Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/24/1995 08:10 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 24, 1995
8:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Pete Kott
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative John Davies
Representative Eileen MacLean
Representative Irene Nicholia
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Confirmation Hearing: Frank Rue, Commissioner Designee, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game
Walter Sampson, Board of Game
Larry Holmes, Board of Game
COMMITTEE REPORTS FORWARDED
WITNESS REGISTER
FRANK RUE, Commissioner Designee
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 465-6141
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding his confirmation
WALTER SAMPSON, Appointee
Board of Game
P.O. Box 1088
Kotzebue, AK 99752
Phone: 442-3605
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding his appointment
LARRY HOLMES, Appointee
Board of Game
P.O. Box 454
Girdwood, AK 99587
Phone: 783-2180
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding his appointment
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-54, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman
Williams at 8:10 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Williams, Green, Ogan, Austerman, and Kott.
Members absent were Representatives Barnes, Davies, MacLean, and
Nicholia.
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced the committee would again talk
with Frank Rue, commissioner designee, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game (ADF&G).
CONFIRMATION HEARING: FRANK RUE, COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE, ADF&G
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS recalled at Friday's meeting, he had asked Mr.
Rue about the letter from the habitat division to the Kodiak Island
Borough which mentioned resident fish populations. He asked Mr.
Rue if he believes resident fish streams, as well as anadromous
fish streams should be implemented on private land or state land.
FRANK RUE, COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE, ADF&G, replied the law requires
that high value resident fish streams, which are important to a
number of users, be protected on public lands. There was a lower
standard set by the law on private lands, so there is no protection
for high value resident fish on private lands. He stated
protection on private lands would be voluntary.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated the Forest Practices Act (FPA) requires
a 66-foot buffer zone on private land. He said some ADF&G
biologists have suggested increasing this requirement to 100 feet
or 300 feet. He asked Mr. Rue if he agreed with that suggestion.
MR. RUE stated the department should implement the law which only
requires 66 feet. He said the question of whether or not 66 feet
is enough to protect a particular stream on private land sometimes
comes up when a variation request is submitted by a company and
there is a need to answer the question of significant harm--will
taking more trees out of the buffer cause significant harm. He
explained to know that, there is a need to know what the baseline
condition of the stream is.
MR. RUE noted the 66-foot buffer was a "one standard meets all"
approach. If individual streams are looked at, bigger streams will
require, in reality, more trees than smaller trees. Therefore,
when taking more trees out of a buffer is discussed, a look is
taken at what that stream would need, regardless of 66 feet, to
decide if 66 feet is good for that system or is marginal for that
system. For example, there are some streams which hydrologists say
300 feet is needed because some streams are dynamic, will move
around and will jump out of the buffer into the clear cut if enough
trees are not left on the edge. He stressed in those sort of
systems there should be more reluctance to take more trees out of
the buffer because that buffer is already thin.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified Mr. Rue does not see adding 300 feet
if it looks that way on private land.
MR. RUE replied no. He said an addition cannot be made. Rather,
it is a decision of whether or not more can be taken out of the 66
feet and whether or not more should be allowed. He reiterated in
those systems where 66 feet is a very marginal buffer, as compared
to a very small stream where 66 feet may do a lot of good, you may
be conservative about what is allowed to be removed from the 66
feet rather than expanding it.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if a private landowner came in on his
own, prior to cutting any trees next to a stream, and talked with
ADF&G because he had some good trees within the buffer and was
willing to give up some trees on another part of the stream, even
up to 300 feet, would ADF&G work with that landowner to come to an
agreement.
MR. RUE stated that was a very appealing idea and there was an
attempt to do that on a number of occasions. However, private
landowners have said they will leave 200 feet in one place and cut
more in another place. He said the problem is that commitment has
no standing in law. He recalled several occasions when that
accommodation was made and then those trees left beyond the 66 feet
were taken out afterwards. He stressed the issue has to be decided
on the merits of the trees being removed from the buffer because
there is no guarantee that the trees beyond 66 feet left
voluntarily will remain there. He reiterated it is an appealing
idea but a difficult one to implement and there has not been much
success with it.
Number 155
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted that ADF&G employees have often said
logging has harmed salmon or other wildlife populations. He said
there are many documented salmon population declines which can be
attributed to natural factors such as oxygen depletion due to heavy
fish concentrations. In other cases, salmon population decreases
have occurred in areas with minimal timber harvest activity. He
pointed out that salmon harvests during recent years have been at
record levels. He asked Mr. Rue to name specific examples of
salmon population declines where there is documented evidence that
the principal cause was timber harvest.
MR. RUE responded there are streams where the department can
demonstrate that has happened such as the Harris River on Prince of
Wales Island. He stated the department can take some of the blame
because some of that happened early on when the department thought
it was best to clear wood out of streams--that it would provide
more spawning gravels for pink salmon. However, what was
determined is that all the complexity and rearing habitat was
removed, the stream was destabilized and in the end a less
productive system resulted.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said that did not sound like a logging
operation.
MR. RUE stated it was a logging operation. He said part of the
issue is time. If a system is logged and not enough wood is left
in the buffers, it takes about 70 years for that wood to remove
itself from the system naturally and if nothing is coming in to
replace the wood that creates the pools, it will be decades before
a real drop in productivity will be seen. He pointed out the U.S.
Forest Service has a list of systems they believe have been
depleted or damaged by logging. He told committee members he would
be happy to get that list.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if it would have helped if the
department had not taken out the woody debris during the logging
operation.
MR. RUE stated it would have prolonged the health of the system
because there would have at least been some wood left which would
have taken time to wash or rot out. He noted the timber was logged
to the banks. Over time, it would have become less productive. He
reiterated the U.S. Forest Service does have a list of streams that
were impaired by logging and they are working to rehabilitate them.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified that was done early on.
MR. RUE stated the Tongass Timber Reform Act five years ago
required a 100 foot minimum and the state FPA required a 100 foot
minimum. He stressed Alaska has a good buffer law. He said from
the late 1980s on, the state has done well but from the mid 1980s
back, there were problems.
Number 240
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified the problems were due to the
department wanting to take the woody debris out.
MR. RUE replied the department wanted to do that in the late 1960s
and learned long ago that was a mistake. He said the department
quit doing that in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated ADF&G officials often assert they
represent the commercial fishing, subsistence and recreational
users of the forest, which sometimes results in ADF&G being in an
adversarial relationship with the timber industry. The Department
of Natural Resources (DNR), on the other hand, says they cannot
represent the same industry they regulate. He wondered, given that
the timber industry is a legitimate user of state forest resources,
who in state government represents the timber industry's concerns.
He asked Mr. Rue if ADF&G, under his direction, will make very
effort to represent equally the various users of the state's
resources.
MR. RUE said he has never known the DNR to be shy about
representing the timber industry. He noted the DNR has not spent
a lot of time worrying about the Tongass Forest partly because the
federal government has been active in promoting it. The DNR
focuses more on state lands. He explained his interest is in
seeing a fair balance in developing the renewable resources. In
that regard, he felt it was healthy for the ADF&G to sit down with
the DNR and other interests to make sure the best data is available
about what resources are out there; determine how those resources
can be developed; and when the resources are developed, determine
how other renewable resources such as fish and wildlife can be
maintained.
MR. RUE explained to get through that process, it usually means
each person, whether he or she is a forester or a fish and game
biologist, comes to the table saying here is a resource, here is
what is known about it, this is what is out there, this is its
productivity, its sensitivity, the use of it, etc. Initially, one
comes in with one perspective through the planning process or a
forest land use planning process. Then it is determined how the
various resources can work together, which takes negotiation,
resulting in a plan outlining how a timber sale can be done while
still maintaining other important public resources as much as
possible.
MR. RUE stated that process tends to start out, by nature, somewhat
adversarial because each person is coming in with information about
his or her resource, then discussing the interest the other person
has and finally trying to come to a compromise which optimizes
everyone's interest.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified that the DNR generally does stand up
for the timber industry even though they are saying they regulate
that industry.
MR. RUE responded on state lands, the DNR is the manager of timber
resources. The DNR sells the timber resources, and once the timber
is sold, they then monitor the contracts or implement the FPA. He
said during the planning phase, the DNR does represent the timber
industry in that they have the information about the volumes on
those lands, how much they might be worth, if they have insect
problems, how quickly they need to be harvested, etc.
Number 321
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said it was his understanding that the ADF&G
recently requested the cancellation of a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between Alaska and the U.S. Forest Service
which outlined how and when the agencies would respond to proposed
environmental impact statements (EISs) regarding timber sales. He
stated the MOU involved the state early in the process so that
provisions not supported by the state could be identified going in,
therefore reducing the time necessary to complete an EIS that would
be satisfactory to both the state and the federal government. He
asked Mr. Rue, with the MOU cancelled, how will the department
handle federal timber sale EISs. He wondered if time consuming
rewrites of EISs for timber sales on federal land should be
anticipated.
MR. RUE replied no. He felt the current process, with the
Governor's Office coordinating the various agencies and making sure
there is a state position rather than a ADF&G, DNR, etc., position
is the best way to develop a response to a federal action. He
stated he would continue to support that process. He pointed out
part of the problem is getting the state's input into the federal
process early because during the federal timber sale process early
on, they do not have much detail and the state does not have the
opportunity to work out the issues while there is still a chance
for flexibility.
Number 367
CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN wondered what role the ADF&G will play in the
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
MR. RUE said the department will be very active in a number of
areas. He stated via the Marine Mammal Protection Act and
therefore through the ESA, the department has been very active in
helping with the research on sea lions, heading the recovery team
which will affect ESA listings. He felt the department brought
reasonableness to that process, which would not have been there had
the department not been present and a far more draconian effort
would have been seen to protect marine mammals, which the
department did not feel was justified.
MR. RUE stated the department is very involved in the Snake River
fall Chinook listing and has been fighting that battle again to
make sure that any recovery actions required for fall Chinook in
the Northwest are fairly distributed. The department feels Alaska
has been treated unfairly. He said the department is for fish and
would like for the fish to return, but is also for fair allocation
of the responsibility for the recovery of those fish. The
department has worked very hard technically and commenting on the
recovery plan and the biological opinion on the dams, as well as on
the legal front. The department filed notice to sue on the
recovery plan. The department is arguing against unfair
implementation of the ESA.
MR. RUE stressed the ESA is an important tool but he is concerned
it is being abused in Alaska, particularly for fish. He said not
only is that unfair but probably will also lead to far more
draconian measures to undo that Act than what it really deserves.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted there had been a lot written about the fact
that the problem with the steller sea lion might be attributed to
the bycatch on the open sea, but pointed out there really is not a
handle on the situation. He expressed concern that in a period of
declining revenues, the ADF&G has asked for a position to monitor
the ESA. He wondered if this person would take the information
presented or will this person actually do research in the field.
Number 429
MR. RUE stated the Senate cut the department's marine mammal
research. Therefore, the budget is entirely federal and fish and
game dollars. He noted three people are involved in this area--one
of them chairs the recovery team for the steller sea lion. If the
budget cut goes through, the chair will be eliminated which will
leave the effort to experts in California. He said when the
department had the expertise, it was very influential in getting
good science applied to the issue. He pointed out the fish and
game fund and the federal fund have been increasing due to
increased license fees, the increase in the federal excise tax on
firearms, and the Brady bill. He noted the general fund problem is
not being helped with that cut, so he is not sure how that helps
with the issue of falling revenues. The cut certainly hurts the
department in the area of marine mammals and protecting Alaska's
resources.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if the department will get involved in
either contract work or possibly privatizing some of the activities
historically done by the ADF&G.
MR. RUE replied there are definitely areas where the department can
do contracting. For example, in the commercial fisheries area, the
department is looking at contracting for some of the information
gathering on the river. He said the two things that need to be
considered is if contracting is really cheaper and if it is desired
to have that expertise housed outside the agency. He stated often
having the expertise in the department is a tremendous benefit to
the state when issues come up and debates happen rather than having
the expertise housed in a consulting firm.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if the ADF&G will be proactive in regard
to the opening up of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
MR. RUE replied many of the things the department has done on the
North Slope will help people feel more comfortable about
development in the ANWR. He felt the department has been very
proactive with industry on a number of fronts such as research on
caribou crossings, gravel pits, etc.
Number 492
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the ADF&G would be proactive with the
public, letting them know the agency has been working with industry
and that it will not be horrible if the ANWR is opened up for
development.
MR. RUE said part of the problem is the budget cuts are so
significant, 30 percent of the habitat division will be gone and it
will be far more difficult for the department to be proactive in
any regard. He stated the Administration does have an initiative
for the ANWR to publish things which have been done on the North
Slope, which are sensitive to the balance of maintaining other
resources while developing oil and gas.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Rue what his personal view is on
opening the ANWR for exploration and development, while still
maintaining stream integrity.
MR. RUE stated opening the ANWR and maintaining stream integrity is
something which can be done, it just takes people looking at the
situation and doing what they need to do to maintain stream
integrity. He said the department has interesting experiments
ongoing with buried pipes. The department will need to look at
reseeding some of those areas. He explained the department knows
how to do stream flow--it is just a matter of working with the
companies as they develop to make sure the stream is engineered and
maintained over time.
Number 527
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled on Friday he had asked Mr. Rue about
accelerated restoration and whether or not there would be
compensatory mitigation considerations in that regard. He asked
Mr. Rue to comment again on that issue.
MR. RUE responded the idea of accelerated rehabilitation has always
been tied to a package of wetlands permitting on the North Slope.
He said he is open to that kind of idea. He felt compensatory
mitigation is a difficult issue because it is seldom successful
because it is hard to reconstruct exactly what was there in the
beginning. He stated he would rely on avoiding the most sensitive
areas, especially on the North Slope. A wetland may be hit upon
but it will be of much lower value wetland and at that point,
stabilization is really being considered to make sure there is not
erosion, etc. He pointed out on the North Slope, avoidance is the
key and for the most part, that is possible because the industry is
quite flexible as to where they can go and still reach the oil.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified Mr. Rue favors continuing doing that.
MR. RUE replied yes.
Number 557
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated there is a lot of talk about habitat
damage due to road building. He asked Mr. Rue to give some
specific examples of places where road building activities have led
directly to significant losses in fish populations.
MR. RUE said there are several ways that can happen, including
improperly placed culverts. He stated there are a number of
instances where poorly constructed culverts have either blocked
fish passage or created scouring and unnecessary damage. The other
way it can happen is poor road materials and poor maintenance where
there is run off resulting in sedimentation in creeks. He stated
many of the standards for these things are in the FPA and as long
as the operators are diligent and select good materials and good
constructions and design in the beginning, many of these impacts
can be avoided.
MR. RUE stated problems in other areas have been seen where high
slide prone soils exist and if roads are not cut properly or
constructed properly, there will be problems.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said his experience shows that industry is
working with the department and everything is done according to the
department's plan. He wondered if Mr. Rue knows of any instances
where road building has caused problems for habitat.
MR. RUE responded he has seen a number of instances where
construction was not done properly. He felt the department has
worked well with the industry. He reiterated in the past seven
years, the habitat division reviewed approximately 21,000 projects
and the complaint rate has been low. He said there are parts of
the watershed that are out of the department's jurisdiction. The
department only has jurisdiction for anadromous fish streams which
have been catalogued and resident fish streams for fish passage.
The department has no jurisdiction in the upper watershed and that
is where culverts are sometimes improperly placed. He stressed
there have not been a lot of adverse situations because the
department has worked well with people.
MR. RUE noted that with 21,000 permit decisions made over the past
seven years, if each of those decisions had been done wrong, that
would have been a lot of impact. He said if each was done right,
it was not much more expensive for the operator and maintained the
productivity of the stream. He stated over the next few decades,
Alaska has the chance to sustain its fish and their productivity.
He pointed out when looking at the Lower 48, many things have
impacted the fish including small decisions which ultimately
created big problems. He stressed the department believes that
small decisions done right will make a difference over time.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated he had not heard of any problems but he
did not like the talk that industry is hurting the fish habitat by
building roads.
Number 624
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said it seems if a department does not like a
bill, the fiscal note is high and if a department likes the bill,
the fiscal note is zero. He asked Mr. Rue how he determines a
fiscal note for a bill affecting the ADF&G.
MR. RUE replied he tries to predict as best as possible, whether or
not the legislation is going to require new work as opposed to
redirecting existing people into different endeavors.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated the department recently indicated an
interest in controlling private land to protect upland habitat. He
asked Mr. Rue to define upland habitat and indicate what level of
intrusion upon the rights of private landowners he would consider
appropriate and acceptable to protect upland habitat.
MR. RUE said upland is ordinary high water and above in fresh
waters, which is where the department's permit jurisdiction ends.
He felt the FPA represents a fair compromise on private lands
between protecting public resources, such as water quality and
fish, and the rights of the private property owner. He noted only
certain salmon streams and channel types on private lands were
protected. Type B channels had no buffers. Type A channels, which
are those types of streams where wood and vegetation controls the
bank and holds it together, are the only kinds of streams that had
any buffer.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Rue if the ADF&G has a mission
statement.
MR. RUE said the department does have a mission statement. He
stated Title 16 of the statute basically does a good job of stating
the department's mission which is to maintain, enhance and extend
the fish, wildlife, and aquatic plant resources of the state for
the benefit of people. He added the department's mission statement
also talks about how the agency should act as a department--be
professional, honest, encourage employees to be creative and extend
their knowledge base.
TAPE 95-54, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Rue to comment on the direction the
department is taking with mitigation relating to recreational
resources, especially as it relates to private land.
MR. RUE said he is not sure he understood the question. He stated
recreational resources are not something, except for sport fishing,
which is a part of the department's job. He asked Representative
Ogan to be more specific.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he was referring to an instance where
someone wants to do some recreational development on private lands.
He wondered what type of mitigation the department would require.
MR. RUE said if the recreational activity the person might want to
do was to dredge a boat marina in the Kenai River and it was going
to affect the river and the rearing habitat for kings or coho
salmon, the department might suggest an alternative such as a
floating system of docks rather than a dredged out marina. He
stated unless something affects some part of a stream system where
the department has permit jurisdiction or is an important wetland,
he did not think the department would have much to say about an
activity on private lands.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS thanked Mr. Rue for his time.
MR. RUE stated it is critical that the department and the
legislature work together over the next few years. He said he
would be as open as possible. He stressed the resources are
important to the people of Alaska and he felt the issues need to be
solved together.
Number 080
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN made a MOTION to FORWARD the appointment
of Frank Rue, Commissioner, ADF&G, to the joint session for
confirmation.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS passed the gavel to CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN.
CONFIRMATION HEARING: WALTER SAMPSON, BOARD OF GAME
WALTER SAMPSON, APPOINTEE, BOARD OF GAME, testified via
teleconference and said he was born and raised in Noorvik, went to
high school in Chemawa, Oregon and after graduation went into the
military. He stated in 1973, he went to work for the NANA Regional
Corporation. When asked to serve on the Board of Game, he felt
with his background of serving on various boards, he could make a
difference. He stressed his belief is that it is important for any
public official to make sure the public process is part of the
process used to make any decisions. He noted there is a point in
time when an administrator has to make his or her decision but if
that decision is going to impact the public, then that public
process should be part of the process to make that decision.
MR. SAMPSON said in regard to equity, he feels after serving as
Chairman of the Northwest Arctic Borough Planning Commission for
eight years, he treats everyone equally. He stated public
officials represent all of the public and that is what he bases his
decisions on. He told committee members his interest in being a
Board of Game member is the opportunity to put his experience into
a public process.
Number 175
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if Mr. Sampson's job responsibilities
will pose any time conflicts.
MR. SAMPSON responded he recently hired an assistant. He added
that NANA has gone through a restructuring process and his position
will be changing from the Vice President of Lands to a liaison
position, meaning he will be more involved with intergovernmental
agency processes.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Sampson if he believes the common use
clause of the state's Constitution treats everyone equally.
MR. SAMPSON stated he was not sure the common clause treats
everyone equally. He felt if one looks at the Constitution and the
way it was written, there is no equity.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) says that in exchange for close to $1 billion and 40
million acres of land, all aboriginal hunting rights are
extinguished. He stated the common use clause says the fish and
wildlife resources are reserved for all people of the state and
yet, the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act puts the
state in conflict with that. He asked Mr. Sampson if he supports
federal management of fish and wildlife in the state of Alaska.
MR. SAMPSON responded in regard to Native corporations that own
land, those are private lands and as far as resources are
concerned, those are under state jurisdiction. He said some of the
village corporations and regional corporations are being forced to
close some of their lands for public access. He stated in regard
to federal pursuit, he would rather see the state control the
resources within private land.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS made a MOTION to FORWARD the appointment of
Walter Sampson, Appointee, Board of Game, to the joint session on
confirmation.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
CONFIRMATION HEARING: LARRY HOLMES, BOARD OF GAME
Number 264
LARRY HOLMES, APPOINTEE, BOARD OF GAME, testified via
teleconference and stated he resides in Girdwood, has two
daughters, holds undergraduate degrees in agriculture and biology,
a graduate degree in biology, and has been active in fish and game
management since becoming a resident of the state ten years ago.
He reviewed the various organizations and committees he has served
on.
MR. HOLMES told committee members he has been a long-time advocate
for hunter education and has been involved in establishing a
requirement for hunter education in several areas of the state,
primarily urban, where there have been problems with activities
that threaten to eliminate opportunities for hunters.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Holmes if he supports the common use
clause of the state's Constitution.
MR. HOLMES responded he does.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated Mr. Holmes will have to take an oath to
defend and protect the Constitution of the state of Alaska when
going on the Board of Game. He asked Mr. Holmes if he is willing
to defend and protect the common use clause as long as it is in
place.
MR. HOLMES replied he does support the Constitution. He said he
has a problem with some of the interests who would like to change
the Constitution of the state on one hand but on the other hand, he
sees clearly there are people in areas of the state who have needs
different than those who live in urban areas. He stated he does
not have a problem with working to create opportunities for people
to incorporate fish and game stocks into their lifestyle in areas
where there is a need.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Holmes if he supports the federal
management of fish and wildlife resources on federal lands in the
state.
MR. HOLMES replied no. He feels it is a horrible mistake.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Holmes how he feels about predator
control.
MR. HOLMES said as Chairman of the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory
Committee (AFGAC), he assisted and offered proposals to increase
opportunities to take predators in different areas. He pointed out
when the state gets into aircraft use in predator control, there is
a need to be very careful. He noted one of the plans the AFGAC
offered was designated areas for intensive use. He felt it is in
the best interest of the state to designate areas for that kind of
use rather than getting into a situation where there may be
conflicts with all uses or users. He felt more comfortable working
with the public to decide where it is in the best interest of the
state to do predator control. He said those places will most
likely be areas like Unit 13 or 20 where there is a long-standing
history of intensive human use for harvest.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN clarified Mr. Holmes supports intensive
management.
MR. HOLMES replied he does. He mentioned recently there was a
board meeting and he supported every intensive management use
designation. He added he does not necessarily support every type
of intensive management action in an area.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT made a MOTION to FORWARD the appointment
of Larry Holmes, Board of Game, to the joint session confirmation.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a MOTION to RESCIND the committee's action
on forwarding Mr. Sampson's appointment because the vote was taken
without a quorum present.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a MOTION to FORWARD the appointment of
Walter Sampson, Board of Game, to the joint session confirmation.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Co-Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 9:13 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|