Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/20/1994 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
April 20, 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 Joe Green
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eldon Mulder
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Joe Sitton
Representative Fran Ulmer
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SB 310: "An Act relating to the management and sale of
state timber and relating to the administration of
forest land."
HEARD AND HELD FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
SB 46: "An Act relating to moose farming and relating to
game farming."
HCS CSSB 46(RES) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH
INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
WITNESS REGISTER
GLEN JUDAY
4837 Palo Verde Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Phone: 479-3765
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
JAN DAWE, Representative
Alaska Boreal Forest Council
Fairbanks, Alaska
Phone: 474-8343
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
COLIN REED
653 Love Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Phone: 474-5075
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
CHRIS GATES, Director
Division of Economic Development
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110804
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0804
Phone: 465-2017
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 310
TABITHA GREGORY, Representative
Alaska Center for the Environment
19530 Pribilof Loop
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Phone: 696-1215
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
JUDY HARGIS
8920 Pioneer Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Phone: 269-4565
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
DANE WAGNER
4801 Aircraft Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Phone: 298-4341
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
JIM MINTON, Representative
Anchorage Property Owners Association
P.O. Box 190121
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
Phone: 248-1965
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
MEREDITH MARSHALL
P.O. Box 7418
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-2134
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 310
SANDRA MESKE
P.O. Box 1445
Ward Cove, Alaska 99928
Phone: 225-1060
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 310
MICHAEL MESKE
P.O. Box 1445
Ward Cove, Alaska 99928
Phone: 225-1060
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 310
JOSEPH SEBASTIAN
P.O. Box 129
Point Baker, Alaska 99927
Phone: 559-2218
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
SYD WRIGHT
P.O. Box 624
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Phone: 772-4859
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
BOB ELLIS, Representative
Sitka Conservation Society
P.O. Box 319
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
KAREN MARTINSEN, Representative
Alaska Wilderness, Recreation and Tourism Association
103 Sunset Drive
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Phone: 747-8999
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
ELEANOR HUFFINES
P.O. Box 981
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Phone: 746-3580
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
CHARLES BOOTH
P.O. Box 102
Seward, Alaska 99664
Phone: 224-5751
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
MARK LUTTRELL
P.O. Box 511
Seward, Alaska 99664
Phone: 224-5372
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
AL SCHAFER
P.O. Box 610
Seward, Alaska 99664
Phone: 224-3130
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 310
JOSEPH YOUNG
P.O. Box 42
Tok, Alaska 99780
Phone: 883-5060
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 310
LARRY SMITH, Representative
Kachemak Resource Institute
1520 Lakeshore Drive
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-3855
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
KATHERINE SMITH
1193 Cooper Court
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-5448
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
DOUG BOWERS
Address Unavailable
Nenana, Alaska 99760
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
PAT STANLEY, Representative
(Indiscernible) Tribal Government
Address Unavailable
Fort Yukon, Alaska 99740
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
BURL SHELDON, Representative
Lynn Canal Conservation, Inc.
P.O. Box 952
Haines, Alaska 99827
Phone: 766-2709
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
VIVIAN MENAKER
P.O. Box 118
Haines, Alaska 99827
Phone: 766-2360
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
BILL FLIRIS
Address Unavailable
Tanana, Alaska 99777
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
CHRISTINA SCHNEIDER
P.O. Box 80883
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
SEAN MCGUIRE
351 Coloudberry
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Phone: 479-7134
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
ROBERT AMMICHT
2784 Railroad Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
EVA SAULITIS
P.O. Box 83715
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Phone: 474-4584
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
SARAH JAMES
Arctic Village, Alaska 99722
Phone: 456-2329
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
OAKLEY COCHRAN
P.O. Box 85071
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Phone: 474-7146
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
RON RICKETTS, Executive Director
Fairbanks Industrial Development Corporation
269 Topside Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Phone: 452-2185
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 310
BETTY ROLLINS
P.O. Box 5516
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Phone: 488-6614
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
RONALD WOLFE, Chief Forester
Klukwan Forest Products
9466 Brady Place
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 789-7104
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 310
LILLER COTTER
P.O. Box 462
Nenana, Alaska 99760
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
GAYLE STEVENS
P.O. Box 38
Nenana, Alaska 99760
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
DUANE ANDERSON
37685 Conner Road
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
ED DAVIS, Representative
Alaska Wilderness, Recreation and Tourism Association
P.O. Box 1616
Fairbanks, Alaska
Phone: 479-7236
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
NANCY LETHCOE, President
Alaska Wilderness, Recreation and Tourism Association
P.O. Box 1313
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Phone: 835-5175
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
BRIAN JOHNSON
P.O. Box 2661
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone: 486-4684
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
ED OPHIEM
1421 Kouskov
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone: 486-4460
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
RICK ERNST
P.O. Box 13172
Trapper Creek, Alaska 99683
Phone: 733-2721
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
NANCY HILLSTRAND
P.O. Box 674
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-2572
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
MIKE MORTELL
General Delivery
Port Baker, Alaska 99927
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
KEN JESSEN
P.O. Box 80424
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Phone: 479-6354
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
HOWARD LUKE
Address Unavailable
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
DAVE LACEY, Manager
Yukon River Tours
P.O. Box 71371
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Phone: 474-8224
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
ROGER SIGLIN
169 Frog Pond Circle
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Phone: 457-6612
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
CONNIE STRICKS
P.O. Box 81437
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Phone: 455-6308
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
DOUG YATES
P.O. Box 221
Ester, Alaska 99725
Phone: 479-8300
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
PUTT CLARK
P.O. Box 80106
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Phone: 479-3761
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
LARRY PAQUIN
966 Goldmine Trail
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Phone: 457-6714
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
BYRON HALEY
1002 Pioneer Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Phone: 456-4426
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
LANE THOMPSON
P.O. Box 80368
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Phone: 479-6712
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
RICHARD HAYDEN
470 Canary Lane
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Phone: 479-0374
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
BIRCH PAVELSKY
6063 Reconstruction
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
IRV LIPSCOMB
6 Mile Chena Ridge
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Phone: 479-6833
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
TARIKA LEA
1703 Fiddle Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Phone: 479-3820
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
CINDY GEAR
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
Phone: 474-6666
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
DANIEL LUM
P.O. Box 70169
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Phone: 456-8143
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
SYLVIA WARD, Representative
Citizens Advisory Committee
Tanana Valley State Forest
218 Driveway
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Phone: 452-5021
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
LARRY MAYO
282 Hay Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Phone: 479-2954
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
RONNIE ROSENBERG, Representative
Green Party
841 Ninth Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Phone: 452-6476
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
JIM SYKES
P.O. Box 68
Talkeetna, Alaska 99676
Phone: 278-7436
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
CARLY BOEHNERT
1851 Barrester
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Phone: 274-3621
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
STEPHEN BODNAR
P.O. Box 2262
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Phone: 424-5427
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
MARY SHIELDS
P.O. Box 80961
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Phone: 455-6469
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
CHARLES SIMMONS
P.O. Box 81724
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Phone: 479-0406
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
TED SWEM
P.O. Box 82068
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Phone: 474-9324
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
FRED BROWN
1469 Holy Cross
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Phone: 479-0215
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 310
JIM SEALY, Vice President
Susitna Valley Association
4330 Seelu Court
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Phone: 243-7001
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
JOHN REEDER
9600 Slalom Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Phone: 346-1943
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
KATYA KIRSCH, Executive Assistant
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
BARBARA KELLY
6751 Marguerite
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 310
DAVID KELLEYHOUSE, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Phone: 465-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 46
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 310
SHORT TITLE: STATE/PRIVATE/MUNI TIMBER OPERATION/SALE
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S)FRANK,Taylor,Pearce,Sharp,
Miller,Kelly,Halford;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Olberg
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/14/94 2829 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/14/94 2829 (S) RESOURCES
03/02/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
03/02/94 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/05/94 (H) MINUTE(ECO)
03/16/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
03/16/94 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/22/94 (S) RES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
03/24/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
03/28/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
03/30/94 3406 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 1DNP NEW TITLE
03/30/94 3407 (S) ZERO FN TO SB & CS PUBLISHED
(DNR)
03/30/94 (S) RLS AT 11:35 AM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
03/30/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/05/94 3448 (S) RULES RPT 3CAL 2NR 4/5/94
04/05/94 3449 (S) HELD TO 4/6/94
04/06/94 3476 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/06/94 3477 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/06/94 3477 (S) AM NO 1 MOVED BY LITTLE
04/06/94 3478 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3478 (S) AM NO 2 MOVED BY LITTLE
04/06/94 3479 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3479 (S) AM NO 3 NOT OFFERED
04/06/94 3479 (S) AM NO 4 MOVED BY LITTLE
04/06/94 3479 (S) AM NO 4 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3480 (S) AM NO 5 MOVED BY DUNCAN
04/06/94 3480 (S) AM NO 5 FAILED Y8 N12
04/06/94 3480 (S) AM NO 6 MOVED BY DUNCAN
04/06/94 3481 (S) AM NO 6 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3481 (S) AM NO 7 MOVED BY DUNCAN
04/06/94 3482 (S) AM NO 7 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3482 (S) AM NO 8 MOVED BY DUNCAN
04/06/94 3482 (S) AM NO 8 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3483 (S) AM NO 9 MOVED BY LINCOLN
04/06/94 3483 (S) AM NO 9 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3483 (S) AM NO 10 MOVED BY ZHAROFF
04/06/94 3484 (S) AM NO 10 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3484 (S) AM NO 11 MOVED BY ZHAROFF
04/06/94 3484 (S) AM NO 11 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3485 (S) AM NO 12 MOVED BY LINCOLN
04/06/94 3485 (S) AM NO 12 FAILED Y10 N10
04/06/94 3486 (S) AM NO 13 MOVED BY ZHAROFF
04/06/94 3486 (S) AM NO 13 FAILED Y9 N11
04/06/94 3486 (S) AM NO 14 MOVED BY ADAMS
04/06/94 3487 (S) AM NO 14 FAILED Y8 N12
04/06/94 3487 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD
Y11 N9
04/06/94 3487 (S) THIRD READING 4/7 CALENDAR
04/07/94 3506 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME
CSSB 310(RES)
04/07/94 3506 (S) PASSED Y11 N8 E1
04/07/94 3506 (S) Adams NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/08/94 3527 (S) RECON TAKEN UP/IN THIRD READING
04/08/94 3527 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y11
N7 E2
04/08/94 3531 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/08/94 3212 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/08/94 3212 (H) RESOURCES
04/08/94 3220 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): OLBERG
04/15/94 3526 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
04/15/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
04/15/94 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/20/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 46
SHORT TITLE: AUTHORIZE MOOSE FARMING
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER,Frank,Pearce,Sharp,Taylor;
REPRESENTATIVE(S)Therriault
01/14/93 60 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/14/93 60 (S) RESOURCES, FINANCE
01/15/93 76 (S) COSPONSOR: LINCOLN
01/29/93 189 (S) COSPONSOR: SHARP
02/01/93 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
02/01/93 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/03/93 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/05/93 240 (S) RES RPT 4DP
02/05/93 240 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
02/17/93 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518
02/17/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/01/93 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518
03/01/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/03/93 588 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 1DNP NEW TITLE
03/03/93 588 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (DNR)
03/03/93 588 (S) ZERO FNS TO CS (F&G, DEC)
03/03/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
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
03/10/93 714 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/10/93 714 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED Y14 N5 E1
03/10/93 715 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y5 N14 E1
03/10/93 716 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y7 N12 E1
03/10/93 717 (S) AM NO 3 FAILED Y8 N11 E1
03/10/93 715 (S) AM NO 4 FAILED Y8 N11 E1
03/10/93 716 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD READING FLD Y11
N8 E1
03/10/93 719 (S) THIRD READING 3/11 CALENDAR
03/10/93 723 (S) COSPONSOR: TAYLOR
03/11/93 755 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME
CSSB 46(FIN)
03/11/93 755 (S) PASSED Y11 N8 E1
03/11/93 756 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
03/11/93 757 (S) COSPONSOR WITHDRAWN: LINCOLN
03/12/93 784 (S) RECON TAKEN UP/IN THIRD READING
03/12/93 785 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y12
N7 E1
03/12/93 786 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/15/93 642 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/15/93 642 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/15/93 658 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): THERRIAULT
04/16/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/17/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/19/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/19/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/18/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
02/18/94 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/09/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
03/09/94 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/20/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-56, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by
Chairman Bill Williams at 8:17 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams, Bunde, Carney,
Davies, and Mulder. Members absent were Representatives
Hudson, Finkelstein, Green, and James.
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced there is a quorum present.
He stated the meeting is on teleconference with Anchorage,
Cordova, Fairbanks, Glennallen, Homer, Kodiak, Ketchikan,
Mat-Su, Petersburg, Seward, Sitka, Kenai/Soldotna, Tok,
Valdez, Nenana, Haines, Port Protection, Fort Yukon, Tanana.
SB 310 - State/Private/Muni Timber Operation/Sale
GLEN JUDAY, FAIRBANKS, stated SB 310, as written, clearly
violates some important principles of managing renewable
resources for the long term public interest. He is not
opposed to managing the state's forest lands for the
production of forest products. He explained one of the
principles violated in SB 310 is that the bill reflects more
faith in the approaches of a command economy rather than a
free market. SB 310 is inviting a monopoly. He felt it is
not an acceptable principle to operate the program on. He
said the state can continue to operate an annual timber sale
program or even increase it without tying up all options
through long term, single party agreements.
MR. JUDAY said SB 310 incorporates a feature which has the
effect of passing off the uncertainty of the future to the
state, which he felt is unfair. He thought that should be a
risk borne by a private profit making party. He stated
amendments which would rectify these and other problems
include a full and independent accounting of the costs,
liabilities, and an honest statement of the benefits.
Second, a provision is needed which will remove the
incentive to renegotiate the contract as situations unfold
in the future. Finally, referring to Section 3(b) of the
bill which says forest management agreements (FMAs) shall be
solicited each year, he felt there is no need to continue to
add infinite items soliciting FMAs.
Number 066
JAN DAWE, FAIRBANKS, stated she is a participant in the
Alaska Boreal Forest Council (ABFC) and believes strongly in
the public process. She stressed it is essential the public
process be maintained. The legislature did well last year
by providing funds for an inventory update in the Tanana
Valley State Forest, which will be completed this year. She
said the area regional management plan is currently being
revised. She stated SB 310 will significantly alter the
landscape both on the ground and the management practices
conceived thus far and will also significantly weaken the
process, which ABFC is against. She noted because FMAs will
be put on a separate track from the timber sales on the
current five year schedule, ABFC is concerned about the
removal of both agency and public oversight.
MS. DAWE pointed out that any forested lands let for
timbering have to be over the 500,000 board foot limit and
need to go though two editions of the harvest timber
schedule. SB 310 will allow a significant proportion of the
cut to go unexamined until contracts are being let for the
FMA. ABFC feels it is not good to give the commissioner of
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), who will be
negotiating and soliciting FMAs on an annual basis, so much
decision making power. She noted one of the proposed
amendments, which looks good, is that FMAs will need to be
coordinated across land ownership lines, including private
lands. She said if FMAs are to be negotiated across land
ownership lines, ABFC implores the committee to insist that
the agencies redo their fiscal notes because of the need for
oversight on private land through the Forest Practices Act
(FPA).
MS. DAWE stated ABFC's positive vision is something other
than the FMA model, which has not been successful in Canada
or in Southeast Alaska. ABFC proposes community based
forestry instead, with consensus building boards and local
loggers being encouraged.
Number 105
COLIN REED, FAIRBANKS, said he is both interested and
concerned about the diversity of the economy in Alaska. The
state's primary resource base, oil, is finite and drying up.
He felt if the state's forests are managed improperly, the
same thing will happen to them. He stated SB 310 does not
properly define sustainability. He pointed out the entire
forest can be cut down and harvested again in 125 years, so
by some people's definition of sustainability, that may be
adequate. However, his definition of sustainability
requires an even flow of jobs in perpetuity for Alaskans.
He felt the definition of sustainability in SB 310 needs to
be looked at closely.
MR. REED stated SB 310 proposes competition in a market
which is already dominated by existing pulp and
(indiscernible) board producers around the world, many of
which are losing money with their existing infrastructures.
He felt SB 310 proposes to do the same in Alaska--build new
infrastructure and expect to compete, even though the
state's transportation costs are somewhat higher. He
pointed out that the forests in Southeast Asia and South
America are being extracted at a loss, mainly to pay the
debt to the International Monetary Fund and other world
organizations. He did not think Alaska could compete in
those markets very healthfully and may be forced to give
away resources as a consequence.
MR. REED said Japan is probably willing to buy the state's
logs at good prices on the short term, although they will
not allow the state to do value-added in the state, as they
prefer to do that in their own country. He stated if
experiences in other countries are any example, Japan will
try to renegotiate the state's contracts 10-15 years down
the road, once the state has already generated a dependency.
He wondered what the real numbers on SB 310 are. There has
not been any cost analysis done on the state forests. He
asked how many jobs will be created on the long term. He
felt such a study is needed before such sweeping legislation
is passed.
Number 144
CHRIS GATES, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (DCED), said
his job is to find responsible jobs and economic activity
for the people of the state, especially in light of the
realities of the future and the jobs being lost both in oil
and the fishing industry. DCED views SB 310 as one tool to
help counter the loss of jobs in the state-a tool which can
be used correctly, or as many people think, used
incorrectly. He said there is risk in any law or regulation
passed. DCED feels SB 310 is an important tool for the
state to use in creating jobs and economic activity with the
state's forest industry.
MR. GATES stated SB 310 will allow better management of the
state forests by having hundreds of people with a vested
interest seeing those forests produce money for their
companies and giving those companies a vested interest in
managing their assets correctly. DCED believes SB 310
provides a better opportunity for encouraging outside
investment in the state. He said as mentioned earlier,
there is currently a great incentive to export all of the
logs and do the value-added elsewhere. DCED can use SB 310
to help encourage building those type of plants and making
those things happen in Alaska.
MR. GATES said SB 310 provides an opportunity to better
manage the state's beetle infested forests, especially along
the river systems where there is very little chance of
seeing value-added industry so far away from population
centers. He stressed if the state has FMAs, encouraging
investment in the Interior, those logs will possibly have a
market. He pointed out there is a better chance with SB 310
to have targeted management.
Number 179
TABITHA GREGORY, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA CENTER FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT, testified via teleconference and expressed
opposition to SB 310. She said through institutionalizing
FMAs or negotiated long term contracts, public oversight on
large tracts of state forest land is reduced. FMAs favor a
large scale timber industry, dominated by a single company
over a (indiscernible) timber industry which is shared by
numerous smaller companies. SB 310 does not reflect the
changing conditions present in Alaska today. It makes the
Alaska economy more vulnerable to the boom and bust cycle.
FMAs reduce the public's ability to participate in
management oversight. Once FMAs are final, Alaskans lose
control and oversight of large tracts of public land for 20
years or longer.
MS. GREGORY stated SB 310 disregards many other uses of
forest land. She felt turning over management of public
lands to private hands does not show good faith towards all
of Alaska. Long term contracts (indiscernible) Alaska's
timber industry (indiscernible) timber development for
twenty years or longer. While these contracts may attract
companies to establish mills in the state, she asked if that
is really best for Alaska. She said the state has always
relied on a single major industry--from the early days when
salmon harvest was a single enterprise, to the present
situation of relying on oil. She noted that Alaskans have
worked hard recently to create a range of diversified
industries which expand the state's economic base. She
wondered why, at this point, are some individuals
encouraging the state's timber industry to move backwards,
away from that diversification into a single private market.
MS. GREGORY said long term contracts present adaptation to a
changing market (indiscernible) special conditions. She
stated it is difficult for large mills to adapt. The state
has never seen a long term contract which has been
successful for the entire term of the contract and leaves
people in a boom and bust situation. (Indiscernible)
provides for three to five year timber sales and allows
existing and future small businesses to build a diverse,
stable product industry. Management of public resources
remains in the public hands (indiscernible) oversight. She
urged committee members to not pass SB 310 out of committee
as it is currently written.
Number 219
JUDY HARGIS, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and
expressed opposition to SB 310. She stressed the public has
been against FMAs since 1987 and the heart of SB 310 is an
attempt to force FMAs down people's throats. She said all
of the fancy clarifications making the bill sound like it is
not a FMA are a sham. She is glad SB 310 has been referred
to the House Finance Committee. She hoped that committee
will recognize the weaknesses and inadequacies of the bill.
She expressed concern that the bill contains no requirement
for the bonding of loggers. She stressed if SB 310 passes,
the state will ultimately spend a large amount of money to
clean up the mess left behind.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVES
HUDSON, FINKELSTEIN, GREEN, JAMES, AND MULDER had joined the
committee. He noted that REPRESENTATIVE ULMER was also in
the audience.)
Number 243
DANE WAGNER, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and
expressed opposition to SB 310. He expressed displeasure
with the meeting schedule and hearing process. He wondered
why there is such a need to quickly pass SB 310, which he
feels is a poorly thought idea. He also wondered what
reforestation is taking place in previously large scale
clearcuts in the state. He asked why committee members are
so eager to destroy the forest, which many people make their
living from, including almost every viable business in the
state.
MR. WAGNER asked committee members to prove to the Alaskan
people that timber harvesting is more lucrative than
existing tourism-based industries; prove to the Alaskan
people that a single tree is worth more cut down and shipped
out of state than it is left standing; prove to the Alaskan
people that there are still renewable forests in the lower
48 and that the timber industry has a good track record;
prove to the hard working Alaskans that they will be better
off with large scale timber harvests than they are now;
explain to the Alaskan people why the timber companies want
to come to Alaska and set up cutting for their own
masterpieces. He hoped the committee members would hold SB
310 until more public hearings can be held in Anchorage,
Fairbanks, and many other potentially impacted communities.
Number 271
JIM MINTON, REPRESENTATIVE, FLAT HORN LAKE PROPERTY
ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and
expressed opposition to SB 310. He said the bill has many
shortcomings. DNR is unable to handle the load of their
existing oversight responsibilities for current timber sales
volume, let alone properly monitor a large scale program,
which SB 310 will implement. He stated SB 310 opens the
door for a major financial drain to the state, judging from
past performances on the majority of large scale projects.
It is also felt the public process is put after the fact,
when contracts have already been negotiated. He noted
another factor leaving the state wide open to financial
boondoggle is the lack of bonding required. He felt SB 310
is full of inequities to the public and public lands. The
association urges the committee to kill the bill.
MEREDITH MARSHALL, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference
and expressed support of SB 310. She said utilizing
Alaska's state forests to create industry and provide jobs
is a positive step for the state. She stressed the concept
of FMAs, as a way of supplying industry and ensuring
environmental compliance from an operator who has a vested
interest in the land management process, is an idea which is
overdue. Long term contracts allow a producer to amortize a
large investment in a reasonable period of time and is a
benefit to the communities that will see increased
employment. She stated streamlining the state timber
management process will not put other resources at risk and
will finally get a viable timber sale program on state
lands.
MS. MARSHALL also read a statement from Kathy Miller: " I
am part owner of Miller, Inc. in Ketchikan. I am here today
in support of SB 310 and the managed use of our forest
resources. The forest products industry provides sound
economic development and guarantees year-round jobs in the
state of Alaska. We have provided for a family here, sent
our children to school, and we plan to be here for the rest
of our lives. However, federal decisions about the
management of our lands could jeopardize all of that. This
is why we must take steps to manage our state lands. Timber
dependent communities rely on a stable, predictable supply
of timber at market prices. FMAs make this possible,
attract the investment necessary, and support our
communities. We harvest at sustainable rates and have a
healthy forest in Southeast Alaska. The Interior and
Southcentral regions of our state promise further economic
and social development on a sustainable basis. SB 310
provides for public comment, and FPA provisions. It is a
healthy bill, good for the environment, and good for the
people."
Number 329
SANDRA MESKE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA WOMEN IN TIMBER, KETCHIKAN,
testified via teleconference and expressed support for SB
310 which will allow FMAs for state lands. She represents
and supports timber dependent communities and the forest
products industry in their efforts to effectively manage and
sustain the state's vast timber resources for the economic
and social benefit of its residents. Timber is a commodity
and is a renewable, reusable, recyclable material with no
fabricated alternative to match its quality, value, and
sustainability. Processing wood products requires less
energy than any of its substitute products such as steel,
concrete, plastic, etc., and using wood products does not
jeopardize the earth's finite supply of nonrenewable
resources.
MS. MESKE felt opening forest lands in the Interior and
Southcentral Alaska will provide jobs and economic growth.
She said that concept is threatened in Southeast Alaska due
to the recent Clinton Administration decision to cancel
Alaska Pulp Corporation's contract. She stressed the state
must manage its lands with its residents and sound economic
growth in mind, since the federal government has proven it
can but will not do it. FMAs are an important tool for
managing state lands. SB 310 is good for Alaska's economic
well being. She urged committee members to pass SB 310 for
the good of the people who want to make a year-round living
in the state.
Number 353
MICHAEL MESKE, KETCHIKAN, testified via teleconference and
stated he makes his living in the timber industry. He
stressed the timber industry is proud of its stewardship
with Alaska's timber resources. He said the Tongass
National Forest is the only forest in the nation to require
buffer zones on spawning streams. He pointed out there are
no endangered species in Alaska. He noted only 10 percent
of the national forest will ever be harvested and that is on
a 100 year rotation.
MR. MESKE said people's lives are still jeopardized by the
federal policy makers who have never seen this land. He
stressed it is important that does not happen in the
Interior and the Southcentral regions of the state, where
there is tremendous potential to expand the state's forest
products industry and continue the stewardship on timbered
land. He stated there is a focus on sustainable timber
harvests wherever they may be. The state will still retain
control of the land and the management practices therein.
The FPA will provide protection for fish, wildlife, and
public resources in the Tanana Valley, as it has on the
Tongass. SB 310 is a practical means to encourage the
development of Alaska's Interior forests, is healthy for the
environment, and for the economy. He supports SB 310 and
urged the committee to do the same.
Number 386
JOSEPH SEBASTIAN, POINT BAKER, testified via teleconference
and asked if anyone has studied the state of Washington's
timber sale program. He wondered if anyone has compared SB
310 to something which is real, working and has been working
for the past 50 years. He said although he is not aware of
the complexities of Washington's program, he does know the
state manages a lot of land. He felt their contracts would
be worth reviewing, instead of blindly running forward and
committing (indiscernible).
MR. SEBASTIAN stated there is no teeth in SB 310. He felt
it will be difficult to enact a FMA because there will be a
line for variances. He said in British Columbia, the
Mitsubishi Corporation is in the chopstick business. He
stressed incredible wastes of the forest are occurring
there, since there are so many (indiscernible) trees. These
trees are left to rot because they are worthless and there
is no other use for the material. He urged the committee to
take another year and fine tooth comb SB 310.
Number 427
SYD WRIGHT, PETERSBURG, testified via teleconference and
expressed opposition to SB 310. He felt the FPA supplies
adequate management of the state forests. He said SB 310
puts emphasis on timber production which will create
temporary jobs, while jeopardizing other permanent jobs. He
pointed out that state land is usually close to communities
and many of those communities are becoming more and more
dependent on an increase in tourism. He stated tourists are
very sensitive to what is happening to the forests and most
of those tourists tend to see both the state and federal
forests. Tourists are not pleased with clearcutting.
MR. WRIGHT stated SB 310 encourages loggers, who have run
out of trees elsewhere, to come to Alaska to log until these
trees are gone and then be out of work here. Since the
national forest has been clear cut at a great rate for 30
years, the United States public realizes the rate is too
fast. He asked why state residents should be any less
sensitive with their trees.
Number 456
BOB ELLIS, REPRESENTATIVE, SITKA CONSERVATION SOCIETY (SCS),
testified via teleconference and stated his group has a long
record of concern for state forest resources. SCS opposes
SB 310. He said based on experiences in Sitka, SCS is
especially against long term contracts. Such contracts make
it impossible to adjust to changes in timber supply and to
new knowledge relative to the effect of logging on other
resources. He said the experience of the state with long
term contracts attempted in Haines should give everyone
thought.
MR. ELLIS said SCS feels the emphasis on logging will result
in the losses of subsistence resources--resources which are
available to everyone, every year, at no cost to the state
budget. SB 310 should, if passed, ensure that the logging
companies finance DNR and the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G) habitat staff sufficiently, so they can define
the need for protection before logging, and monitor logging
operations to ensure protection of all of the forest
resources. He stated the emphasis in SB 310 seems to be on
economics. There is little recognition of all of the forest
resources including timber, which constitutes a form of
permanent fund. He pointed out that all of the state's
forest resources are paying dividends through subsistence
users every year, with no cost to the state budget.
MR. ELLIS stated the FPA has many good things in it but
these good things (indiscernible) by DNR and by legislation
which inadequately funds the habitat section of ADF&G.
Number 508
KAREN MARTINSEN, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA WILDERNESS,
RECREATION, AND TOURISM ASSOCIATION (AWRTA), SITKA,
testified via teleconference and stated AWRTA is opposed to
SB 310. She said SB 310 violates the principles of a free
market, the ongoing review of the impact on resources and
the opportunity for public participation in such a process.
She expressed support of a community-based timber industry.
She stressed SB 310 denies multiple use of the state
forests. She pointed out that tourism relies almost solely
on intact wilderness and wildlife, which is and will
continue to be a very vital part of Alaska's economy.
ELEANOR HUFFINES, PALMER, testified via teleconference and
expressed opposition to SB 310. She said SB 310 will not
solve the economic problems of the state. Once a FMA
contract is issued, timber harvesting becomes the
controlling land use. She stressed other forest values such
as management of fish and wildlife habitat, recreation,
tourism, and other forest dependent businesses, all become
secondary to timber development. She stated getting the cut
out for a mill has priority but without value-added to
timber in Alaska, unprocessed timber exported from Alaska
means Alaskan jobs are lost. She urged committee members to
not pass SB 310 out of committee.
Number 550
CHARLES BOOTH, SEWARD, testified via teleconference and read
a petition. It said: "We, the undersigned want the
following conditions implemented in whole to SB 310 to
include: 1) All state log sales or leases are to be utilized
in domestic industry or consumption; 2) at no time shall
state timber be shipped overseas in the round; 3) that all
state logs for overseas use will be: a) those logs that are
lumber grade must be made into finished lumber in the state
of Alaska; and b) logs of lower grade must be chipped or
processed in the state of Alaska. He state approximately 75
people had signed the petition.
Number 570
MARK LUTTRELL, SEWARD, testified via teleconference and
expressed opposition to SB 310. He said he opposes SB 310
for three reasons. SB 310 provides too much power to the
DNR commissioner, eliminates meaningful public
participation, and requires no bonding for logging
companies. He noted in SB 310, Section 5 says, "The primary
purpose in the establishment of state forests is the
development of commercial forest land..." He stressed that
denies multiple use, which he very much favors.
Number 587
AL SCHAFER, SEWARD, testified via teleconference and
expressed support for SB 310. He said there is a major
sawmill in Seward which has no timber. He felt anything
which gets timber moving is good. He thought it is
important to keep the timber industry in the state, because
once it dies, it will be difficult to reinstate it. He
stated the environmental movement has put too much study and
not enough faith into people who are foresters and are
trying to manage timber. He pointed out that the Seward
mill currently has less than a week's supply of wood and not
a sale in sight. He stressed anything which can be done to
expedite sales will be appreciated in Seward.
JOSEPH YOUNG, TOK, testified via teleconference and said the
state of Alaska contains 365 million acres of land, with 215
million acres or 60 percent under federal ownership. He
stated most of this land is dedicated to parks, habitat, and
recreation for eco-tourism and other noncommodity uses. He
pointed out there are 46 million acres of Native land in
Alaska. There is 104 million acres of state land which is
supposedly dedicated to the use of all citizens of the
state, as directed by the state Constitution. He said most
of this land is being used for habitat and recreation uses.
MR. YOUNG said most of the state has been locked up and is
being used as one big national park. He felt the
preservationists, the vocal minority who the committee is
hearing, wants to lock more land up. He did not feel that
was in the best interest of all citizens of the state. He
played an audio tape and told committee members the words
they were about to hear fit the present situation in Alaska.
Number 663
LARRY SMITH, CHAIR, FOREST RESOURCES WORKING GROUP, KACHEMAK
RESOURCE INSTITUTE, testified via teleconference and stated
more work needs to be done on SB 310. His fear is that the
state is going to feed the export market again. He pointed
out it has not been very many years since the export market,
according to the legislative audit report in 1991, killed
two sawmills--one on each end of the Kenai Peninsula. He
said the 1991 legislative budget and audit committee report
stated, "The state of Washington offers short term sales and
most of their contracts are for two years. A consultant
hired by the Department of Law recommended that the state
consider limiting sales to less than three years. By
offering timber sales for shorter periods, the state will
avoid the problems that arise with the (indiscernible)
stumpage price. The state has not had success on either
renegotiating the price or on using an index to adjust the
price. A short term sale eliminates the need for
(indiscernible) price adjustment."
KATHERINE SMITH, HOMER, testified via teleconference and
stated 20 year contracts are not FMAs, but rather long term
timber sales. FMA is a misleading misnomer. The purchaser
of a FMA will not manage the forest but will harvest the
timber in the most cost effective way. Logging companies
who do not own the land they are cutting have no vested
interest in its continued productivity whatsoever, and
certainly not in fish, wildlife, recreation, scenic
watershed, plants or ecological value. The burden of
monitoring a harvest and forcing the reforestation standards
will be borne by the state. She said in regard to
reforestation, forest research and monitoring of the FPA are
in danger of being cut from the capital budget. She
wondered how the committee can justify SB 310 and the direct
administrative costs of DNR and ADF&G. She wondered what
the indirect costs will be for fishing, tourism, and
recreation. The cost to Alaskans of large yield, long term
logging cannot be justified by any amount of...
TAPE 94-56, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. SMITH stressed the people in the state have repeatedly
(indiscernible) subsidizing the timber industry with state
resources. She said the state's lands should not be handed
over for 20-40 years and be locked in today's low returns on
timber. Most of these (indiscernible). She felt the state
should not (indiscernible) long term timber sales, which
severely limit its management option. The state is now just
learning that timber stands are critical for salmon, deer,
bear, eagle, mink, otter and other wildlife. She stated it
will be very difficult to back out of FMAs if public
resources are threatened such as the salmon stocks in the
Pacific Northwest and the big game populations in parts of
Southeast Alaska. She stressed existing forest resources
must be protected. The state cannot afford subsidized
logging through FMAs. She urged the committee to conserve
the state's natural and financial resources and not lock
them into FMA's, which are too costly.
Number 012
DOUG BOWERS, NENANA, testified via teleconference and stated
his family's entire existence is provided by the Tanana
River and the surrounding country. He said the chum runs in
the Yukon/Tanana River drainage have been declining in the
past years. The fishermen in the rivers, particularly the
Tanana, have given up significant fishing time in an effort
to rebuild those stocks. The damage to fish runs in
Washington, Oregon, British Columbia and Southcoastal Alaska
is well documented. He pointed out there has been much
published about the effects of clearcutting on salmon
streams and other areas but nothing on the rivers of the
Interior of Alaska.
Number 020
MR. BOWERS stated the Tanana and the upper Yukon river
systems are the spawning grounds for salmon stocks for all
of western Alaska. Some stocks are close to being placed on
the endangered species list. He asked if the state can
afford any damage to the spawning and rearing habitat of
these stocks which are already in trouble. He pointed out
that the entire Tanana Valley is in a flood plain, unlike
the mountains of Southeast. The stands of forest shade the
winter snow pack and allow for controlled run off in the
spring, as well as absorb the cushion for heavy rainfall in
the summer. He wondered what will become of the homes and
fish runs as they are washed down the river by uncontrolled
run off. He gave an example of the effect of clearcutting,
as related to flooding, in the state of Washington.
MR. BOWERS said 90 percent of the food chain in the river
system occurs within a couple of hundred feet of the river.
He stated the head forester from the Tanana Chiefs
Conference has said that buffer strips mean nothing along
the river corridors because the river will take it anyway.
They have tried to leave buffer strips but they make no
difference. He wondered how long have the buffer strips
been tried. He asked what effect will buffer strips have
ten years from now. With all of the new roads and
previously unaccessed lands, he wondered who will pay for
ADF&G's protection in regard to the increased hiking and
fishing pressure. He wondered if the Department of
Transportation will be asked to upgrade logging roads for
year-round access. He also wondered who will eventually pay
for this subsidy to the timber industry.
Number 040
MR. BOWERS stated the Department of Conservation (DEC) will
be required to monitor the water run off and other
environmental concerns. He wondered if the timber companies
will be subsidized (indiscernible). He said the Division of
Habitat is going to be required to look at the effects of
logging on habitat, which is something that cannot be
summarized in one report, one time. It will take years of
monitoring to properly evaluate. He noted the skilled
loggers will come from other parts of the country. Local
residents are going to be competing for unskilled labor in
chipboard plants and the self-esteem of the people who want
to provide for themselves is going to be reduced
dramatically, requiring increased social services which are
already stretched to the limit.
Number 050
MR. BOWERS said Klukwan Native Corporation has less than one
year's timber work remaining on its own lands. He wondered
if the state's local Native corporations want to compete
with outsiders for jobs and resources. The small loggers he
has talked to oppose large clearcut logging practices,
labeling them destructive and wasteful. They question the
quality of the material available in the Interior now. They
are all in favor of small selective sales which are easily
managed and result in high grade logs. They question why
there is a need to clearcut in the first place because the
Interior trees are left down to rot. He felt FMAs are going
to be the ultimate lock up.
Number 064
PAT STANLEY, REPRESENTATIVE, (INDISCERNIBLE) TRIBAL
GOVERNMENT, FORT YUKON, testified via teleconference and
stated the increased hunting and fishing pressure, which
will occur by opening up these areas for large scale timber
harvesting, is going to put added pressure on people wanting
to use these areas for subsistence. She wondered if all of
the costs involved have been considered. She stressed there
has been no cost analysis done in relation to people using
the resources for subsistence. In terms of jobs, there are
no statistics as to how many jobs SB 310 will bring from
outside of the state as opposed to inside of the state.
There is also a question of what SB 310 will do to the small
scale, value-added timber industry which already exists in
the Tanana Valley.
BURL SHELDON, REPRESENTATIVE, LYNN CANAL CONSERVATION, INC.,
HAINES, testified via teleconference and stated SB 310
(indiscernible) oversight to small timber sales, which are
most sales in the Haines State Forest. SB 310 weakens the
flexibility by promoting long term contracts, which have
proven to be unworkable and too costly in Haines and the
Tongass. SB 310 eliminates multiple use as a priority on
state lands, in favor of single use extraction and does not
emphasize cost/benefit analysis. Further, SB 310 does not
promote value-added such as fishing, tourism, recreation,
and subsistence.
MR. SHELDON stated Haines has seen a rather sad legacy in
regard to FMAs and long term contracts. He said presently
the derelict remains of Haines's one large mill are being
dismantled and sold for scrap. He stressed the tragedy is
amplified historically and prior to the long term contracts,
which led to the establishment of the now defunct Pacific
Forest Products mill. Haines has seven small scale local
mills, providing jobs and lumber for the residents of the
upper Lynn Canal. These businesses were self-sustaining and
operated without subsidized timber access programs. Upon
the creation of a long term contract in the Haines State
Forest between 1980-1985, the Division of Forestry spent
over $1 million on forest and timber programs in Haines.
Adding to that, the $5.6 million the state loaned to the
forest operator, including interest and even with the
payments to the state from the timber operators, a very
bleak picture is drawn. The state lost over $8 million in
it's last FMA in Haines.
MR. SHELDON said any and all contracts, long term or short
term, should be subject to a cost/benefit analysis so the
state does not squander more funds on subsidies to
irresponsible timber operators. He observed DNR has never
paid attention to the valid concerns regarding habitat
impacts to fisheries from large scale clearcuts. He stated
ADF&G has repeatedly raised concerns regarding impacts on
local king salmon spawning habitat from logging bridges in
the Kelsall River drainage with little or no response from
DNR. FMAs will clearly place burdens on ADF&G personnel,
with no guarantee that habitat concerns will be adequately
addressed.
Number 131
VIVIAN MENAKER, HAINES, testified via teleconference and
stated at the first teleconference on SB 310, she listened
to testimony from Fairbanks and heard many people speak
against SB 310 with whom she agrees, especially Celia Hunter
and Ginny Wood. She said SB 310 seems to be a single use
approach to state forests. When loggers get through cutting
down the trees, no other activity can take place. Tourists
will not want it; fish streams become too cold in the winter
and too hot in the summer; slash falls into the water
clogging the flow and the fish die; moose have summer browse
but will starve in the winter or die of exposure. Other
wildlife will equally be displaced.
MS. MENAKER stated Haines has another problem. In 1979, the
Haines-Skagway Area Land Use Plan was developed and
emphasized the multiple use concept. In 1984, the next five
year plan was developed which also emphasized the multiple
use concept. She stressed in 1989, there should have been
another five year plan but the Forest Service did not
produce one. Now a fourth five year plan should be prepared
but the local forester has told her it is too expensive and
says there is an annual plan done now. She is not aware of
any local input for the annual plan. She pointed out that
some people think there might be a shortage of timber but
there is no way to know.
MS. MENAKER said Haines had a long term timber sale for the
Schnabel Timber Company but it cost the state about $6-8
million in loans by the time it finally closed. The state
was able to sell the mill for about $1 million. She
stressed there is a need for a small mill for local lumber.
When Haines had two large mills running two shifts a day in
the 1960s, people there could not buy a local two-by-four.
All finished lumber had to be purchased from Seattle. She
stated now when SB 310 comes along calling for large scale
mills, long term contracts, no public review, it begins to
look like a public resource giveaway.
MS. MENAKER felt if SB 310 passes, Haines will be in a
crisis situation. The first inventory of Haines Borough
timber was done in 1965, which was written as a public
report and all sales were based on it. In 1985, after
considerable public pressure, another forest inventory was
done but there has never been a public report, so the public
has no idea whether or not a sustainable yield has been
maintained. She said there have been nine years of delays
and excuses as to why there has not yet been a report for
the public. She called the Inventory Forester in Anchorage
in March and he thought the report might be out in April.
She called again in April and he thought it would be ready
in May or June. She wondered if he will be allowed to
finish the inventory or will he be given another assignment
before the report is finished, which has happened
previously. In the meantime, the local forester says he can
read the numbers and says not to worry, all is fine. In
view of all of the above, she opposes SB 310.
Number 177
BILL FLIRIS, TANANA, testified via teleconference and stated
he is a subsistence and commercial fisherman. He expressed
opposition to SB 310 because the public process is being
avoided. He felt there is inadequate information in Tanana
regarding the possible results of the passage of SB 310. He
said the previous planning program for the Tanana Valley
State Forest (indiscernible) revised, the advisory committee
was consulted, there was a lot of education involved in
setting up the plan and the idea which came out of the input
was for multiple use.
MR. FLIRIS expressed concern about fish habitat
(indiscernible) for Tanana. He noted there have been
problems with the chum salmon runs on the Yukon and Tanana
Rivers. He felt there has not been enough study to go in
and give out large scale contracts, without knowing what the
total impact is going to be. He thought there will be legal
challenges if SB 310 passes.
CHRISTINA SCHNEIDER, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference
and expressed displeasure with the hearings on SB 310. She
felt many voices will not be heard because of the short time
allowed for testimony on SB 310. She asked committee
members to consider why, after decades of noninterest, the
forests of remote Alaska are suddenly interesting and
potentially profitable to the timber technocrats. She said
it is because the timber industry has destroyed the timber
resource base everywhere else. She also asked committee
members to consider that people are spending millions of
dollars every year to visit Alaska. They come to the state
because it has what they want and what they no longer have:
intact wilderness, standing and never logged forests, and
wild and healthy populations of endemic species. She
stressed if the state destroys what it has, people will take
their dollars elsewhere.
MS. SCHNEIDER stated the price of Alaska will only rise as
everyone else continues to live beyond the capacity of their
homelands. She said people must not cave in to pressure to
irrevocably develop and destroy the state forests. Alaskans
must preserve what they have and manage it locally,
sustainably, and on a small scale for modest gain. She told
committee members they do not have the right to invite rude
outside profiteers to her home as she does not want them.
She stressed eventually the Tanana Valley and other intact
forests of Alaska will be worth more than all the timber
ever produced the world over. She urged committee members
to oppose SB 310 and allow community councils to draft
consensus forestry management proposals for consideration
next legislative session.
Number 333
SEAN MCGUIRE, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
expressed displeasure with the hearing process on SB 310.
He felt every citizen should not be heard. He said since SB
310 was introduced, it has received more and more opposition
and continues to have massive opposition. He stated there
is very little support for SB 310. He urged committee
members to kill SB 310.
ROBERT AMMICHT, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
expressed opposition to SB 310. He urged committee members
to vote no on SB 310.
EVA SAULITIS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
encouraged committee members to hear all of the public
testimony from around the state. She felt if everyone
cannot be heard, another hearing should be scheduled. She
expressed opposition to SB 310 and believed that all
interested parties should discuss how local loggers can be
helped. FMAs will not help local loggers. She stressed the
community should not be divided any further but rather
develop a bill that everyone can agree on--one that
encourages and supports local industries, not outside
corporations.
Number 305
SARAH JAMES, ARCTIC VILLAGE, testified via teleconference
and expressed opposition to SB 310. She is opposed to long
term, large scale logging. She stressed Alaska is still
rich in natural resources. Alaskans are (indiscernible) to
the big companies. She said subsistence is very important.
Fishing is very important to all Alaskans. She pointed out
that clearcuts will destroy fish spawning. She travels to
the lower 48 and British Columbia and it is cut in pieces.
(Indiscernible)... She felt there should be more public
input on SB 310. She said what has happened to the chum in
the Tanana affect her area.
OAKLEY COCHRAN, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
stated she spoke against the earlier version of SB 310
because it eliminated public involvement. She said the bill
was recently revised to be more inclusive of the public.
Now she questions the sustainability of this enterprise in
terms of people and their jobs and in terms of the forest.
She stated clearcutting is systematic of a hyperactive
culture like small children racing around in a sugar induced
frenzy, when what is really needed is some hot milk and a
long nap, so there is a capability of listening to the world
around us.
MS. COCHRAN pointed out that clearcutting does not concern
the future of the forest but rather is an economic benefit
here today and gone tomorrow at the cost of landscape.
Although sustainable forestry will not produce a huge
instantaneous yield, it will provide people with long term
jobs and will be better for Alaska economically and
environmentally. She asked committee members to consider
the unsustainabilities of large scale, large industry
controlled logging. She felt the state forests should not
be a part of the boom and bust economy. She urged committee
members to think long and hard about SB 310 and then
consider the future.
Number 373
RON RICKETTS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FAIRBANKS INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, testified via teleconference and
expressed support of SB 310. He stated there has been a lot
of misinformation regarding SB 310 and its implications. He
said there are perceptions that a mega-project is being
contemplated and there is a plan to decimate the Tanana
hillside trees, which is not true. He said there still is a
requirement for sustained yield, which means trees can be
cut over a long period of time, yet also sustain them. He
said there is also an inference that the state is going to
subsidize any project. He pointed out SB 310 requires the
commissioner to have provisions in the contract which
address such issues as oversight by an agency. The intent
of the bill is those costs will be borne by the operator.
He stressed the goal is for any FMA to yield a net return to
the state. Mr. Ricketts stated there is also an inference
that the small operators will be shut out. He said the
small operators he has talked to support SB 310. He urged
committee members to pass SB 310.
BETTY ROLLINS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
stated the Fairbanks Daily News Miner opposed SB 310. She
asked where in SB 310 are Alaska jobs guaranteed. She also
asked where in the bill is the economic (indiscernible) in
the affected communities. She opposed SB 310.
Number 429
RONALD WOLFE, CHIEF FORESTER, KLUKWAN FOREST PRODUCTS (KFP),
testified via teleconference and expressed support for SB
310. He said KFP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Klukwan
Incorporated, a Southeast Alaska Native Corporation, and
holds the unique distinction of harvesting its own timber as
well as purchasing timber from a wide variety of Alaska
timber owners. KFP has purchased timber from the federal
government, the University of Alaska, other Native
Corporations in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska, and it
has even purchased a little timber from the state of Alaska,
which heretofore has not been able to put up very much
timber for sale.
MR. WOLFE stressed SB 310 offers an alternative to the
existing way the state sells timber, which really has not
been very successful, so that long term benefits can be
attained. He said this is particularly true for the boreal
forests of the Interior and Southcentral, where the lack of
infrastructure frustrates forest resource development. The
main benefit of SB 310 is a reliable timber supply for
industry to make capital investments, and if this is allowed
to occur, Alaska's forest industry will be allowed to expand
and improve. He pointed out that a reliable supply of raw
materials is an absolute necessity for industry to obtain
financing to build manufacturing facilities and necessary
infrastructure, or invest capital corporate assets into such
a venture.
MR. WOLFE asked committee members to amend the Alaska Forest
Resources and Practices Act by removing a confusing
reference to sustained yield with respect to reforestation
in section 41.17.060(b)(4). He noted that legal services
has prepared language which will accomplish his request in
amendment X10. He stressed this is something which should
have been done when the FPA was amended several years ago.
In considering the reforestation regulations in Section 5 of
AAC 11, this change will be more housekeeping than
substantive.
Number 476
LILLER COTTER, NENANA, expressed her strong opposition to SB
310. She said for the past eighteen years, she has made her
livelihood on or near the Tanana and Kantishna Rivers
fishing, trapping, selective logging and dog racing. She
stated this has been a chosen lifestyle and one which has
financially supported her husband and her totally. She is
pro-responsible resource development and feels SB 310 is
irresponsible. She has witnessed the devastating results of
clearcutting through personal witness, as well as through
research. She felt everyone must learn from the mistakes of
those who have made the sad choice and have lived to regret
it.
MS. COTTER stated clearcutting will greatly increase the
threat of flooding and will also destroy the trail system by
wiping out the natural wind buffer that trees provide. She
felt clearcutting will lead to progressive clearcutting as a
result of blowdown and from the blowdown will come the
beetles. She said the promise of a lot of jobs is a
fallacy. The truth is many people will lose their jobs.
She remarked when it is so difficult for someone to get a
permit for house logs and now there is a desire to mow the
forest all down, it does not make sense. She noted there
has been so much opposition to SB 310 and so much
devastation as a result of other people's choice to
clearcut. She stressed she does not want to lose her
livelihood. She is sending up a red flag. There are people
who live out there who work and support themselves and are
not a burden to the state. The priority should be multiple
use. She urged committee members to not pass SB 310
Number 512
GAYLE STEVENS, NENANA, expressed opposition to SB 310. She
said her family participates in many activities within the
forest including hunting, trapping, fishing, snow machining
and dog mushing. She has seen the damage which is done by
clearcut logging. She felt the damage from clearcutting can
be widespread. The potential damage to spawning streams is
not something to be gambled with, considering the declining
salmon runs. With the small scale logging which is taking
place in her area the last few years, she has seen the
damage and waste. The amount of cut trees which are left in
huge piles is unbelievable. She stated there have not been
any local jobs or local hire except for one truck which was
hired.
MS. STEVENS said the interior forest does not grow fast
enough to support this type of logging. The already
threatened subsistence lifestyle will suffer. Flooding and
erosion is a danger. She said as people now travel on the
dog trails, the decline in wildlife is already apparent.
They never know whether or not they will run into a three
foot snow berm right across a traditional trail or if there
will be a logging truck bearing down on them around a
corner. She felt multiple use will be eliminated.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
SITTON had joined the committee.)
Number 541
DUANE ANDERSON, SOLDOTNA, testified via teleconference and
stated Senator Frank is famous for his "I don't knows" and
Mr. Boutin is famous for the fact he has a cut deal with
someone to put in a particle board plant. He said the
Seward mill (indiscernible) has ten days of wood
(indiscernible) and the same situation is occurring in
Soldotna--none of the wood has been hauled out and there is
a (indiscernible) sitting at the state university sale. The
need for log product for that mill is entirely restricted.
He conducted research just prior to the meeting to give
committee members an idea of what value they will be giving
away versus what might be received from the forest if they
are determined to have a large scale or some value-added
facility. He stressed there is no other world source for
birch and hence, the forest in Alaska is a gold mine. He
outlined current prices.
Number 560
ED DAVIS, MEMBER, ALASKA WILDERNESS, RECREATION AND TOURISM
ASSOCIATION (AWRTA), FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference
and urged committee members to hold another meeting on SB
310 to allow everyone to testify. He said Alaska's prime
forest lands should rightfully sustain a small scale timber
industry. However, SB 310 will manage the prime forest
lands for the exclusive use of large scale, corporate
clearcutting interests. He stressed these lands must also
be managed to sustain the tourism and recreation industries.
SB 310 fails to recognize that wholesale clearcutting of the
state's publicly owned forests will unravel the fabric which
binds the people to Alaska and brings tourists and vacation
dollars to the state.
MR. DAVIS told committee members to think of their
constituents. He asked how many of their constituents chose
to live in Alaska because it offers something in addition to
economic opportunity. He asked how many of those
constituents are in Alaska because of things which depend on
healthy forest ecosystems, like salmon runs and pristine
waters or perhaps abundant wildlife that is only a hike,
float plane ride or boat ride away from the road. He said
most people are unwilling to sacrifice something as close to
their hearts as the attractions which first brought them to
Alaska and which still bond them to their homeland. He
stated most people are aware of the damage caused by
unsustainable logging. He urged committee members to look
at the clearcut near Yakutat, as it is shocking.
MR. DAVIS stated FMAs proposed under SB 310 are the missing
link which will bring the same type of forestry to the
Tanana Valley. He said if the five year plan for the
Tanana Valley State Forest is reviewed and the harvest rates
to the timber available is compared, one will see that the
economically viable forest lands will be depleted in 22-55
years, depending on the definition of sustainable forest
land.
Number 680
NANCY LETHCOE, PRESIDENT, AWRTA, VALDEZ, testified via
teleconference and stated AWRTA opposes SB 310. She said
she was a member of the Governor's committee which revised
the state FPA. She noted that revision was done with
representatives from state agencies, the forest products
industry, environmental groups, the fishing industry, and
other interests. She stressed it was a difficult process to
reach consensus. Many gave up things they really wanted
such as scenic values recognized and logging done in a way
that minimized the impact on tourism. She pointed out none
of that was included in the revision but what was received
was limited buffer strips along streams which protect the
salmon habitat for sport fishermen.
MS. LETHCOE said SB 310 will change what was a consensus
agreement and institute FMAs. She urged committee members
to table SB 310, put together a new consensus group and
attempt to work out the issues. She pointed out that the
tourism industry is very like the timber industry. The
tourism industry needs a reliable, long term access to the
forest in order to obtain financing and make corporate
investments in their companies. If the tourism industry
does not have that access, it weakens the tourism industry
and makes it difficult for people to enter into the tourism
industry. She stressed that the tourism industry is a long
term employer in the state, unlike the timber industry,
which clearcuts and then moves on to another area.
TAPE 94-57, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. LETHCOE (cont.)...in order to further develop the
economic stability of the state through jobs in tourism.
BRIAN JOHNSON, KODIAK, testified via teleconference and
expressed opposition to SB 310. He stated small businesses
employ the majority of people in the country and looks out
for the needs of the workers. He views SB 310 as a large
corporate entity versus small business people. He thought
there should be short term contracts and a lot more emphasis
put on value-added wood, instead of long term, large scale
contracts which do not consider the environmental and
community needs. He felt present logging does not allow for
a renewable resource. He said good wood takes hundreds of
years. He pointed out when people can get a better price
abroad and all of the logs get exported, rather than putting
people in Alaska to work. He urged committee members not to
give the state's timber away to large corporations but
rather keep it for the people and let them make decisions on
a small scale.
Number 031
ED OPHIEM, KODIAK, testified via teleconference and stated
he has worked with wood since he was a child. He said if he
were to do any repairs to his boat, such as changing a
plank, the cost would be $9 a board foot versus $3.50 a foot
when he built the boat 21 years ago, although that wood is
not available anymore. He stated much of the spruce in
Alaska works fine for boat lumber if one could only get it.
He felt SB 310 does not do much for boat builders. He urged
committee members to keep timber and processing in the
state, so people in the state can benefit from it. He added
that the fishing industry in the state is a mess and two 20-
year timber leases will eliminate that industry completely.
He said the state's oil is just about dried up and the state
is going to be left with a bunch of stumps and holes in the
ground.
RICK ERNST, TRAPPER CREEK, testified via teleconference and
expressed opposition to SB 310. He said FMAs are not
desirable because they tie up too much of the state's land,
for too long to private interests. Once a FMA is signed, no
matter what the state and legislature say, the state loses
control. Big timber corporations and their money and
lawyers will make it very difficult to change existing rules
in changing economic circumstances. He envisions more state
money and energy being tied up in litigation and
enforcement. He felt SB 310 is an economic giveaway by the
state to big timber companies.
MR. ERNST said FMAs make timber harvesting and wood
extraction the primary use and value of state forest lands
and puts other forest values such as recreation, habitat,
subsistence fishing and hunting, and tourism in a secondary
position when making best use assessments of an area. He
stated the first public input comes after bids for an area
are received and the next public input comes after the
contracts are let. The commissioner can still change and
negotiate after all is done and said. Then everyone waits
15 years for additional public input. He felt public input
in all cases seems to be only a rubber stamp for whatever
DNR and the big timber companies want.
MR. ERNST said the exemption for small lease sales should be
dropped. He pointed out that 67 percent of the sales for
the next five years are sales of less than 500,000 board
feet and SB 310 exempts these sales. He stated tourism is
the state's second or third most viable economy in the
state. People do not come to Alaska to see logging trucks
and cut forests. He felt it is shortsighted to concentrate
on extraction industries that disrupt the state's landscape
and scenery at the expense of a long term, stable tourism
economy--an economy with a proven record.
Number 087
NANCY HILLSTRAND, HOMER, testified via teleconference and
wondered when committee members hear all of the voices
speaking to them, that perhaps they might think there is a
problem. She said SB 310 does have deep problems, which the
people of Alaska are telling the committee. She asked
committee members if they are listening to the people. She
felt SB 310 should be tabled this year. She stated the FPA
does not adequately protect fish or wildlife--wildlife is
not even mentioned in the act. The riparian areas run on
either side of the stream systems all the way up to the
tributaries and they are not protected adequately.
MS. HILLSTRAND stated there are 66 foot buffers on either
side of the stream systems and Konkor, down in Afognak, is
asking to have variances allowing them to go close to 20
feet from the river to take trees out. She wondered if
these variances are being allowed, why does the state even
have buffer strips in the first place. She stressed the
state does not have adequate protection for its fisheries
and wildlife, which bring money into the state. She said
the state needs a new FPA before it allows any type of FMA.
The land belongs to the people of the state, not to a
company from outside or to any of the corporations which may
want to take large scale timber from the state's land. She
asked committee members if they are going to be responsible
for damage which may be done to the state's fisheries or
wildlife population.
Number 116
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES stated there are 50-60 people
left to testify and suggested that the hearing be extended,
enabling the committee to hear from everyone who wants to
testify.
MIKE MORTELL, PORT PROTECTION, testified via teleconference
and stated it is unbelievable that with all of the public
outcry on SB 310, the bill is still proceeding. If the bill
is going to pass, he asked committee members to consider
several amendments. He said the contractor should be made
responsible for all of the costs to the state, related to
administering, monitoring, and enforcing the FMA. The
contractor should also be responsible for the scaling, road
construction, and gravel costs. He felt DNR and ADF&G
should be fully funded so they can adequately monitor the
FMAs. He thought there should be a requirement that the
timber not be sold at a loss to the state. Provisions
should be included for penalties and fines for contract and
regulatory violations. SB 310 should have a requirement
that the FMAs conform and be consistent with the municipal
and land use plans.
MR. MORTELL felt SB 310 should include a local hire
provision. Currently 40 percent of the workers in the
timber industry are from out of state. He stressed timber
jobs should go first to Alaskans. Most of these state lands
are adjacent to little villages and employment should go to
these rural people, instead of these big corporations. SB
310 should provide for adjustments to the FMA harvest plans
if new information about forest (indiscernible) and forest
productivity, fish and wildlife habitat, and other concerns
indicate that the original harvest level is too high. He
thought SB 310 should require that value be added to the
timber in Alaska. Unprocessed timber exports from Alaska
means Alaskan jobs are lost. He pointed out that it is
currently more profitable to sell unprocessed timber
overseas, than it is to mill it in the state.
Number 175
KEN JESSEN, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
stated tourists come to the state because it is so special.
He felt that uniqueness should be preserved because the
state can make so much more money through tourism than
cutting down trees and shipping them out of the state. He
grew up in the Pacific Northwest which has been plundered
and he is very familiar with all of the big timber
companies. He wondered who will want to recreate in a sea
of stumps. He told committee members if they want the state
to make big money and create jobs, they should keep the
state's landscape intact. He opposed SB 310.
HOWARD LUKE, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
wondered how he is going to teach young people about his
traditional ways. He stated he does not like all of the
promises being made. He uses the trees, fish and other
resources. He stressed those resources are his livelihood.
He said the legislature does not know anything about his
culture.
Number 238
DAVE LACEY, MANAGER, YUKON RIVER TOURS, FAIRBANKS, testified
via teleconference and stated his customers come to the
state because of wilderness and Native culture. Both of
those (indiscernible) to identify the intact ecosystem and
unblemished (indiscernible) in Alaska. Native culture
(indiscernible) subsistence and without the subsistence
economy the Native culture cannot exist. He felt SB 310 may
mess up the road system in the Interior and will lead to
more depletion of fish and game resources around the urban
areas. The road system will put more and more hunters and
fishermen out into the village hunting areas. He did not
think the proposed amendments help. He also felt the costs
involved should be looked at again. He asked committee
members to not damage jobs in the rural areas in order to
create jobs for someone coming in from out of state.
ROGER SIGLIN, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
stated supporters of SB 310 act as if the forest, as it
exists, has no value. They ignore those who already make
(indiscernible) or make their living off of the forest.
They ignore those who value the visual beauty the forest
adds to their lives and ignore those who value its
subsistence and recreational consumptive uses such as
hunting, fishing, and trapping. He stated all of those
values are to be sacrificed for one goal--maximum monetary
gain for the commercial forest industry. He said supporters
have asked people to trust industry and the regulators who
watch over the industry. He noted the forestry staff
members are probably intelligent but unfortunately, the
tendency is for all regulatory agencies to become the
promoters of the industry they are suppose to regulate.
MR. SIGLIN stated industry consistently demonstrates the
tendency to abuse the public's air, water, and other
resources in its efforts to maximize profit and will not sit
at the (indiscernible). The only anecdote to these
tendencies is full public involvement in every step of the
resource management process. He felt SB 310 gives too much
power to (indiscernible) and the end result will be the
general public paying the bill. He said committee members'
efforts should be (indiscernible) on forest management
practices and fairly balance the needs for jobs in wood
products, wildlife habitat, scenic, recreational and
subsistence activities and invest it all into one that is
sustainable and ecologically viable.
MR. SIGLIN stated the committee should not sell out for the
relatively small (indiscernible) or take the position that
the public does not have the intelligence to sort out
(indiscernible) and develop a sensible solution. He urged
the committee to let the public decide how this forest
should be managed and reject SB 310.
Number 292
CONNIE STRICKS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
stated after considering the issues and ramifications of SB
310, she feels it is ill-conceived, panders to special
interests, and attempts to support a bloated budget. She
felt as written, this bill's passage will demonstrate to the
people of the state both negligence and irresponsibility on
the part of the legislature. She said Alaska is still a
very special place in terms of its wilderness areas and
natural resources and the heritage the state can offer
children. She stressed it is incumbent on everyone to
develop and nurture a proper relationship with the
environment, and that it not be plundered for potential
short term gain. She felt SB 310 violates that trust.
DOUG YATES, ESTER, testified via teleconference and stated
if committee members can assure him that in 20-30 years SB
310 will not create the same set of conditions in the Tanana
basin which now are present in Sitka, Ketchikan and
Wrangell, he would not be opposing SB 310. He said
unfortunately, economic falldown on the forest based
economies of these Southeast communities is the result of
the same set of assumptions driving SB 310. The situation
in Southeast Alaska offers a textbook example of why the
reliance on a single resource base, like the Tongass,
inevitably leads to large spread economic and environmental
degradation. He stated in the Tanana basin, people can
learn from the mistakes of the past and prevent the
crippling problems of poverty, job loss, habitat
destruction, and federal intervention. A series of
interrelated legal, social and economic concerns need to be
addressed.
MR. YATES stated the cost/benefit and range of economic
threshold (indiscernible) as proposed by Dr. Colin Reed is
the place to start learning from the state's mistakes in the
Tongass. The apparent cavalier assumption on the part of
the bill's sponsor that opponents of SB 310 are green fringe
and that if so-called environmentalists oppose SB 310, then
it must be doing good, is a twist of logic which belongs in
a four year old's sandbox. He stressed that opponents of SB
310, if they had a chance to speak in a comprehensive
fashion, would tell committee members they are doctors,
lawyers, truck drivers, teachers, housewives, small tourism
operators, and small mill operators. They are people up and
down the Railbelt and along the coasts who fear a repeat of
the same old tired economic prescriptions of the past. He
felt putting all of these people under a quick label
shortcuts the committee's opportunity for a careful
analysis.
MR. YATES stated 90 percent of the available forests in
Alberta, Canada, where FMAs have the widest application, are
now under contract. The details of these management plans
between government officials and multinationals were so
sweeping, a lack of respect for the resource so profound,
that all meetings were held in secret. He said only after
the deals were signed, were the details made public.
Number 348
PUTT CLARK, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
stated she does not choose to live in Alaska because of a
promise of a job but rather because she wants to. She is
disappointed and personally offended that SB 310 has come
this far. There has been a vocal majority in the Interior
voicing either concerns or opposition to SB 310, yet the
bill has been fast tracked with ease. She wondered if the
people in the Interior are not being listened to. She
stated the bill, in its written attempt to flush the voice
of the public, is indicative of the treatment the public has
so far received in regard to SB 310. She harbors contempt
for legislators and their blatant disrespect of the public.
MS. CLARK stated the Tanana Valley boreal forest contract
has become a (indiscernible) which the makers of SB 310 say
the legislation will provide jobs. She stressed jobs
already exist within the forest and provide for a much more
stable, local financial base than the proposed SB 310 ever
could. As seen before, the contractors will undoubtedly
hire out of state and the corporate profits will be
(indiscernible) locally. The current uses of the forests
are all sustainable, with many different people benefiting
from it's riches. SB 310 will devastate the forest. She
supports the current small scale logging procedures.
MS. CLARK said as always, the cost of a creation such as SB
310 will be more than what is foreseen. She wondered who
will pay for the roads that will provide access to the
logging areas--the state. Who will pay for the long term
monitoring of the environmental impact--the state. She
asked how SB 310 will impact the game on which many people
subsist hunt or fish. She stated SB 310 is the most unwise
creation, whose sponsor will be paying for this backlash in
the next election.
Number 378
LARRY PAQUIN, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
expressed opposition to SB 310. He felt some of the
(indiscernible) made in the FMAs such as the attempt to keep
in-state processing of timber is not realistic. He said
there is a U.S. timber export law which allows the export of
Alaskan timber except when it is not shown to endanger the
local supply. (Indiscernible) finding the best interest
(indiscernible) to allow in-state processing. He stated
there will be logging by litigation with each FMA
(indiscernible) SB 310, because the state will have to prove
there is endangerment of a shortage of timber supply locally
to stop export of timber.
MR. PAQUIN said he knows a woodcutter who says he can make
10-30 times as much value on (indiscernible) a cord of wood.
If that is extrapolated out, one would see there is much
more potential in value-added than there is in exporting
timber. He stated FMAs do not turn out the value of
Alaska's resources. He stressed there is life after FMAs.
He urged committee members to get rid of FMAs and consider
value-added amendments to SB 310 and existing laws. He
opposed SB 310.
Number 436
BYRON HALEY, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
expressed opposition to SB 310. He said DNR has a very bad
track record for in-house regulations (indiscernible).
Number 445
LANE THOMPSON, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
stated the lead sponsors of SB 310 refuse to allow much of
the public to testify, thereby dismissing the public's
testimony as unimportant. He said as the Greeks knew,
hubris is followed by Nemesis. He commented since the
bill's powerful backers make it unlikely that SB 310 will be
postponed or defeated, he sent the committee a proposed
amendment which will put a limit on the annual timber
harvest in the Tanana Valley. Since other logging will be
taking place outside state FMAs, the limit proposed is
larger than desirable for a sustainable forest industry.
However, in order to avoid having no limits at all, the
proposed limit has been set deliberately at a level believed
to be acceptable to the proponents of SB 310. He outlined
his proposed amendment and urged committee members to take
the time to study the amendment before SB 310 is passed out
of committee.
MR. THOMPSON reminded committee members that each mature
spruce in the Tanana Valley takes over 1 million hours to
grow (indiscernible) to improve SB 310. He stated if the
committee cannot take the time, please postpone SB 310.
Number 494
RICHARD HAYDEN, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
expressed opposition to SB 310. He said although he is
normally an easygoing person, Senator Frank's persistence
toward a bill which nobody wants is beginning to make him an
unhappy man. He felt SB 310 and FMAs are not management
agreements at all. They are butchering.
...(indiscernible). He stated SB 310 is an idiotic and
suicidal attempt to make a few people who read paper
(indiscernible) dollar. He cannot believe (indiscernible)
the money flow into Alaska are proposing to put a "rip out
the stuffing" leaving a (indiscernible).
MR. HAYDEN stated the backbone of Alaska is naturally grown
forests which support the wildlife. He pointed out that
tourism brings in millions of dollars annually and will be
around for a lot longer than large scale logging. Tourism
in Alaska is not limited to the national population--it is
international. People from all over the world come to see
this flat, natural land. He stressed Alaska has been
holding its own in the economy world very well. He said if
SB 310 is passed, the economy might escalate slightly, then
it would drop significantly. He urged committee members to
not pass SB 310.
Number 553
BIRCH PAVELSKY, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
stated he has read SB 310 and does not understand its
(indiscernible) foundation. FMAs have failed to create
locally hired, long term, secure jobs in Alberta and British
Columbia. Those areas have a worsening poverty economy.
(Indiscernible) not be based (indiscernible) multiple use
(indiscernible) inventory has yet to be completed. FMAs
cannot be based on sound economics because no cost/benefit
exists. He said visions of community and state benefits
which are implied in SB 310 are pies in the sky. He stated
SB 310 seems to be based on greed and arrogance.
MR. PAVELSKY stated a few years ago, he approached the small
local sawmill to buy some house logs and the owner told him
he had no house logs to offer because they were all being
sold to Japan. House logs cost about $5.15 per foot. He
wondered how much those logs will cost in a few years under
SB 310 or if they will even be available. He urged
committee members to rewrite or kill SB 310.
Number 586
IRV LIPSCOMB, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
stated he represents three generations of Alaskans. He
expressed opposition to SB 310. FMAs are bad and even worse
politics for its sponsors. He said there are no jobs for
Alaskans. He stressed that multiple use in state forests
works fine. A sustainable forest use management program can
be developed. He said there is no data which supports
sustainable forest use (indiscernible). He urged committee
members to listen to the people.
TARIKA LEA, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
expressed opposition to SB 310. She stated she was the
Earth Day coordinator for Fairbanks in 1990-91 and one in
ten people came to the event, which points out that people
are in Alaska because they love the wilderness. She felt
tourism is the state's future industry and she does not
believe in giving the forest away to foreign special
interests groups. She said in listening to the testimony,
there are over 50 people opposed to SB 310 and only eight
people in support of SB 310. She stressed people do depend
on small businesses.
MS. LEA stated when observing a clearcut, it is dead land.
She said there is so much information and studies on what
can be done for the sustainable harvest of trees. She
echoes the common voice. There needs to be more study and
more considerations. The forests belong to the public. She
urged committee members to not pass SB 310.
TAPE 94-57, SIDE B
Number 000
CINDY GEAR, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
stated she does not believe the committee understands the
ramifications of SB 310. She said a prayer for the trees.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the meeting will be recessed
until 3:30 p.m., at which time the committee will take one-
half hour of testimony on SB 310 and then discuss whatever
amendments committee members care to offer on SB 310.
THE COMMITTEE RECESSED UNTIL 3:30 p.m.
TAPE 94-58, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS called the meeting back to order at 3:35
p.m. He stated the committee members present are
REPRESENTATIVES HUDSON, CARNEY, GREEN, and DAVIES.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated the committee will take additional
testimony on SB 310 and then hear SB 46.
SB 310 - State/Private/Muni Timber Operation/Sale
Number 065
DANIEL LUM, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
acknowledged his elders Sarah James and Howard Luke. He
said opposition to SB 310 needs to organize against the
representatives who support SB 310. He felt large industry
cannot dominate, control, and manipulate resources in Alaska
and legislators need to realize that. He stated if the
representatives do not represent the public's positions, the
public must do whatever possible to extract them so these
situations do not reoccur.
MR. LUM said after a conversation with Senator Frank's
office he deduced the following. Senator Frank is not
receptive to the public at large and input thereof, which is
a statement in itself about the lack of true concern Senator
Frank has for the people he represents. He wondered what a
person is to do when the people elected do not listen. He
suggested those people be voted out. He also wondered why
an Interior representative would fight so hard for out of
state industry. He stated SB 310 will not employ a huge
work force. He encouraged the legislative process to
investigate Senator Frank and his team to determine what is
driving him so hard for out of state industry.
MR. LUM stated the continuing consensus that Alaska is one
large resource is now conveyed in the political arena by the
current representatives. He reminded everyone that this
land was once all Native land and Natives balanced their
lifestyle with the land without gobbling up the resources.
He said this is Alaska, the last frontier. When people come
to this state and see northern Washington's vast type
clearcuts, their hearts will drop as soon as they realize
that Alaska is no longer a frontier. He thanked Senator
Frank for taking away the state's beauty and for trying to
mute the public's objections.
Number 104
SYLVIA WARD, REPRESENTATIVE, CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
TANANA VALLEY STATE FOREST, FAIRBANKS, testified via
teleconference and stated she is not speaking on behalf of
the committee. She said the original version of SB 310 had
specific effects on the responsibilities of the Citizens
Advisory Committee. She stated the current version still
contains a section which has direct implications on the
state forest in the Tanana Valley. She referred to page 8,
lines 9-15, pertaining to the purposes of the state forests.
She noted the eleven member Citizens Advisory Committee
which is supposed to advise the state on the state forest
(indiscernible) to be established for totally different
purposes other than what it was originally established for.
She stressed the language in SB 310 changes the
establishment of the state forest from being the
perpetuation of multiple use to one use above all uses and
that is commercial timber development. Ms. Ward stated the
proponents of SB 310 should not bother (indiscernible)
relative bill to the committee which has a lead role in the
community for the users of the state forest.
MS. WARD said one of her concerns in regard to SB 310 is an
economic issue. SB 310 cannot require local hire. She felt
timber jobs should go to Alaskans first but the state, as
the signer of a contract, cannot require that. He stated SB
310 cannot do what the proponents supporting the bill say it
can do. She commented her second concern is the value-added
processing, which is purported to come from SB 310. That
cannot take place until an act of Congress allows the state
to restrict exporting of raw logs. If the committee is
genuine about being interested in value-added processing and
using a mechanism like SB 310 to require it, they should
ensure that Congress will agree to that requirement. She
noted SB 310 gives tremendous authority to the commissioner
of DNR and that person will be able to negotiate and sign a
contract, locking up the state's timber for up to 20 years.
She stressed her biggest concern is the state's white spruce
being exported directly to Japan.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVES
BUNDE, FINKELSTEIN, AND MULDER had joined the committee. He
said REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA had also joined the committee.)
Number 158
LARRY MAYO, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
stated SB 310 attempts to provide economic improvements for
Alaskans through intensive cutting of the state's forests.
He felt SB 310 will more than likely harm the state more
than it will help it. He pointed out that forests on state
lands already provide many benefits ranging from fisheries
to hunting, trapping, wildness, subsistence, a nice place to
live, tourism, clean air and water, house logs, fire wood
research, recreation, and peace of mind. He stressed all of
these benefits provide economic and other values to most
residents. He said the concept driving SB 310 is the woods
do not contribute satisfactorily to the economy. He stated
that is false.
MR. MAYO stated SB 310 is not the state's salvation after
oil. He pointed out experience elsewhere is that long term
FMAs lead to increased subsidies and much smaller timber
revenues compared with competitive bidding. FMAs help
multinational corporations, not local governments. He is
surprised and distressed with the Republicans who are
pushing SB 310. For years, these same people have been
saying that outside interests should not control Alaska. He
stated SB 310 is tailored for multi-national timber
companies. He said if these companies come into the state,
the public will lose access into their contract areas, few
Alaskans have the education to run their types of
operations, they will need generous state subsidies to
survive, and their primary purpose will be to ship the wood
out with the least possible work involved in Alaska.
Countries like Japan can survive economically only when they
can import cheap resources for their own workers and
industries.
Number 183
MR. MAYO said by contrast, economic benefit is already being
realized by a number of small, hometown wood industries that
provide local employment for those who work with wood, make
lumber, build log cabins, harvest fuel wood, and make birch
syrup. He noted to the state's greater benefit, these
industries do not need to cut huge amounts from the state's
wild forests, which leaves extensive forests for all the
other benefits mentioned earlier. He stressed it is most
important for the committee to understand that as the earth
becomes more damaged, people come from around the world in
increasing numbers to Alaska to witness a fully functional
natural ecosystem. He said it makes sense that in less time
than a 20 year FMA will run out, the wildness of the forest
will emerge as the state's most important economic and
ecological value. He felt SB 310 is history.
MR. MAYO stated he has put together seven suggestions if
there is to be an improvement in FMAs. 1) The Division of
Forestry should establish an independent group to conduct
ecological research, inventories, and monitoring. 2)
Provide wild forest reserves that act as natural seed banks
for biodiversity and as reservoirs of intrinsic values. 3)
Develop strategic plans for dealing with forest declines
caused by clearing, accidents, fires, insects, game
management, storms, climate shifts, etc. 4) Replace large-
scale clearcutting with something less damaging. 5) Create
incentives for sustainable management on privately-owned
forests. 6) Provide flexibility so that any new economic
activity of greater benefit can replace an established
activity. 7) Ensure, forever, that public forests are
managed principally for public benefits as current law
clearly provides.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
JAMES had joined the committee.)
Number 214
RONNIE ROSENBERG, REPRESENTATIVE, GREEN PARTY, testified via
teleconference and stated there is overwhelming opposition
to SB 310 in Fairbanks. She expressed concern about FMAs
which have been tried in Alberta, Scandinavia, and Southeast
Alaska and have not been successful. She said there is
nothing leading her to believe that FMAs will be any more
successful if tried in Interior Alaska. She stated there is
great concern about the state getting involved in long term,
long-range 20 year plans when an insufficient inventory of
all resources has not been conducted. The state is going to
bind itself to a 20 year plan and she wondered what happens
if five years down the road the plan is not working.
MS. ROSENBERG reviewed the committee substitute on SB 310
and felt there are many loopholes. She said there is no
bonding requirement in SB 310. She noted there is also no
legislative oversight over any contracts that the
commissioner chooses to enter into, which will assure the
public that adequate protection will happen if one of the
companies goes bankrupt, leaves or does not fulfill its
responsibilities. She pointed out that these large lumber
companies do have a history of not fulfilling their
responsibilities. She is also concerned that the work on
the FPA is being gutted through SB 310, although in the CS,
the commissioner has to consider a number of criteria.
However, the bottom line is that the primary use of the
forest is commercial development in SB 310.
MS. ROSENBERG stated she is not much of a user of the state
forest. However, many people in Fairbanks are dependent on
the forest and many who are not dependent on the forest for
resources, live in Fairbanks because of the forest. She
said the forest is one of the prime reasons she chose to
move to Fairbanks. She stressed SB 310 is so bad that it
cannot be amended but rather it should be killed. She urged
committee members to listen to those who have testified.
Number 278
JIM SYKES, TALKEETNA, testified via teleconference and told
committee members they are heading for dangerous legal
territory with SB 310, and he did not feel there is a need
for it. He pointed out that the state does comprehensive
plans, coastal zone management plans, and community plans to
prioritize likely uses. He chaired a long community
planning process for the 300 square miles of the Chase Comp
Plan. He said the state forest is one of multiple uses,
like most forests. SB 310 creates an unnecessary conflict
with the already established planning process and
prioritizes trees for commercial timber harvest. He felt
the proposed amendment to Section 5 should be stricken.
MR. SYKES felt committee members should be aware that where
plans are in conflict, a higher level of review is triggered
before industry can proceed. For example, if the federal
government wants to do something that goes along with a
management plan, only an environmental assessment may be
required. If the project is in conflict with a plan, the
National Environmental Policy Act kicks in and a full
environmental impact statement is required. He stressed SB
310 could create that kind of conflict.
MR. SYKES said what is even worse is that SB 310 gives the
DNR commissioner almost god-like authority to develop
whatever long term FMAs she or he feels like. He stated SB
310 definitely shuts out the public process, where there is
already not enough citizen participation. He felt if the
committee does not have an example of what an FMA is going
to look like, they should not pass legislation giving full
authority to the DNR commissioner to figure it out in the
absence of the public process. He differs with the
sponsor's impression that FMAs have become a desirable tool.
He thought the experience of people elsewhere should be
investigated. He recalled the sponsor testified that the
FMAs in Alaska will not be the same as those which failed
outside. He thought the committee needs to make sure that
failure will not take place before SB 310 is passed.
Number 313
MR. SYKES stated the worst part of this proposed system is
the state will be paying people to cut down its trees and
cart them off. The state loses in two ways--getting only
ten cents in return for every dollar spent, and the resource
is gone. He recalled former state forester, Ted Smith,
testified before the Chase Comp Plan committee that the
Susitna Forest could not be profitable without subsidies for
roads and bridges. He said it is time for the state to wise
up and quit being the sucker for anything that sounds like
economic development. The question of who benefits, while
the state pays, needs to be considered.
MR. SYKES said Section 2(c) of SB 310 is one of those "one
size fits all" kinds of laws that will not work. He
stressed exempting a sale of a half million board feet in
Southeast Alaska might be 20 acres, and in his forest it
might be 200 acres. He felt timber sales lasting up to five
years should be made on an as needed permit basis. All
timber sales should have extensive public input from the
communities most affected before they are considered.
MR. SYKES stated several years ago, the values of tourism,
recreation, and remote uses were figured to have a yearly
financial benefit greater than cutting down and selling the
entire Susitna Forest. The people there have a multiple use
forest where recreation is the primary benefit along with
local loggers who historically cut from 500-1,500 acres a
year. He stressed there is no need for SB 310. He urged
committee members not to pass SB 310. He noted if he was
Governor, he would veto it. If the bill becomes law and he
becomes Governor, he will work to repeal it in the next
session.
Number 347
CARLY BOEHNERT, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and
stated she, like others, has invested a lot of time, money,
and effort in SB 310. She said the hundreds of people
involved and testifying on SB 310 should mean something to
the committee. Most people are saying that SB 310 is a
terrible bill and one of the clearest examples of a giveaway
to a specific industry seen in a long time. She felt SB 310
is biased against the tourism industry, the fishing
industry, subsistence, and the general public and their
recreational use of the forest.
MS. BOEHNERT stated when timber harvest is set as the number
one priority of the forest, subsistence users, hunters,
fishers, and tourism are getting a kick in the pants. She
stressed tourists do react to the appearance of clearcuts
and do not pay money to look at clearcuts. She felt tourism
has a big financial stake when considering SB 310, as does
subsistence users and fishing. She pointed out that FMAs do
not work. She was bothered that Senator Frank had not done
his basic economic homework in looking at the finances from
either the previous timber sales where long term contracts
were tried or looking at the losses on the Tongass.
When the losses to the state incurred with SB 310 are
reviewed, one will understand why everyone is calling the
bill a giveaway.
Number 397
MS. BOEHNERT recalled that most testimony has been against
SB 310, which is a signal that the people benefitting are
those in the timber industry or the large timber operators,
not the average people. She felt SB 310 should be killed
and cannot be amended. She made a few suggestions. The
state needs to make industry responsible for paying costs
for roads, etc. Timber cannot be sold at a loss to the
state. ADF&G needs to be fully funded for monitoring.
However, she recommends the committee kill SB 310.
Number 415
JIM MINTON, testified via teleconference and stated members
of the property association are strongly opposed to SB 310.
He stated extensive oversight by ADF&G and DNR is going to
be necessary. He noted that both agencies are currently
underfunded to properly monitor existing levels of activity.
He pointed out that underfunding of similar projects in the
past has cost a lot in wasted state revenues and in most
cases, a blight on the landscape which is a future reminder.
He said if FMAs are such a great system, then why does
British Columbia look like it took a nuclear hit as a result
of FMAs. He cannot believe that SB 310 is still alive when
the vast majority of the committee's constituents have
opposed it. He felt SB 310 should be killed as it cannot be
amended.
Number 449
STEPHEN BODNAR, CORDOVA, testified via teleconference and
stated as a citizen of Alaska, he owns the trees and feels
the forest should be managed for all uses, not one single
purpose. He said another objection he has to SB 310 is that
it applies statewide. Many people are not aware of that
fact. He noted his area is one of the last areas where a
Native corporation is settling their land claims and there
are many parcels which will become state land, meaning they
will be subject to SB 310. He pointed out that if one were
to look at the way the Natives are treating their lands
there, they are destroying a very important mountain goat
habitat and fish spawning habitat. He felt if such private
land practices continue, the only habitat which will remain
will be on state and federal land.
MR. BODNAR said he has been working on a scientific study in
Prince William Sound on forest regeneration after
disturbance and can assure committee members that
sustainability, as defined in state law, is unrealistic. He
stated if an 80 year old tree is cut down, it does not mean
it will take 80 years for it to grow back...if one wants to
make a timber farm, maybe, but if the desire is for a forest
that can support habitat, it takes 300-400 years. He hoped
that the scientific studies mentioned in SB 310 are not just
an internal administration scientific study on
sustainability or viability of the cut and is open for
comments by other scientific parties. He urged committee
members to kill SB 310.
Number 509
NANCY LETHCOE, testified via teleconference and stated since
testifying at this morning's earlier hearing, she has
reviewed the proposed amendments. She expressed
appreciation for the amendment which will include the words
"tourism" and "recreation" in Section 1, on page 2. She
expressed concern about the proposed amendment by
Representative James for page 1, following line 4. If this
amendment is introduced, looking at accumulative effects,
she pointed out there is no agency currently having
statutory authority for describing the effects of timber
harvest on tourism. Therefore, the amendment is asking for
something which is impossible to attain. As a result,
tourism will be left out of the equation.
MS. LETHCOE stated the same problem occurs also in the
proposed amendment on page 2, following line 14, "insert a
new subsection to read..." If read carefully, particularly
the last underlined sentence--again tourism has no state
organization doing any type of scientific study to determine
the effects of clearcutting on the tourism industry. She
pointed out that everyone knows, through informal surveys,
that clearcutting is incompatible with the type of tourism
Alaska specializes in--the nature tours and adventure
travel. She stressed although there may be a slight
creation of jobs in the timber industry, there will be an
accompanying loss of jobs in the tourism industry.
Number 560
MS. LETHCOE said she is also concerned about amendment
number 21 which Representative James has proposed and
whether or not proposed agreements are public record. She
felt it is important to have proposed agreements as a part
of the public record. She stated if the committee does not
pass Representative James's amendments, the AWRTA remains
opposed to SB 310. AWRTA feels SB 310 is not the
appropriate way to go about changing the FPA, which was
reached through a consensus agreement. She urged committee
members to table SB 310 and set up a consensus group to
again look at SB 310 and other issues facing the forests.
She described ways of cutting which will help an area
recover much faster and reduce the impact on the tourism
industry. She thought the fishing industry would probably
also like to look at ways to reduce the adverse effects of
logging on that industry. She noted what is most important
is that an analysis be done which really shows that SB 310
is going to not only produce jobs in the timber industry,
but also will not cause a reduction in jobs in other
industries, resulting in a net loss.
Number 628
MARY SHIELDS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
stated every day in the summer, visitors tell her how
precious Alaska's natural beauty is. They tell her to be
sure that the state does not make the same mistakes other
places have made outside. She mentioned that many people in
Fairbanks contributed in raising money for air fares to send
three of Fairbanks' finest and most creative minds down to
the committee: Dr. Jan Dawe, Dr. Glen Juday, and Dr. Colin
Reed. She urged the committee members to talk to them and
learn from their expertise.
MS. SHIELDS asked committee members to not make foolish
mistakes in their weariness as people will have to live with
those mistakes forever. She stated the people in the Tanana
Valley did not ask for large scale timber development and
they do not want it. She stressed it is alarming that the
committee is proceeding with SB 310 after the overwhelming
testimony across the state in the morning. She urged
committee members to oppose SB 310 for the following
reasons. First, the people living in the Tanana Valley have
told the committee they do not want SB 310. Second, there
is no local hire provision in SB 310. She said Fairbanks
will have a hard time supporting new families who move to
town from other depressed logging communities out of state.
She felt SB 310 should be held until a waiver can be
included which will protect against out of state migration
to take the jobs.
MS. SHIELDS continued with her reasons for opposition.
Third, FMAs have been disastrous everywhere else they have
been tried with only one or two exceptions. The Department
of Forestry cannot even manage the present 1,000 acre
harvest without wasting a lot of the trees. Fourth, the
state does not have the economic or biological data to know
the risk. A cost/benefits analysis is needed before the
state gives the forests away with all future options.
Fifth, some of the best foresters in North America recently
visited Fairbanks (Jerry Franklin, Gray Jones, Chad Oliver).
They all said the management must start from the people up.
SB 310 is coming from a few at the top down, and is headed
for disaster. She pointed out that last Friday, Senator
Frank admitted he did not have a personal knowledge of how
FMAs work or do not work but he thought there were people
who thought they worked. She felt that is not good enough
and expects more homework on the part of the legislators.
She asked why Senator Frank is pushing so hard for SB 310,
when his district is so opposed to it.
MS. SHIELDS said her sixth reason is that real value-added
processing would provide lots of jobs, using few trees.
Small local businesses will be squeezed out if the
jumbotron, international industries are attracted by cheap
raw material. Competitive bids would bring much higher
stumpage prices than the FMA system. She felt the state
cannot afford to give its resources away and she holds the
committee responsible for this protection.
MS. SHIELDS stressed that change is coming, but there is a
need to work together to invite change which will make lives
better. She acknowledged that people need jobs but the
people are not willing to pay the price of locking up their
forests for the next 20 years. She urged committee members
to slow down, use common sense, and hold off on SB 310 until
the costs and benefits are known in terms of all jobs using
the forest, of clean air and water, and healthy habitat for
people and wildlife. She stated people want to have
community control of their forest. The five year plans and
guidelines, like the Susitna Valley has, are better ways to
go.
MS. SHIELDS stated the public process must be respected.
Public comments are not just to be given, they are to be
listened to and worked with. She stressed that communities
cannot be divided even more than SB 310 has already done.
Fairbanks is a small town and the people need to live
together and work together to assure the best future.
TAPE 94-58, SIDE B
Number 000
CHARLES SIMMONS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
expressed opposition to SB 310. He felt SB 310 amounts to a
potential giveaway of state resources under the philosophy
of (indiscernible). He stated Senator Frank should not be
surprised at the public reaction to SB 310. He wondered why
the public would cheer when citizen input is eliminated and
the DNR commissioner is being given far too much power. He
is a local wood worker and furniture builder and uses local
products. He supports sustainable levels of forest use and
supports intelligent use of the state's resources. He felt
SB 310 does not come anywhere near that standard. He urged
committee members to not be in such a rush to make Alaska
like all of the places which people have moved to Alaska
from. He said SB 310 should be killed.
Number 025
TED SWEM, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and said
since Senator Frank introduced SB 310, there has been
overwhelming opposition to the bill voiced in the Interior.
He said the citizens voicing opposition are not a bunch of
radical environmentalists or animal rights activists from
out of state, but rather are the people who live in the
Interior who understand the bill. He described the letters
to the editor in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and a recent
editorial.
MR. SWEM noted that Senator Frank expressed bewilderment to
the opposition to SB 310. He said there is nothing
bewildering about this opposition--it has been articulately
expressed, people understand the bill--the only thing that
is bewildering is that Senator Frank continues to ignore his
constituents who are telling him to withdraw SB 310. He
stated the reasons FMAs are a bad idea have been identified.
He recalled that people have said they are not opposed to
the development of timber resources in the Interior but that
FMAs are not the way to approach it. He stressed the
resource has not been adequately inventoried and the
economics on how to best utilize the resource has not been
studied. He said if the state develops a resource, it needs
to maximize the benefits. He felt FMAs are not the way to
do it.
MR. SWEM said the people in the Interior know what the trees
provide and it is more than just short term dollars for a
quick timber sale. He stated that when legislators run for
office, they imply or state they want to represent the
people. After watching Senator Frank, he was a little
concerned that there is a misunderstanding of the definition
of "represent." He noted the dictionary says "represent"
means to act on a person's behalf. He stressed that people
are telling the committee what they should do with SB 310
and they should do it--kill SB 310.
FRED BROWN, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and
expressed support for SB 310. He felt there are advantages
especially in respect to the use of the spruce beetle kill
resource. He stated FMAs provide a tool to the Division of
Forestry to use and is not a requirement. He said the terms
of the agreement can be written in a way that tourism and
other interest groups are protected. He noted his family is
involved with a corporation based in Homer which is working
on removing beetle kill timber and the people in that area
are satisfied with the FMA there.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
MOSES had joined the committee.)
JIM SEALY, VICE PRESIDENT, SUSITNA VALLEY ASSOCIATION,
ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and expressed
displeasure with the hearing process on SB 310. He
requested another hearing be scheduled on SB 310. He
recalled that last week it was stated that bonding will be
waived in SB 310 because of price fluctuation. He felt the
real reason bonding is being waived is because bond pricing
is too high because logging has a reputation of being very
expensive due to nonperformance or poor performance on
contracts. In light of past failures, the state has paid
millions of dollars to bail these projects out. He felt
bonding should not be waived in SB 310, but rather be
mandatory.
MR. SEALY expressed concern in regard to the absence of
ADF&G in SB 310. He felt it is important that ADF&G be
involved, working with the Division of Forestry. He said
ADF&G's involvement is the public's check and balance to
ensure that habitat is being monitored. He stated he has
been a registered Republican since he was 18 years old. He
commented that when this type of legislation is shoved down
people's throats, he has little choice but to look for a
Democratic governor who will appoint a commissioner who will
not abuse or use this type of legislation.
Number 138
JOHN REEDER, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and
stated the development of the forest resources in the state
requires mechanisms which can resolve conflicts between
competing uses and balance the financial benefits of the
forest development with the financial benefits of
recreation, tourism, and fishing. The problem with SB 310
is that it strips away the public process which brings about
this balance, which is unfair to the public and the timber
industry. The burden of resolving these conflicts is being
shifted away from the government and being put on the
industry's shoulder. He said the industry is not equipped
to handle it. He felt what is going to happen is that the
public, who has tools and weapons to fight this kind of
development, will be able to fight even more effectively
under this circumstance.
MR. REEDER stated he is not aware of any natural resources
development in the state which has been successful and
carried out when a large segment of the public is opposed to
it. He urged committee members to hold SB 310 until next
session, look into the public process question, and try to
develop a mechanism to ensure that if the state decides to
go forward with a timber development plan, that the plan is
economically feasible, that large segments of the public
support it and it does not sacrifice existing industries
such as tourism or recreation.
Number 173
KATYA KIRSCH, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL
LOBBY (AEL), stated FMAs are more likely to benefit
corporations than the state. The state should not lose
money subsidizing the removal of the state's forest. She
said in Haines, the state lost more than $8 million between
1979-1985 and noted that was a long term, 15 year contract
with an option to renew. The state lost more than $8
million in road credits, subsidies, infrastructure, and
management costs. She stated after the mill went belly up
there several times, the state cancelled the contract in
1985.
MS. KIRSCH stated contrary to the DNR's briefing paper on
long term timber sales, statistics show the state spent more
than $1 million for the Haines forestry office related to
five years of that sale. At the time of bankruptcy, DNR
owed the contractor more than $388,000 in purchaser credits
due to road construction. The state spent more than $7
million in mill related investments via the Alaska Resource
Corporation. She said in Haines, long term contracts look
like a very bad idea.
MS. KIRSCH said primary manufacture is a problem with SB
310. She noted the Supreme Court has ruled that state
timber does not need manufacture--it can be shipped out in
the round. She wondered why that provision would not be
challenged in court again when an FMA is contracted. She
felt the state legislature should work to gain federal
Congressional authorization banning export of state round
logs. The state of Oregon did that in 1990 via federal
legislation, in large part to create more jobs. FMAs will
only be a guarantee of value-added jobs in Alaska, if round
log exports are banned through Congressional authorization.
Number 202
MS. KIRSCH stated inventories which seem scientifically
correct have been found to be in error years later, with
less timber available than originally calculated. She noted
that has been the case in the Tongass and Haines. A
contract based on misinformation may have to be honored,
even if that means harvesting above sustainable yield
levels, possibly harming important fish and wildlife habitat
or recreation areas. She stressed the state needs to put a
higher priority on timber inventory data, which by law is
needed to harvest areas. In Haines, people are still
awaiting final inventory data ten years after the raw data
was taken. Ms. Kirsch said SB 310 still contains public
policy problems. Agency and public comment and oversight
will only be 120 days for the FMAs as opposed to the normal
two year scheduling process.
MS. KIRSCH said the state should retain its current policy
which provides for 3-5 year timber sales. If DNR does
accurate inventories and takes into account other important
values like fish, subsistence, tourism, recreation, etc., if
there are accurate field data inventories, and if all
multiple uses are taken into account, then a reliable
sustained yield can be ascertained and there can be some
certainty that interested purchasers can have a steady
supply of timber to bid on, at fair market value. The state
will not be locking up resources for 20 years, will not be
locking out other interested timber purchasers, and there
will not be a giveaway of multiple public resources.
Number 224
MS. KIRSCH explained other areas of SB 310 which AEL
believes are bad policy. Eliminating public and agency
oversight of emergency sales and the one million board feet
in each region, each year is a bad public policy. She said
one million board feet in individual sales could mean 50
acres or more near Fairbanks, 333 acres in the Mat-Su area,
and about one-eighth of the allowable cut in Haines. She
felt a 30-day notice on these amounts of timber is
inadequate and feels these sales should go through the
normal two year planning process. Referring to Section 5,
she stressed the primary purpose of state forests should not
become commercial development. Other values like fisheries,
subsistence, wildlife, and personal firewood are just as
important. She urged the committee to allow SB 310 to die
as it contains bad public policy and is likely to cost the
state money.
Number 240
BARBARA KELLY, JUNEAU, expressed concern regarding the
effects of SB 310 on the Tanana Valley region. She opposes
SB 310. The original version was written with disregard for
the public process and it clearly promotes the interests of
timber companies at the expense of the public's interest.
She acknowledged that in the face of overwhelming negative
public testimony, SB 310 has been revised, which she
appreciates. Provisions have been made for more public
comment. Many of the sections in SB 310 which were
criticized have been eliminated and important considerations
left out in the original version have been put in. She felt
the original intent and the heart of SB 310 still remains
which bothers her.
MS. KELLY said the intent and philosophy of SB 310 is
expressed in Section 5, where the purpose of the state
forests is redefined. She does not agree that the primary
purpose of the state forests should be the development of
commercial forest land. That statement is in direct
conflict with the idea of multiple use management and puts
every other use as a secondary use and of secondary
importance. She pointed out the heart of SB 310 is the
section on FMAs. She felt it is not in the best interest of
the people of the state to enter into such long term
contracts as the FMAs will allow. Allowing 20 year and up
to 40 year contracts, which SB 310 still allows, takes away
all the flexibility the state has to negotiate on anything
when conditions change. She does not see any reason to
eliminate that flexibility, when shorter contracts can work
much more to the benefit of the state. She stated long term
contracts can only benefit those who are involved in the
timber industry.
MS. KELLY voiced other concerns about SB 310. SB 310 will
allow the export of higher quality logs to foreign markets,
with a resultant loss of value-added products, which could
more directly benefit local economies and communities. She
does not understand how the costs outlined in the fiscal
note provided by ADF&G can be one-half of a similar fiscal
note done by DNR in 1989 regarding a similar bill. It does
not make sense that the costs in 1994, five years later, can
be one-half. She said Fibreform Wood Products's corporate
proposal, as indicated in the ADF&G fiscal note, is a clear
indication of what large corporations have in mind for the
Interior. That company had a corporate proposal requesting
up to 115 million board feet annually of mixed species. She
pointed out the total allowable sustainable cut is 60
million board feet. Therefore, if one company wants 115
million board feet, she wondered how monopolies will be
avoided.
MS. KELLY stated there were concerns expressed in the ADF&G
fiscal note about the difficulty government has in
monitoring FMAs and detecting violations. She said if DNR
and ADF&G are not funded currently to do the jobs they are
supposed to do, she asked how are they going to possibly
adequately monitor these FMAs and detect violations before
too much damage has been done. She does not like the idea
of placing control and management of large areas of land in
the hands of large corporations who do not have any local
concerns or interests. Their primary interest is making a
profit. She felt local interests should be of primary
importance.
MS. KELLY wondered if the committee ever steps back to take
a long term perspective look at how long human beings have
been on the earth and how much detrimental affect on the
earth there has been in the last 100-200 years. She felt if
that continues, the remaining habitat will be destroyed.
She pointed out that FMAs continue that kind of destruction.
Number 342
CHRIS GATES, stated SB 310 allows the state to have a tool
not now available. He pointed out that many places have
found that FMAs do a lot of good. He said representatives
of the city of Prince George, British Columbia, attribute
their entire basis of their economy on properly managed long
term contracts to manage their forests, primarily beetle
kill. He noted one valley there produces 19,000 jobs--7,500
value-added jobs, 2,000 harvest jobs, 9,000 support jobs--
jobs they say are caused because of the long term contracts
which allow people to invest money in their city. He
pointed out those jobs are out of 40,000 total jobs. Prince
George has 16 sawmills, three pulp plants, one newsprint
plant, and 15-20 value-added facilities, including
furniture, window making, boxes, molding, doorjambs, etc.
Those representatives said they could not possibly think of
having a viable forest products industry without secure
fiber for those mills
MR. GATES said while spending time in Prince George, he
noticed the access to the forest which allowing properly
managed development gives. There were campers everywhere.
That access does not happen in Alaska because the state has
not managed its resource to allow people access to the
forests. He stated there are two million seedlings going
strong in the Prince George area because of their desire to
stay in front of the beetle kill and keep some economic
value in their timber before it is wasted.
MR. GATES pointed out there is a good case study in this
area with regard to a long term contract and what it can
mean to a community. He noted there is a team in Ketchikan
putting together the plan to handle the "nuclear bomb" when
the long term contract stops in Ketchikan in the year 2004.
That team is saying 1,158 direct jobs are associated in
Ketchikan with having that contract and the manufacturing
facility which that long term contract allowed to occur; $40
million in payroll; population decreases of 15 percent are
expected; $40 million in gross business sales lost; $160
million of property tax base lost; population base revenues
from the state lost; fees from the state lost; over $1
million of direct city revenues gone if there is no viable
forest products industry.
MR. GATES pointed out the Fibreform project wanted 62 acres
in downtown Seward for their plant. He stressed the
Fibreform people and the Fibreform project was never real.
He regrets that the Fibreform project is being talked about
in regard to SB 310. He stated SB 310 allows the state to
have a tool that will create proper and responsible jobs and
economic activity in the state.
Number 415
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY asked if the committee has an
option of mandating in-state processing of the resource in
SB 310.
MR. GATES replied the state does not have to accept any
contractual long term FMAs if they are not in the best
interest of the state or do not call for value-added
manufacturing in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if that language can be inserted
in SB 310.
MR. GATES stated it cannot be mandated under law. He said
FMAs can be structured in a way that every single agreement
provides value-added as opposed to the exporting of logs
from state property.
Number 437
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES said she does have concerns
with SB 310 and asked what the difference might be with
passing SB 310 this session versus next session.
MR. GATES responded there will be no problems. He said it
is a philosophy of having tools to try and make things
happen. The state is in a very competitive world. Alaska
is usually the last in and the first out of the world forest
products market. Alaska has the opportunity to put lots of
Alaskans to work in a proper manner with good controls and
excellent monitoring, if the tools are available to do it.
He stressed the only difference is opportunity.
Number 461
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN stated he agrees with
Representative Carney on the idea of looking at some way to
do in-state processing. However, he felt Mr. Gates's
proposal is too simplistic--one cannot say it is against the
law and if a restriction on primary manufacture is not
allowed, a deal will be made and proposals will not be
accepted unless in-state processing is included. He said
that cannot be done.
MR. GATES responded there is no compulsion to do something
which is not in the best interest of the state of Alaska and
if it is determined that it is not in the best interest to
export Alaska's logs, that will be the end of any discussion
on a proposal which does that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES wondered if that is the case,
then why is there truckload after truckload of round logs
going out of his valley to Japan.
MR. GATES said if the logs are coming off of private lands,
there is no interference as to what private landowners do
with their property except for FMAs which are required if
any forest management is allowed. He stated the tools
available to protect disturbances on private and public
property will exist with FMAs.
Number 496
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked if the ban on the export of
round logs is still in effect in Oregon.
MR. GATES thought it is.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON wondered if the same ban in Alaska has
been discussed.
MR. GATES said DCED has been talking about a ban a lot and
feels a ban will be a good idea.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if DCED has any indication
showing the inducement of corporate investments might
generate the types of jobs which Prince George has.
MR. GATES stated there is a situation in Seward, where
professional marketers of plywood from Oregon have taken
over the plant there and would love to build a plywood plant
for an additional $10 million investment. They cannot
induce any investment without some assurance of enough fiber
going through that plant to amortize the investment, cover
their costs, and hopefully produce a profit.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said people have testified that unless
it can be shown there is a scale of economy which would
absolutely require the long term leasing option...he felt it
would help the committee understand better the correlation.
Number 561
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked if Mr. Gates had thought
about the serious implications SB 310 may have on the
fisheries.
MR. GATES replied his team has received $100,000 from the
Economic Development Administration to try and address those
concerns. He said one of the problems seen in Ketchikan
leading to the desire to have investments in the forest
product industry was reliance upon feast and famine and the
stability that the long term contract gave to Ketchikan. It
is felt the positive effects of that stability might be
enjoyed elsewhere as well, including the rural areas and the
river system. He pointed out that ADF&G has signed off on
SB 310 as meeting their concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA commented that $100,000 will not do
the job.
Number 615
SB 46 - Authorize Moose Farming
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated this is the fourth committee
meeting on SB 46 and at the last meeting a subcommittee was
appointed. He said although the subcommittee never met,
Representative Carney, Chair of the subcommittee did submit
a suggested draft revision of the bill. Since the last
meeting on SB 46, the commissioners of the three affected
state departments, DNR, the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), and ADF&G met and developed a whittled
down list of what they considered to be their bottom line
amendments needed to make the bill acceptable to the
Administration.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he had a CS drafted to add those
seven suggested amendments to the draft CS previously before
the committee. It is that version which will be before the
committee. He stated the committee has spent considerable
time on SB 46 and he hoped the committee could reach a
decision and take action on the bill.
Number 650
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to ADOPT HCS CSSB
46(RES).
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
REPRESENTATIVES MULDER and FINKELSTEIN OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated before the committee
adopts this version, he would like to hear ADF&G describe
what is in it.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said if a CS is adopted, then the
committee can use it as a working draft.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated as a member of the subcommittee
which worked on SB 46, he would rather adopt the report the
subcommittee developed.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested that ADF&G outline what is
contained in the House CS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated he would like to adopt the House CS
and work from the document.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said if there are no objections, the
MOTION PASSED.
TAPE 94-59, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON requested that ADF&G be invited to the
table to explain their strong recommendations of changes to
be made to SB 46.
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY asked if ADF&G's recommendations
are in the House CS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied they are.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY stressed there is no resemblance
between the House CS and what the subcommittee did.
Number 029
DAVID KELLEYHOUSE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE, ADF&G,
stated the amendments the Administration put forward were
agreed upon by the commissioners of DNR, DEC, and ADF&G. He
said the first two amendments will relieve animals held
under an experimental animal husbandry permit from the
authority of DNR and put them under the authority of ADF&G.
Animals held under these permits are not yet game farm
animals and are not domestic animals, but rather are wild
animals. The intent of the experimental animal husbandry
permit is to allow an individual to experiment with these
animals to determine if they are suitable as domestic or
game farm animals. He said those amendments appear on page
2, lines 15-16 and lines 22-23. The amendment deletes the
words "and animals subject to an experimental animal
husbandry permit under AS 16.40.010."
MR. KELLEYHOUSE said on page 4, lines 11-12, the words
"caribou, moose, Sitka black-tailed deer" are deleted. He
stated caribou, moose and Sitka black-tailed deer should not
be defined as game farm animals until they have been
successfully bred and raised as livestock under the terms of
an experimental animal husbandry permits. On page 5, lines
30-31, the words "or to an experimental animal husbandry
permit under AS 16.40.010" are deleted. He stated animals
held under a Title 16 experimental animal husbandry permit
should not be defined as domestic, and removed from
department and fish and game oversight, until they are
actually held under a game farming license.
Number 062
MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated on page 7, lines 28-29, following the
word "The", the words "possession and utilization of animals
acquired under this section for commercial purposes and" are
deleted. He said Title 3 statutes and regulations adopted
under Title 3 should apply only to game farm animals, not to
animals held under Title 16 permits or used for commercial
purposes other than game farming. On page 8, line 10, the
words "and sell the meat from" are deleted. He said the
sale of meat from animals held under Title 16 experimental
animal husbandry permits is inappropriate and could
compromise wildlife enforcement regulations adopted by the
Board of Game. At such time as ownership of animals held
under these permits is transferred to the permittee under
Title 3 game farming licenses, the sale will become legal.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE said on page 8, lines 11-17, following the
word "animals", the words ", and may charge a fee to the
public for viewing of the animals. The preparation and sale
of meat or other products under this subsection for human
consumption are subject to AS 03 and regulations adopted
under AS 03. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
subsection, the possession of animals for experimental
animal husbandry purposes is subject to AS 03 and
regulations adopted under AS 03 in the same manner as the
possession of game farm animals" are deleted. He stated
regulation of animals held under Title 16 permits should be
by ADF&G. Experimental animal husbandry permits are
intended to test the feasibility of using surplus wildlife
for game farming, not for zoological exhibition. Exhibition
is currently regulated under Title 16 scientific/educational
permits.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated on page 9, lines 8-16, all material
related to surplusing is deleted. He said criteria for
declaring game as surplus can best be achieved in
regulations adopted under AS 16.40.010(a) Section 15. Some
of the criteria listed in this draft are allocation matters
that should be considered by the Board of Game such as
declaring animals in proximity to highways, railroads, and
urban areas as surplus. He pointed out these are also the
animals most in demand by the public for subsistence, sport
hunting, viewing, etc. He also pointed out that most of the
state's roads, railroads, and towns happen to be in valley
bottoms. When winter arrives and the animals are forced
down into the bottom, any animal could be declared surplus.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE said ADF&G feels SB 46 can be a good bill
and provide a very necessary function in the regulation of
game farming. ADF&G feels there is a chance for success in
game farming in Alaska, particularly with elk, bison, musk
ox and reindeer. These animals have a proven history of
utility. ADF&G hopes the committee will proceed cautiously
on the addition of new species and do it under the
experimental animal husbandry permit under ADF&G control.
Number 116
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY noted caribou was included in the
species which are not currently considered a domestic
animal.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded he is aware of the federal
definition of a reindeer--as soon as a caribou is in
possession, federal law considers it to be a reindeer. When
wild deer were being herded in, occasionally caribou were
mixed in with the herd. Therefore, the reason for the
inclusion was so the federal government did not have to ask
a Native herder to differentiate between the two. He
stressed caribou are definitely not reindeer.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY said he has been led to believe that
including caribou as a domestic animal will give the state
an advantage on getting access to the use of those animals
in lieu of reindeer.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE said unless there is a change in federal law
regulating reindeer herding in Alaska, he is not sure that
is a correct interpretation.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN thought at the department's
suggestion, caribou is included in the House CS on page 6,
line 30.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded in that section, any of those
animals can be considered for possession under the
experimental animal husbandry permit, which ADF&G will
regulate. Those animals will not be game farm animals until
farming of the those animals is tested for feasibility.
Number 160
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said in Section 4, game farm animals
are identified as bison, elk, reindeer, and musk ox and does
not include moose. He clarified there is a difference
between game animals and game farm animals.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied game animals are all animals.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked where in the House CS does it say
that moose are available for experimental licensing.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied at the bottom of page 6. He stated
moose will be available for possession under the terms of an
experimental animal husbandry permit. ADF&G has stated in
the past that moose are not a suitable animal for game
farming. However, if someone wants to try moose farming, it
is provided for in the House CS under the terms of an
experimental animal husbandry permit.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if a person has a game farm
license for moose, what can that person do with the moose.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied under the House CS for CSSB 46, a
person will not be able to have a game farm license to hold
a moose. Under a game farm license, a person can hold elk,
bison, musk ox, or reindeer. He explained if a person wants
to hold a moose, caribou, or black-tailed deer, they will
have to do that under the terms of an experimental animal
husbandry permit. That permit will be issued for the
purpose of propagating, determining if the animals can be
bred, raised and kept in a healthy condition and in a manner
that will promise to have economic opportunities. He said
the animal can be eaten, it can be milked, etc., but it
cannot be commercially sold.
Number 223
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there is a section in the
House CS which defines experimental animal husbandry.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE said ADF&G will issue the experimental
animal husbandry permits and the department will monitor the
health of the animal and the operation. He stated any
animal under the permit will belong to the state and be
regulated by ADF&G, as opposed to the game farm animals
which are handled by the commissioner of DNR.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he understands that, but is
wondering if the House CS says that.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied the explanation begins on page 6,
line 28 and continues down on page 7. He said there is no
definition of experimental animal husbandry included because
no regulations have been developed since the legislation has
also not been developed.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated on page 7, line 1, it says
"under regulations adopted by it,"...
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON told committee members to look at page
8, line 3 on down.
Number 279
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that experimental animal
husbandry means slaughtering and selling the antlers, horn,
etc. He felt it sounds more like a slaughtering-type of
operation.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE pointed out page 8, line 2, which says
"intends to raise and breed..." He said if there is proof
to the satisfaction of ADF&G that the person intends to
raise and breed the animal, which is basically husbandry,
then below that line are the allowable uses that a person
may make of an animal held under an experimental permit.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said the slaughtering is for personal
consumption, not for commercial sale.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified if a person has had the
experimental animal husbandry permit for five years, then
they can request title to the animal.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied that is correct.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated the subcommittee's work draft is
being distributed and asked Representative Mulder to brief
the committee on that draft.
Number 338
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER explained the subcommittee made
changes to version X. The first recommendation placed
regulatory authority over the experimental animal husbandry
permit with DNR. The second recommendation shortened the
duration of the experimental animal husbandry permit to two
years. He said the five year provision in version X was an
arbitrary number chosen by the drafting attorney because a
specific time period had not been provided at the time of
drafting. The third recommendation was to remove Sitka
black-tailed deer from the entire bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said the subcommittee recommended a
penalty clause for tampering with game farm fences in a
manner that would allow animals to escape or be stolen. The
subcommittee did discuss the issue of surplus and the
definition was retained.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the subcommittee recommended
retaining the fee which can be charged for public viewing of
the animals.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that was in the original bill and
the subcommittee recommended to retain it. However, ADF&G
recommends deleting that provision.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referring to page 8, lines 15-16, asked
if moose fall into the category of a game farm animal.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied to be classified as a game farm
animal, an animal has to be designated as such by the
commissioners of DNR and ADF&G. If after five years of
captivity and husbandry the animal proves to be farmable,
then the commissioners can designate it as a game farm
animal, even though it is not defined as such. He said
there is a provision in all of the drafts that the
commissioners can, at any time, jointly designate another
species as a game farm animal. He stressed the goal is to
not rush and call a wild animal a domestic animal and cause
problems with the management of the wild stocks.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern in that he has a
friend who had a young moose bed down by his house, they fed
it and it stayed all winter long without any fence. He felt
that particular animal could qualify as a game farm animal
because it was young, hand fed, and used to humans.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated he understands how a young animal
acts in the winter. He recalled an experience of taking
care of a buck black-tailed deer that had been received as a
fawn and bottle fed. He said when that buck came into rut
the first time, the animal was super aggressive. He
stressed there is a distinct difference between wild animals
who are acting in a certain manner at a certain time of year
and that same animal at a different part of its lifecycle
and the ability to domesticate these animals.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated moose held in captivity die at seven
years old, yet a moose out in the woods lives up to 18 years
old and nobody knows why.
Number 502
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she is not comfortable with
having the departments determine, after a certain length of
time, that a certain animal is a game farm animal. She felt
that if the committee has the option to make that
determination in regulation, it should be included in the
bill.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded if the committee wants the
legislature to make that decision, he has no objections. He
stressed that as SB 46 progressed, there were many trade-
offs and some people felt it would be more expeditious for
the commissioners to jointly make that determination, rather
than having to come to the legislature to add each species
to the law.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked ADF&G's position if the
committee adopts the subcommittee's recommendations.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied he would recommend to the
commissioner, that he recommend to the Governor a veto. He
felt the state of Alaska should not forge ahead too fast in
this endeavor because of the experiences in other states.
He stressed the version that the three departments agreed on
is a measured step in the right direction, allowing the
industry to be regulated and problems be looked at before
they become ingrained problems with property rights
instilled. He said a lot of effort was required to get the
three departments to agree.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON thought the committee had decided that
Sitka black-tailed deer should not be included in SB 46.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded there is no future in farming
Sitka black-tailed deer.
Number 594
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated the other only real difference
between the subcommittee's version and the department's
version is that the subcommittee's version shortens the
duration of the experimental animal husbandry permit from
five years to two years. She expressed support for five
years.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated his concern with the
subcommittee's version is the placing of the regulatory
authority over the experimental animal husbandry permit with
DNR, instead of ADF&G. He felt as long as an animal is
classified as a wild animal, ADF&G should have the
regulatory authority. He expressed support for version I.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES still felt uncomfortable with the
departments making the determination on adding a species to
the definition of a game farm animal. She would like to
have language in the bill instructing what happens when a
moose goes from an experimental to a game farm animal.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said there is already language in the
bill which does that. He referred to page 8, lines 15-21.
Number 685
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated a farmer has done fine for five
years and animal A becomes a game farm animal. If the
person is going to game farm, a female animal is needed. He
wondered where the farmer will get the female since he
cannot import it or trap it in the wild.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded if a person is involved in the
experimental animal husbandry permit, that person should
have a him and a her early on in the operation. He said
obtaining moose is a problem. He stated page 8, line 15
says "The department shall grant title to the animals if the
person has..." He said if that was rewritten to say, "The
department shall grant title to the animals if they are
defined as game farm animals under Title 3 and the person
has..." He pointed out that change will allow the animal to
continue under the experimental animal husbandry permit
until either the legislature or the commissioners classify
the species as a game farm animal.
TAPE 94-59, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN felt if a person is going to get into a
farming mode, that person cannot depend on orphan moose for
a supply. He thought just four or five animals does not
make a successful farm.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated that was the crux of the department's
testimony in both the Senate and House. ADF&G surveyed over
125 different farms that had moose, and the department could
not find a single farm that was raising moose as a game farm
animal--they were just kept as oddities.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the way SB 46 will work
conceptually is logical. First, the department will set up
regulations to define certain kinds of animals as surplus
and then can authorize a person to take portions of the
surplus for the purpose of raising and breeding the animals
as domestic stock for commercial purposes or for
experimental animal husbandry purposes, resulting in
possibly a small herd. He said page 8, beginning on line
12, says a person who holds the experimental permit, has
possessed animals under the permit and intends to raise the
animals for commercial purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if Representative Davies was
talking about a herd of moose. He maintained there are not
a lot of surplus moose. He stressed a person cannot go into
the wild and pick up moose.
Number 042
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to ADOPT HCS CSSB
46(RES).
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 46(RES)
deleting any reference to Sitka black-tailed deer.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked Mr. Kelleyhouse why the
reference to the definition of surplus was deleted.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE said ADF&G recommended deleting the section
on surplus because it falls into the allocation lap of the
Board of Game.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER clarified ADF&G would rather do the
determination of a surplus by regulation.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied ADF&G does not like doing things in
direct opposition to the Board of Game, but the commissioner
does have the authority to declare the surplus. He said it
is much better for the department to go the Board of Game
and outline the situation and get their concurrence. He
felt the definition of surplus which the subcommittee
offered contains inherent problems. He told the committee
if their fear is ADF&G will not declare a surplus, and
thereby veto the legislature, he would rather do it up-front
and recommend the Governor veto the entire legislation. He
pledged that if SB 46 passes, the department will take
actions conducive to putting the legislation into effect.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated his fear is that when the
commissioner is given that type of sweeping authority, he
does what he wants to as opposed to any kind of intent or
desire. He said there is potential in game farming but that
potential will never be realized if there is never a surplus
designated by the commissioner.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said many times orphan moose calves are
surplus in that there are no zoos, etc., which will take
them.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied that is his thought also. He
pointed out that not only did the commissioner of ADF&G
declare the bison herd on (indiscernible) Island as surplus,
but also recommended to the Board of Game that the
department be able to surplus some musk ox. The Board of
Game rejected the musk ox recommendation and the department
did not push it.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked why the bill precludes someone
from having an animal viewing area and charging a fee.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied that activity is already permitted
under a Title 16 permit. He said ADF&G's fear is a
situation like the dilapidated roadside viewing areas in the
Midwest and West.
Number 165
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN offered an amendment on page 1, line 1
the words "moose farming and relating to" be deleted and on
all pages the word moose be removed.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated the committee is not allowed to
make a title change without a concurrent resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out there is a provision in
the bill that moose can become a game farm animal.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said the sponsor of SB 46 does not want
moose taken out of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he does not understand why
retaining the definition of surplus in the bill will not
work. He asked Mr. Kelleyhouse to go through the list of
surplus animals and tell the committee what the problems
are.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded 1) unnecessary to the sustained
yield management of a game population--would this mean only
out of parks if the population was not being harvested. He
said if the surplus is from a harvested population, the
Board of Game has already set a policy, regarding
consumptive use of game, and has generally listed uses for
commercial agriculture last. He cannot envision where a
surplus animal would be unnecessary to the sustained yield
management of a game population.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wondered about a situation where a cow
had been hit by the Alaska Railroad and there are two calves
sitting by the side of the road. He thought the department
could find, in that case, that those two calves are
unnecessary to the sustained yield management of a game
population.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded that would be true. He added
there is competition for these calves from zoos, scientific
education permit holders that are exhibiting animals, etc.
He continued: 2) Members of a game population that
currently exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat--he
said carrying capacity is a good concept much like sustained
yield. He stated putting a definition on carrying capacity
is difficult. He did not feel one could ever demonstrate
that a population is indeed in excess of its carrying
capacity. 3) Members of a game population for which there
is no closed season on the take of animals from the game
population. ADF&G fears that any animal which comes near a
road or any animal that anybody wants could point back to a
statute to obtain that animal and circumvent the Board of
Game process. He said if the fear is that there will be no
animals made available for the experimental animal husbandry
permits, he stressed once the statute is passed, ADF&G will
do what they can to see if it will work and declare that
surplus.
Number 270
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a MOTION to MOVE HCS CSSB 46(RES)
as amended with attached fiscal notes out of committee with
INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN OBJECTED.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in
favor of the motion were REPRESENTATIVES FINKELSTEIN, BUNDE,
HUDSON, DAVIES, JAMES, MULDER, AND WILLIAMS. Voting against
the motion was REPRESENTATIVE GREEN. The MOTION PASSED 7-1.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will meet on
Friday, April 22 at 8:15 a.m. to hear SB 215 and SB 310.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting
at 6:24 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|