognize that Native allotments did exist at the time the
state selected the land and in those instances where people
had a valid use, to follow through and ensure those
individuals receive the land they are entitled to, while
doing their best to protect existing public interests.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if 500,000 acres are going to be
taken off the table, will there be enough land in the areas
sought by the people affected.
MR. HOURIHAN responded he did not believe the people will be
deprived. Although the commissioner of DNR has identified
all appropriated general state lands for relocation, Mr.
Hourihan expects the majority of the allottees interested in
relocating, particularly in the Wood-Tikchik area, will
relocate to general state lands.
Number 369
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked what happens if HB 404 does not
pass. How long will it take to get the applications
settled.
MR. HOURIHAN stated it is difficult to put a time period on
the BLM adjudicative process. He said a big delay in the
process will be the survey of the lands, which needs to be
completed by the federal government. He noted it has been
23 years since the last application came in.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if surveying will be required
for the state land being exchanged.
MR. HOURIHAN replied surveying will be required, but because
the individual is simply relocating their allotment lands,
BLM will follow through with the same process just as they
would have in the original application.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if it is settled and the system
is in place, what is the possible outcome.
MR. HOURIHAN stated the department has identified other
options available to individuals to resolve applications
which as of yet have not been adjudicated by the federal
government. Not exploring other options will
(indiscernible) win/win situations and expedite the
adjudication by BLM. He expected individual applications
will be handled on a case-by-case basis, as determined by
the use and occupancy time period, and the process will
probably take about 10-15 years.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if it is almost certain that the
people will eventually get title to the land they have
overfiled on.
MR. HOURIHAN replied possibly not. It depends on the merits
of the particular application and because the BLM
adjudicative process is in an early stage, he cannot
speculate.
Number 418
PERRY AHSOGEAK, REALTY DIRECTOR, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE
(TCC), testified via teleconference and stated TCC provides
land measurement services under contract to the Bureau of
Indian Affairs for Native allotments located within the TCC
region. In working on Native allotment applications, he has
had the experience of working on land conflicts with the
state. Resolving land conflicts requires an extensive
amount of time due to the conflicts nature of the lands
involved.
MR. AHSOGEAK stressed HB 404 will easily resolve the problem
by allowing allottees in the state to negotiate on the
location of their allotments. With the opportunity to
negotiate, the state receives the benefit of spending less
staff time in resolving the conflict, and there will be
fewer litigation issues. In addition, the allottee receives
the benefit of obtaining title within their lapse time to
the lands they are entitled to under the Native law. He
stated TCC urges the committee to pass HB 404.
Number 453
DUGAN NIELSEN, REALTY OFFICER, BRISTOL BAY NATIVE
ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference and stated he has
been involved in the Native allotment program for a long
time. He said the remaining pending Native allotment
applications are in situations where there are conflicts
with state land selections. Often times the ability to
resolve the problems is limited to going before the Interior
Board of Land Appeals. In those cases, there is a winner
and a loser but regardless, there is great expense to both
parties.
Number 475
MR. NIELSEN stated HB 404 provides an opportunity for a
win/win solution to land conveyances for both Native
allottees and the state of Alaska. He said HB 404 will help
avoid years of litigation and tens, if not hundreds of
thousands of dollars. He remarked HB 404 is a good bill in
that it provides a mechanism for a resolution in those
uncertain land ownership situations.
Number 486
DONALD TAYLOR, VALDEZ, testified via teleconference and
raised questions regarding the reasoning behind HB 404. He
wondered whether HB 404 ensures allottees get the same value
of land. He felt there will be problems in regard to
financial interests, access, etc., if federal, state, and
private lands are mixed. He thought it might be better if
those three entities are separated, so each agency and
private party will benefit in regard to the development of
the land. If the land is left to the parks to develop,
there may be access problems, water problems, sewer
problems, etc. He said the right-of-way access to the
private lands may become a real issue and if it gets to the
point where the problem cannot be resolved, perhaps the
boundaries of the state park can be changed to exclude the
allotted lands.
Number 540
LAWRENCE MCCUBBINS, HOMER, testified via teleconference and
referred the committee to page 2, line 28 of HB 404 which
states "management as a unit of the state park system:". He
said there is land which the state has not received patent
to but has TA. He stated there is an individual he knows
who went to a homestead instead of an allotment, got
shafted, and the land is now managed by the state park. He
asked if a person who has gone through the system of
homestead is included in HB 404.
MR. PANARESE felt the comparison being made is different
than what is being addressed in Wood-Tikchik State Park.
The allotment applications are made under federal law and he
did not believe homesteading is the same type of issue.
MR. MCCUBBINS asked why the language in HB 404 says "managed
as a unit" which is land that can be referred to as land
which has not been patented.
MR. PANARESE explained a TA status of state land gives DNR
the management authority over the allotments within the
state park unit. He stated he did not understand the
question.
MR. MCCUBBINS said BLM gave the state the right to manage
land which has been selected, whether it be under a TA or
not a TA status. When a TA is issued, it cannot be
reversed.
MR. PANARESE replied the department considers TA to be a
working patent; the state is managing the land as if it owns
it. HB 404 will provide a tool to change state land
locations for the allottees.
MR. MCCUBBINS asked once a TA is issued, can it be reversed,
eliminated, reassumed by the federal government or issued
under any other application.
MR. PANARESE said no.
MR. MCCUBBINS asked how that can be proved since it has
happened.
MR. PANARESE replied he did not know.
Number 654
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN commented it is possible to
reconvey land back to the federal government regardless of
what stage it is in. He said he would not be surprised if
it had been done in the past, since the state has not filled
its allocation. He stated he was not certain how that might
relate to HB 404. He thought perhaps Mr. McCubbin's point
was if Native allotments are going to be included in HB 404,
why not cover homestead act applications as well.
MR. MCCUBBINS said that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt it is a good question.
MR. PANARESE said the question is beyond him. Homesteading
has not been considered.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked for an overview of the timetable
of the land being discussed.
TAPE 94-26, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. PANARESE replied the land was selected in 1961. In
1963, TA was received for a working patent to the land and
in 1971, most of the applications were filed for land. In
1978, the state land was designated as Wood-Tikchik State
Park.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what the date was for the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) which triggered the
allotment applications.
MR. PANARESE replied it was in 1972.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said it was December 18, 1971.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked in the normal process used for
the applications, is there a portion of the process which
determines whether or not the application is valid.
MR. PANARESE said there is a process contained in the 1906
Native Allotment Act which outlines how the project will
flow.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked in that process, is there a
portion which addresses whether or not an application is
valid.
MR. PANARESE said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wondered if HB 404 is passed, does the
state take over that process.
MR. PANARESE responded no. The state continues to work with
BLM and added this is just an option to try and move the
applications in a much more realistic time frame.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if the state proceeds only after
BLM has determined the application is valid.
Number 050
MR. PANARESE said the state is negotiating with the
allottees while the process is taking place.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if it is conceivable if HB 404
passes that an applicant with an invalid claim could be
granted state land.
MR. PANARESE stated it is highly unlikely.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed concern that if the process
is ongoing on in parallel and BLM has not yet determined
whether or not an application is valid, the state would not
know.
MR. PANARESE said the state will make the best interest
determination under the guidelines established in Title 38
and move forward on that basis.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that in the mid-1970s he flew
for BLM when they were surveying for Native allotments and
stated it was a long, daunting challenge. He added even if
HB 404 is passed, the state lands being exchanged will still
have to be surveyed by BLM. Therefore, there really is no
time advantage.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if there is any reason not to
include individuals who filed under the Federal Homestead
Act and were not granted their homestead.
MR. PANARESE stated the department's actions are in direct
response to amendments to federal legislation under ANCSA.
He said he is not prepared to address the homesteading
issue.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES thought it would be difficult to put
homesteads in the same category with allotments because
homesteads by their nature require improvements, while
allotments do not.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY recalled there are situations where
people filed for homesteads and lost their filing because of
the various acts passed.
Number 092
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he heard someone say that
federal law allows movement of a claim. Normally, a claim
cannot be moved, either for an allotment or a homestead,
because the validity of the claim is based on the particular
use and activity in that location. Allotments are required
to show history of use at a specific location. He noted the
reason HB 404 can apply to allotments is there is a new
treatment of allotments in federal law which allows
movement. He felt the committee should get a copy of that
federal law.
MR. PANARESE agreed with Representative Finkelstein.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY stated he is not satisfied with the
answers provided. He felt a determination should be made if
there are homestead applicants existing who could be covered
by HB 404.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Panarese how long it will take
him to make that determination.
MR. PANARESE said he can look into it. He stated he is not
certain there are any homesteads affected, but he will do
land status research and get back to the committee within 2-
3 days.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY noted he is not particularly concerned
whether homesteaders are directly affected by HB 404, but
rather he is concerned whether or not people who have
homestead land from the federal government have in some way
lost that homestead right in a federal process.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS requested Representative Hoffman's office
to work with Representative Carney and DNR on the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON felt it is important that the sponsor
of the bill be present at future meetings on HB 404 to
answer questions.
HB 448 - Waste & Use Of Salmon; Hatcheries
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS advised there is a draft committee
substitute in committee members folders which adds two words
that were unintentionally omitted from the Fisheries
Committee CS when it was amended in that committee.
GERON BRUCE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH
AND GAME (ADF&G), said on page 3, line 12, the words "from
wild stock" were left out of the Fisheries Committee
version. This language is to carry forward the original
intent of this section of the statute, which was to ensure
that when hatcheries are being established and eggs are
being taken from wild stock, there is some balance between
the sustained yield needs of the wild stock, the hatchery
egg takes, and the opportunities of the common property
users to continue to harvest those resources. Once the eggs
are in the hatcheries, the hatchery has established its own
brood stock and is operating off of its own brood stock, it
is a different situation. This language was to clarify the
original intent.
MR. BRUCE stated HB 448 provides for an exemption to the
statutory requirement that the carcass of a salmon be
utilized when it is harvested. He explained the hatchery
program begins with the most important decision made in
hatchery development, which is the siting of the hatchery.
When a hatchery is given a permit by ADF&G, two things are
looked at when siting the facility. First, the hatchery is
sited in a location where it will contribute significantly
to the common property fisheries. These are fisheries which
are mixed in nature and are composed of a number of wild
stocks. Once the hatchery is on-line, the hatchery stocks
will also be present in that fishery. The second
consideration is that the hatchery has a terminal harvest
area relatively free of wild stock so the hatchery operator
or fishermen operating in the area can go in and harvest the
hatchery's run completely without jeopardizing the sustained
yield of any wild stock.
Number 240
MR. BRUCE said in managing the harvests of hatchery stocks
as they pass through the mixed wild stock/common property
fisheries, the hatchery harvests have to be restricted to
the level at which the wild stocks will support. A certain
percentage of the hatchery run has to get back to the
hatchery to provide brood stock for subsequent returns and
also to provide cost recovery to the hatchery operator. He
stressed in the private nonprofit hatchery programs, the
major premise of the program is that a significant portion
of the costs of the program will be covered by the harvest
of returning fish produced by the hatchery.
MR. BRUCE pointed out that in most situations, approximately
60 percent of the hatchery returns statewide are harvested
in common property fisheries by commercial, sport, and
personal use fishermen. In many cases, a high percentage of
the fish returning to the terminal harvest area are suitable
for utilization in some manner. However, at a certain point
in the run, the salmon deteriorate to the point they are not
suitable for value-added products. He said it is important
to consider the biology of salmon.
MR. BRUCE stated as salmon return to fresh water and get
ready to spawn, they stop feeding and begin consuming their
stored body fats and proteins for their own survival and for
conversion into roe. The animal is headed for death, it is
consuming its own energy sources for other purposes and
consequently reduces the value of the flesh. He stressed at
some point the fish becomes unsuitable. It is not
unwholesome. A person could eat it, but very few people do
because it is very mushy, has no color, etc.
MR. BRUCE explained in order to more fully utilize the
returns coming back to the hatcheries, both for the seafood
industry and the hatchery operators, and in trying to
recover all of the revenue which can be received from the
returns, HB 448 will provide an exemption for the tail end
of the run when the fish are not suitable for any other
purpose, but still contain a valuable product. He noted
that salmon roe is an extremely valuable product. In 1993,
the value of frozen red salmon exported from Alaska was
$627.5 million and the value of salmon roe was $177 million.
He added that roe has steadily been increasing in value over
the last five years.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if that was value of the salmon
roe exported or just the value of salmon roe to the
hatcheries.
MR. BRUCE replied the figure is for the salmon roe exported
as a finished product.
Number 311
MR. BRUCE continued that the exemption in HB 448 is
permissive and has to be applied for, it is not
automatically granted. In order to receive the permit,
three criteria will need to be met: 1) the fish will have
to be demonstrated to be from a hatchery program; 2) the
fish will have to have returned to a terminal area; and 3)
they will have to be determined by the commissioner of ADF&G
to be unsuitable for human consumption. Once the three
criteria are satisfied, the commissioner can issue a permit
allowing the taking of salmon in a specific area for the
harvest of roe and the carcasses will be discarded in
accordance with the Department of Environmental
Conservation's (DEC) requirements.
MR. BRUCE said many people ask the question, how does this
fit with other state policies regarding the harvest of roe
and the discard of carcasses. He stated most people are
aware of the controversy on pollack roe stripping which
occurred in the North Pacific by factory trawlers. He said
there are several differences which are a basis for
distinguishing between the two issues. Salmon returning to
hatcheries are not part of the biological basis for
sustained yield. They are not needed for spawning, they are
supplemental production, and they are intended by the
producers and the state to be totally utilized for either
common property harvest, brood stock, or cost recovery.
MR. BRUCE explained salmon are within a week or two of
dying. If HB 448 is not in place to allow salmon to be
harvested for their roe, they will die with the roe still in
them, they will not spawn successfully, they will not
contribute at all to a sustained yield and a very valuable
byproduct will go unutilized. He said another difference is
that pollack are not going to die upon spawning, pollack are
not nearing death, and pollack flesh does not deteriorate to
the point that the quality is such that people would not
want to eat it. In the case of pollack, it is an economic
decision. The market value of the flesh is low enough that
factory trawlers chose not to process it because the cost of
producing the product exceeded the price they could get in
the market for it. That is not the case with salmon. He
stressed the salmon being discussed have zero value in the
marketplace and are not desirable.
MR. BRUCE stated the public and private players in the
private nonprofit salmon program have significant
investments in salmon. In many cases, the hatcheries are
operating under loans from the state, the fishermen are
paying a salmon enhancement tax in many areas of the state
to support the hatcheries, there are significant private and
public investments which have been made to produce these
fish and its wise management to try to recover all possible
revenue from returning fish, especially if there is no
reason not to.
MR. BRUCE gave an example of a situation which could have
been bettered if HB 448 had been in place. Runs come in, a
significant percentage is harvested in the common property
fishery and the remainder in the terminal area are cleaned
up without getting below the threshold. He noted there are
circumstances in which either the runs behave unusually or
in the case of a very large run, the process or capacity
gets plugged and the process is not able to get to the fish,
so the fish sit in the water in the terminal area and
deteriorate. He stressed in that case, a matter of a few
days makes a significant difference.
Number 385
MR. BRUCE described the situation which occurred in Prince
William Sound in 1991. The Prince William Sound Aquaculture
Association had to get a permit from ADF&G to dump three
million pounds of pink salmon out in the open Sound because
those fish came into the terminal harvest area, deteriorated
in quality, there was no market for them, the processors
were unable to get to them, and therefore the fish were
dumped. He stressed no value was recovered from the fish
whatsoever, and pointed out that if HB 448 had been in
place, the Aquaculture Association would have been able to
recover the value of the roe which would have paid the costs
for dumping them with money probably left over. As it was,
the state paid the costs of dumping the fish. The
circumstances which led to the dumping of the fish were that
in 1991, for some reason the pink salmon held off very late
in entering the Sound and when they did enter, it was a very
large run, there were low wild stocks, there was limited
opportunity to fish in the mixed common property areas, and
a very large number of fish returned to the terminal area
and swamped everything.
Number 415
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked why was it more of a crime to
take the roe before the fish were dumped than it was just to
dump the fish.
MR. BRUCE replied it would have been the most desirable
circumstance to have harvested the fish and utilized the
carcass and the roe. In this instance, that was not
possible because of the circumstances surrounding that
year's return. It would have been less of a crime in the
sense, that at least some value could have been extracted
from the fish.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY said Mr. Bruce was still not answering
his question. He asked if it was legal to dump fish.
MR. BRUCE replied a permit is required. He said the fish
were taken out to the Sound to dump because in a shallow
bay, if all of those fish would have been allowed to die,
they would have caused significant environmental problems.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked why were the roe not taken
before the fish were dumped.
MR. BRUCE replied it would have been illegal. There is no
provision in statute to allow for the removal of the roe if
the carcass was not utilized. In current law, the carcass
has to be utilized in some way.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY said a permit was issued from the
commissioner to dump the fish and asked if the commissioner
could have also given permission to take the roe.
MR. BRUCE said not without the law being proposed.
Number 471
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated it would seem like the
commissioner would have the authority under emergency
regulation to be able to issue that kind of permit.
MR. BRUCE replied the commissioner might have been able to
stretch his discretionary authority in the law, but it would
have been an unusual call and one which would have not been
subject to policy approval through the legislative body.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if ADF&G has explored options to
try and limit bycatch or incidental catch.
MR. BRUCE responded yes in specific fisheries, the
department has made efforts to do that. He noted the
fisheries having the most excessive discard are not managed
by the department. Therefore, the role of the department is
to try and influence the federal managers to take action.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what is the value to be derived
from extracting roe from salmon.
MR. BRUCE stated he did not know because there is nothing to
base the figure on, except what egg sales have taken place
in hatcheries as a result of and ancillary to the
utilization of a portion of the brood stock they do not
need. In 1993, the sales were less than $500,000 statewide.
He said the roe market is very large and healthy and he
guessed the figure would probably be in the tens of millions
of dollars. He added that a hatchery might have a one
million dollar budget and if it can recover an extra
$200,000, it is a very significant percentage of its total
costs.
Number 547
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt HB 448 is a good bill. He
said there has been use of carcasses and mentioned a
nonprofit agency which has received funding to distribute
excess carcasses to get them into the hands of poor people.
He asked if there is any way to require hatcheries, without
cost to them, to make the carcasses available.
MR. BRUCE stated there is a market incentive to do that
already, because there is a cost associated with disposing
of the carcasses. Hatcheries have to conform with DEC
requirements which require carcasses to be either ground and
disposed of or transported out to deep water. He pointed
out that if someone is willing to come to the hatchery door
and take the carcasses, the hatchery avoids a cost.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN commented there is also some
disincentive because the hatcheries might not want to put
inferior salmon out into the market for fear of hurting
their reputation.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked what the original purpose in the
law was in preventing the taking of eggs. He wondered if it
was to eliminate the situation where people destroy fish
just for the roe.
MR. BRUCE said he cannot answer the question. He stated the
roe market is a recent development and he did not know what
date the statute originates. He said he would research the
answer and get back to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said hatcheries in Unalakeet just break
even on processing the flesh and make their money on the
eggs. He noted there are unsubstantiated rumors that people
along the Yukon catch fish, throw the fish away, keep the
eggs and make $125 a pound. He asked if there is any danger
that the rumored egg take could be legitimized through HB
448.
MR. BRUCE replied there is an existing roe fishery on the
Yukon River which is in a specific drainage. Under current
law, people are required to utilize the carcass in some way
and it is usually dried. He said ADF&G's best information
is that compliance with the law is good there and no
significant abuse is occurring. He explained there is an
authorized roe fishery and it is operated under a guideline
harvest by the department. There are so many pounds of roe
which are allowed to be harvested under that fishery and it
is managed on a sustained yield basis. He stressed that is
a different situation than what HB 448 will authorize
because HB 448 involves hatchery fish and the utilization of
the carcass is not required.
MR. BRUCE said there have also been reports of salmon being
harvested by subsistence users and the roe being sold. He
stated there have been arrests and convictions.
TAPE 94-27, SIDE A
Number 000
RAY GILLESPIE, REPRESENTATIVE, ASSOCIATION OF AQUACULTURE
ASSOCIATIONS, expressed all four organizations he represents
support HB 448 and the proposed amendment.
DON AMEND, REPRESENTATIVE, SOUTHERN SOUTHEAST REGIONAL
AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION (SSRAA), testified via
teleconference and stated SSRAA supports HB 448. He noted
there have been instances where fish have had to be dumped
without being able to recover some of the value in the form
of eggs.
Number 039
TOM MEARS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COOK INLET AQUACULTURE
ASSOCIATION (CIAA), testified via teleconference and stated
CIAA supports HB 448. Extracting some value from otherwise
low grade fish is a good idea. In answer to a question
asked earlier regarding CIAA's current position of refusing
to provide fish for the free salmon giveaways, CIAA chooses
not to participate based on the advice of legal counsel. He
stated CIAA has letters in their files from state and
federal regulatory agencies telling them that brood stock
taken in remote hatcheries are unfit for human consumption.
He explained CIAA's lawyers worry about the legal liability
of giving away something which is unfit for human
consumption even though there is a law in place which might
protect or exempt them when giving fish to a food bank.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if there is a law in place
which addresses a hatchery's liability in giving away fish.
MR. MEARS responded there is a current law which allows for
a general exemption from liability for people who give food
to a food bank. However, he is not sure how the Association
would defend themselves when they knowingly gave away fish
which were deemed to be unfit for human consumption.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he would do some research to
determine if there is any way to resolve that issue. If the
legislature is going to allow the taking of the valuable
part of the fish, he felt the carcasses should also be made
available to serve a public interest.
MR. MEARS said CIAA would be happy to make fish available if
they could be assured there will be no legal repercussions
to them.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said earlier testimony indicated there
is a difference in the quality of fish as the run
progresses. He asked Mr. Mears to comment on that
statement.
MR. MEARS replied that at most facilities, fish early in the
run are in excellent condition and can be marketed on the
value of their flesh quality. As time passes, particularly
in the last ten percent of fish coming in, the flesh has
little or no value, but eggs may provide an opportunity to
still get value.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified the only concern of CIAA for
giving fish away is the legal circumstance that somehow fish
are defined as unfit, whereas it may be that some of the
fish are fit for human consumption.
MR. MEARS stated fish harvested in the round and taken off
to a processor are always deemed fit for human consumption.
He said the specific incidence he is referring to is fish
which are in a normal course of events at a hatchery,
collected for brood stock, and eggs are collected for the
spawning process. Those fish, because they are cut open in
conditions not approved by DEC nor can be approved, are by
definition adulterated and by definition are unfit for human
consumption.
Number 116
PETE ESQUIRO, REPRESENTATIVE, NORTHERN SOUTHEAST REGIONAL
AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION (NSRAA), testified via
teleconference and expressed support of HB 448. He stated
NSRAA still sees its mission as trying to harvest the
highest quality fish possible and the committee should note
that fish being discussed in HB 448 are fish NSRAA cannot
make fit into the high quality category. He felt as HB 448
is approved and implemented, it is important for the
commissioner to meet with representatives of the industry
who can help in defining unsuitable for human consumption.
He thought that definition is a critical element.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Mr. Esquiro what the approximate
value of what is being wasted in his region by not being
able to harvest the eggs.
MR. ESQUIRO replied last year, NSRAA marketed $160,000 worth
of surplus eggs. He said the eggs resulted primarily from
overestimates made in the available brood stock.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if there is an assumption being
made that there is an unlimited market for eggs, because
eggs taken at the hatchery level compete with eggs available
from privately caught fish.
MR. ESQUIRO stated over the next few years, a better
estimate of the egg market will be determined. He said many
of the eggs NSRAA sold this past year were used to produce
trout bait.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted there are different qualities of
eggs taken at different times and stated his concern is the
possibility of over supplying the market and destroying the
already low price of salmon.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON felt the market has not been saturated
and the market capacity is there.
DONALD TAYLOR, VALDEZ, testified via teleconference and
stated he is working with hatcheries in his area to develop
byproducts utilizing carcasses. He stressed timing and
correct handling in the taking of eggs is very critical. He
expressed support of HB 448.
LAWRENCE MCCUBBINS, HOMER, testified via teleconference and
expressed support for HB 448. He referred to lines 16 and
17 on page 4, "rearing and sale of ornamental finfish for
aquariums or ornamental ponds provided that the fish are not
reared in or released..." and asked if fish are not to be
reared in state waters, what kind of waters will the fish be
reared in.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that is a section of
existing law and is not affected by HB 448.
MR. MCCUBBINS asked if fish can be reared or cannot be
reared.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded it is not a part of HB
448 and the reason it is stated because the part which is
amended is in the same section. He said ornamental fish can
be reared in ponds or aquariums.
MR. MCCUBBINS stated it reads "not reared in". He commented
on the issue of permit and asked if that permit is issued by
the area biologist or does it go to the commissioner. If it
goes to the commissioner, he wondered what the timetable is.
MR. BRUCE responded the power can be delegated by the
commissioner. ADF&G anticipates that if HB 448 passes, a
group representing hatchery operators, processors,
fishermen, etc., will be formed for the purpose of
developing procedures for the implementation of HB 448. He
stressed ADF&G does recognize there is a time factor and
there will be a need for a balance between controlling the
situation and being able to react quickly to circumstances
as they develop.
MR. MCCUBBINS noted the word "identify" was mentioned and
asked how fish will be identified.
MR. BRUCE replied fish in a terminal harvest area will be
identified by their location and the trigger at which point
the fish are deemed unsuitable. He said the Alaska Seafood
Marketing Institute has developed a color chart showing the
stages which salmon go through as they go from ocean to a
fully water marked fish and at some location in that chain,
a certain point can be selected to be the trigger.
MR. MCCUBBINS said his specific question is will the
deviation between wild stock and hatchery stock be
identified.
MR. BRUCE stated HB 448 only applies to hatchery stock and
those fish are identified by the fact they have returned to
a terminal hatchery area. HB 448 will not necessarily
require all hatchery fish be marked although it is the
department's preference that there is some method of
identifying hatchery fish.
Number 320
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 448(RES).
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 448(RES)
with zero fiscal notes out of committee with INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 334
SB 77 - Intensive Management Of Game Resource
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated Senator Sharp provided two new
draft versions of the bill. The first of those, draft
version B was sent out to teleconference sites and to others
who requested it. Since then, Senator Sharp provided a
newer version, draft version W, which will be considered
presently.
SENATOR BERT SHARP, PRIME SPONSOR, stated the new draft
version W is a result of ongoing discussions with ADF&G.
Version W addresses additional concerns the department had,
it organizes the bill, and it does not amend the A section
of AS 16.05.255. He said the intensive game management
concept was addressed by adding new sections (e), (f), and
(g), the legislative intent section has been added, and
noted that subsection (e) is the former item 11. He
explained subsection (f) is the former (e) and the
subsection says the Board of Game shall not significantly
reduce the taking of identified big game populations by
doing standard passive things unless they also adopt
intensive management which manages 100 percent of the
resource. Subsection (f) does not apply in areas where the
department has concerns on ineffective management based on
scientific information or if intensive management will be
inappropriate due to land ownership patterns. Subsection
(f), (2) recognizes emergency closures and the department's
ability to make that determination at any time based on
their information and recommendation. Subsection (g) is the
definitions subsection of intensive management and
identified big game prey population.
Number 417
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Senator Sharp to point out the
change in version W which addresses the issue concerning
subsistence.
SENATOR SHARP said the legislative findings section is a
very strong legislative statement supporting human harvest
for consumptive purposes and states it is the highest and
best use in most areas of the state.
DAVE KELLEYHOUSE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION, ADF&G, stated ADF&G supports the House CS for
CSSB 77 version W. He said all previous concerns have been
addressed. The House CS preserves the discretion of the
Board of Game to adopt regulations necessary for the
management of game and it maintains the distinction between
the powers of the Board and the powers of the commissioner.
He stressed the CS recognizes the importance of certain big
game prey populations in meeting the needs of many Alaskans
and the need to manage such identified populations
appropriately. The proposed legislation now provides clear
direction to the Board of Game and ADF&G by explicitly
stating legislative intent which contains sufficient
safeguards, ensuring that intensive management will not be
applied under circumstances which are not feasible and
prudent, where it will not be effective or which such
management will be inappropriate due to land ownership
patterns and land management philosophies. He urged the
committee to adopt HCS CSSB 77.
Number 488
LEE PUTNAM, KETCHIKAN SPORTS AND WILDLIFE CLUB, testified
via teleconference and stated the club supports SB 77. He
said with more and more of Alaska's land being closed by the
federal government to consumptive users, the remaining land
needs to be intensively managed to allow the maximum harvest
for consumptive users. With intensive management, food
resources in Alaska can be increased to the point
(indiscernible) subsistence, personal use, and sport hunters
will be drastically reduced or completely eliminated.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a MOTION to ADOPT HCS CSSB
77(RES).
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated he is very interested in
the bill, but he along with Representatives Carney and
Davies are supposed to be in caucus.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out for Representative
Finkelstein's benefit that ADF&G now supports HCS CSSB
77(RES).
Number 551
DICK BISHOP, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL,
testified via teleconference and stated the council has
supported the concepts of SB 77 since its original
introduction. The council also supports version W. He said
although the legislative findings necessary to the
importance of harvest of big game prey for human consumptive
uses in most areas of the state is self-evident to those
familiar with Alaska's history and lifestyles, it has not
been adequately emphasized in statute. He noted the council
agrees with providing for regulations enabling intensive
management in the new subsection (e) and added that the new
subsection reduces the confusion over the federal
responsibilities and authorities of the Board of Game.
MR. BISHOP stated subsection (e) emphasizes intensive
management will be used where the Board of Game has
established goals for human consumptive use as a preferred
use and low big game prey populations interfere with these
goals and population enhancement is feasible. He stressed
the provisions make several points clear that opportunities
for human consumptive use are very valuable to Alaskans;
enhancement will occur where the Board has established
harvest goals; low big game prey populations disadvantage
Alaskans; enhancement is feasible; and the Board is not
required to implement intensive management everywhere, all
the time or in areas where other uses have been given a
higher priority.
MR. BISHOP continued that subsection (f) emphasizes the
importance of addressing intensive management to meet
harvest goals and it makes it clear that the Board is not
obligated to undertake a futile exercise or allow a
population to be further depressed by harvest by people.
Subsection (g) makes it clear that the intensive management
provisions only apply to populations which the Board has
determined are important for harvest by people. Subsection
(g)(2) makes it clear that the purpose of the provision is
to provide for harvest by people which is consistent with
constitutional language and history and that there are
various recognized wildlife management techniques which can
be used depending on the circumstances.
MR. BISHOP stated the Alaska Outdoor Council believes the
bill addresses the longstanding statutory need to emphasize
the importance of managing wildlife for food for Alaskans,
which is environmentally correct and ecologically sound,
using recognized management tools to do so. Draft W
resolves several difficulties relating to earlier language,
while retaining the direction and emphasis of the original
bill. He urged passage of HCS CSSB 77.
Number 640
GEORGE YASKA, DIRECTOR OF WILDLIFE, TANANA CHIEFS
CONFERENCE, testified via teleconference and stated although
the conference supports consumptive use of wildlife,
particularly big game, the Tanana Chiefs cannot support SB
77 in its present version. The primary concern is the
amount of research needed to begin to artificially
manipulate big game species and their populations. He said
TCC does not believe current information is adequate and the
data base is not available to begin to artificially modulate
the species and their populations. The secondary concern is
the cost of intensive game management and its use by the
Board of Game for maximum sustained yield. He stressed
maximum sustained yield or predator control is costly and
there is a concern with prescribed or controlled use burns.
He pointed out that providing for maximum sustained yield
for big game will favor sportsmen over trappers.
Number 697
ROD ARNO, PALMER, testified via teleconference and expressed
support of SB 77. He said there is a well-documented demand
for the harvest of big game prey populations for human
consumption in Alaska. According to ADF&G's survey on
wildlife and hunting attitudes, over 85 percent of Alaskans
surveyed have hunted big game in Alaska at least once and
the majority surveyed approved a (indiscernible) big game
for personal consumption. Fifteen percent of resident
Alaskans purchased hunting licenses in 1992 and in the last
census in 1990, there were 110,000 subsistence users of big
game in rural Alaska. By passage of SB 77, the legislature
will empower the Board of Game to adopt regulations
advantageous to all Alaskans who choose to be active
participants in Alaska's ecosystem.
MR. ARNO stated there are two options which will increase
the availability of big game prey populations for human
consumption. One is an enhancement of the prey populations
in areas readily accessible and the other option is be to
increase access into areas where the prey populations are in
large numbers.
TAPE 94-27, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. ARNO (cont.) to take the areas which have already been
accessed and have a history of human use, and manage the
resources there intensively for human consumption.
Number 015
RANDY FRANKLIN, HOMER, testified via teleconference and
stated he agrees 100 percent with the concept of SB 77. He
felt subsection (f) ties the hands of the Board of Game. He
also expressed concern about the costs of research and
implementation of an intensive management program such as
burns, collaring, etc.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated the Board of Game will first have to
identify populations, because SB 77 only applies to
identified populations where the need is high. He said
there is language in subsection (f) which allows the Board
to use a dimmer switch--they can make changes in regulations
as long as the change does not significantly reduce the
taking. In regard to the budget concern, he explained the
Division of Wildlife Conservation already has the
responsibility of managing wildlife and the cost of
intensive management is quite low, adding that less than
$200,000 will be spent this year to restore the Delta
caribou herd out of a total agency budget of $15 million.
Number 042
SANDRA ARNOLD, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA WILDLIFE ALLIANCE,
testified via teleconference and recalled that Mr.
Kelleyhouse said the department supports the bill now
because it retains the powers of the Board and the
department, but he failed to state it retains the powers of
the public, which she feels should be the priority in any
bill. She asked in regard to Senator Sharp's legislative
findings, how (indiscernible) it seems to be accepted as
fact that intensive game management is the highest and best
use when it seems to her it is someone's opinion. She
stressed intensive game management is not the highest and
best use of the state's wildlife, but rather only one of
several options which should be considered on a case-by-case
basis.
MS. ARNOLD stated SB 77 mandates that one interest group
will always win when it comes to game management and that is
unfair. She said surveys have shown that 65-70 percent of
Alaskans oppose predator control which she feels SB 77
mandates. Economically, SB 77 does commit most of the
state's scarce state wildlife personnel and money to manage
a few favored species and serve small interest groups. She
pointed out that intensive management and predator control
is expensive and the state cannot afford it. She felt that
is why no fiscal note is attached to the proposed
legislation. She urged committee members to reject SB 77
Number 070
CHRIS MAACH, PRESIDENT, ANCHORAGE AUDUBON SOCIETY, testified
via teleconference and expressed opposition to SB 77. She
said this bill will produce the opposite of what it seems to
be promoting, a continuous high human harvest of game
resources. If state game managers are tendered in their
ability to alter bag limits and hunting seasons in order to
protect some game resources, predator control will be too
little and too late. She stressed SB 77 benefits a limited
number of game resource users, mainly hunters and trappers
and will ultimately deprive tourists, photographers and
others who are attracted to the state by its wildlife and
wilderness. The society feels that nonconsumptive uses of
wildlife are just as beneficial to the people of Alaska in
the long run, both economically and aesthetically, and
(indiscernible) management practices do not deprive hunters
and trappers of their way of appreciating wildlife.
MS. MAACH said the recent heated controversy over wolf
control is no doubt a factor in the drafting of SB 77. This
legislation, if passed, will not resolve that controversy
and will probably exaggerate it. She does not remember ever
seeing a policy based on fear and spite that did not produce
more of the same. She urged the committee to not pass SB
77.
Number 098
TRACY ABELL, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA
CLUB, testified via teleconference and stated the club is
opposed to SB 77. The club is against a policy which will
artificially boost so-called game species population at the
expense of other animals. She said it is particularly
disturbing that no attempt is being made to reduce hunting
pressure or study other alternatives before predators will
be systematically killed. She felt it is bad public policy
to mandate the killing of a species as the first and only
wildlife management tool. Alaska's wildlife should not be
managed for the sole benefit of hunters and trappers.
Predator control programs are shortsighted and can only
result in a damaged ecosystem. She urged committee members
to oppose SB 77.
Number 110
GEORGE MATZ, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and
stated SB 77 limits the ability of Board of Game to manage
for biological reasons. He felt despite all the conditions
listed in the bill, it is well known that the Board of Game
(indiscernible) are very prone to lawsuits and it is
inconceivable to him that the Board can do anything without
a whole series of lawsuits. Meanwhile, if there are severe
weather conditions, etc., impacting the game populations,
the Board is not going to be able to use (indiscernible)
because of a number of things. He stated the emphasis
should be on managing people. In terms of increasing the
abundance of moose, it is much better to look at where the
real mortality is. He said the number of moose being killed
on the highway is increasing.
Number 161
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said if the Board wants to reduce
the harvest level on a prey population and is not an
emergency but is clearly a situation where the take needs to
be lowered, subsection (f) says they cannot do that unless
at the same time or previously, a regulation has been
adopted providing for intensive management applicable to the
area. He added that seems to say that what could be a
relatively simple action to lower a take all of a sudden
cannot be done without the complexities of dealing with
intensive management. He asked if that will slow down the
ability of the Board to be able to respond to nonemergency
situations requiring an adjustment in harvest levels.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied he did not believe so, because of
the amendment which adds in the words "significantly
reduced". He said the department discussed situations where
there may be a bad winter or an extraordinary situation
during the hunting season and their feeling is that
subsection (f) will provide the Board of Game sufficient
latitude to use a dimmer switch without having to consider a
full blown intensive management effort prior to taking that
step. He referred Representative Finkelstein to page 1,
subsection (e)(2) which says the depletion of the big game
prey population or the reduction of the productivity of the
big game prey population has occurred and may result in a
significant reduction in the allowable human harvest of the
population. He thought (f) would be predicated upon the
Board's determinations under (e).
Number 196
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said there could be disagreements
on what "significantly" means. He stated if there is an
area where 20 moose are allowed to be taken and there is a
desire to reduce that to 15, one could say that is a
reduction of five moose and is not significant, but someone
else could argue that is a reduction of 25 percent which is
significant. He stated the (f) subsection assumes there is
already regulations applicable to that situation under
subsection (e). If there is not, the Board is going to be
hamstrung in their ability to significantly reduce the
taking of prey. He felt the Board will not be able to make
the normal decisions they have been making over the years,
unless the Board has adopted regulations prior to intensive
management to increase the take, etc. He thought there will
be situations where the Board is not going to be able to do
what they believe is the biologically correct thing to do
for lack of a procedural step. If the Board has to wait, it
may be damaging to the resource to have a higher level in
place, while the intensive management regulations have not
been adopted.
Number 220
MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded that the Board of Game and ADF&G
are mandated to manage on a sustained yield basis. A delay
of one year would not be possible if it would be
unacceptable biologically and would jeopardize the sustained
yield management. He pointed out that under subsection (e),
human consumptive use goals identified by the Board is
discussed and he envisioned that those consumptive use goals
to be expressed as a range, rather than an absolute, so the
Board can build in the flexibility they need. He said the
purpose of this type of legislation is to address the
situation ADF&G has had in the Delta caribou herd where the
harvest has gone from several hundred caribou out of a
population of almost 11,000 to having no open season for a
prolonged period with the population still declining. He
hoped that the Board will promulgate regulations addressing
those types of situations where action is clearly needed.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB
77 on page 2, line 21 adding a new section: (g) The Board
of Game may not adopt regulations requiring the department
to conduct intensive management programs, notwithstanding
(a)(11) of this section, unless the board has taken all
reasonable measures under (a)(1)-(10) of this section to
reduce the take of the identified big game population.
Subsection (g) will then become subsection (h).
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said one of the keys of this
proposed legislation is the link to current law. He noted
that subsection (a)(1) - (10) is not contained in the
present version but was in previous version V. It is
basically all of the tools which the department has. He
stated other steps being taken are all important to the
process, but the Board should not resort to intensive
management unless they have used the normal measures to try
and avoid the problem situations. He pointed out the
amendment does not add anything new, it only says the
intensive management steps shall wait until the normal
wildlife management steps have occurred.
Number 265
SENATOR SHARP stated that is the problem with the entire
situation presently; five percent of the harvest is being
managed and 80 percent of the harvest is not being managed.
This amendment will still allow management of the human
element which is five percent of the take and not the other
80 percent which destroys the intent of intensive game
management.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE agreed and stated that in most cases in the
state, human harvest is limited to less than five percent.
Consequently, normal changes in seasons and bag limits will
preclude human use opportunities but may not have a
population level impact. He pointed out the proposed
legislation allows manipulation of the other 85 percent of
natural mortality so the human harvest opportunity for long
periods is not lost.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated his amendment addresses
when the Board can get into intensive management and whether
or not they are required to use the normal tools laid out in
(a)(1) - (10) first to solve the problems. He felt the
amendment reflects the intention that ADF&G has stated and
that is, the Board will try and use the normal tools first
to solve problems and only when the normal tools fail will
the Board go into higher levels.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE felt Representative Finkelstein had
misinterpreted what he had said. While ADF&G wants to
maintain the Board's flexibility, the department supports
the intent and the house committee substitute which says
that in certain situations and certain big game populations,
more intensive management tools will be applied in order to
preserve hunting opportunities. He said the amendment would
basically close those off before any action will be taken
and that turns the intent of the bill around. He stressed
ADF&G is not opposed to using intensive management in
certain circumstances to maintain human harvest
opportunities.
Number 318
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated if the entire subsection (f) is
reviewed, it refers back up to (e)(1) - (3). He said (e)(3)
says enhancement or productivity is feasibly achievable
utilizing recognized and prudent active management
techniques. He felt that says the Board cannot reduce
hunting unless it has adopted regulations in accordance with
having a methodology of feasibly achieving. He said the
bill has been modified enough where there is a policy on the
first page. He stated he did not support the amendment
because he did not feel it fits and the issue is already
covered.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the
motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.
Number 330
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in
favor of the amendment was Representative Finkelstein.
Voting against the amendment were Representatives James,
Mulder, Bunde, Hudson, and Williams. The MOTION was
DEFEATED 5-1.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB
77 on page 1, line 9, deleting the word "shall" and
inserting the word "may".
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.
Number 355
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated currently the department
has the power to perform some of the steps outlined
including goals and means to achieve the goals, but he felt
it did not make sense the way the law is structured forcing
the department in all situations to do this. He said the
proposed legislation is an interpretation of what is best at
this point and it may not work forever. He felt the best
way to write ADF&G laws is to give the Board of Fisheries
and the Board of Game the power to intensively manage, but
give them the discretion to apply the law where they believe
it is appropriate. He thought the word may represents that
approach much better.
SENATOR SHARP replied the reason the proposed legislation
was restructured in the committee substitute was to leave
flexibility in items 1-10 in section A and the word "shall"
applies to intensive management under conditions which have
many open windows. He felt using the word "may" will
convolute the process even more and not provide any
corrective action.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER opposed the amendment. He felt the
amendment is perhaps the whole thrust of the bill in that it
is a policy call - does the committee agree with intensive
game management under the limited format proposed or not.
He stated the amendment will diminish the provisions being
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the amendment will only
diminish the bill if the Board of Game disagrees with the
approach of the bill. If the Board of Game agrees, which
they probably will, the amendment will have no effect. He
felt the Board of Game should be given that discretion.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in
favor of the amendment were Representatives Bunde and
Finkelstein. Voting against the amendment were
Representatives Mulder, James, Williams, and Hudson. The
MOTION was DEFEATED 4-2.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER made a MOTION to pass HCS CSSB 77(RES)
with a zero fiscal note out of committee with INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN OBJECTED.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in
favor of the motion were Representatives Williams, Hudson,
Bunde, James, and Mulder. Voting against the motion was
Representative Finkelstein. The MOTION PASSED 5-1.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will meet on
Wednesday, March 9 at 8:15 a.m. to hear SB 46 and HB 238.
He said also on Wednesday, March 9 at 8:30 a.m. the House
Committee on Fisheries has a presentation by community
development groups and Representative Moses has extended an
invitation to the House Resources Committee. Chairman
Williams asked committee members to send staff members to
the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting
at 11:10 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|