Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/31/1996 08:06 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
January 31, 1996
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Don Long
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 397
"An Act relating to the fisheries resource landing tax and to the
seafood marketing assessment; and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED SSHB 397 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 81(FIN)
"An Act amending the Fish and Game Code by removing 'wolf' from the
definition of 'big game'; relating to the classification and taking
of wolves; and providing for a harvest incentive on wolves taken in
areas designated by the Board of Game."
- PASSED CSSB 81(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HOUSE BILL NO. 447
"An Act providing that state land, water, and land and water may
not be classified so as to preclude or restrict traditional means
of access for traditional recreational uses."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First Public Hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 397
SHORT TITLE: FISH LANDING TAX/SEAFOOD MARKETING ASSMT.
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/08/96 2370 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2371 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE
01/17/96 2463 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
01/17/96 2463 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE
01/17/96 (H) FSH AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/17/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
01/19/96 2482 (H) FSH RPT 3DP 1NR
01/19/96 2482 (H) DP: ELTON, MOSES, AUSTERMAN
01/19/96 2482 (H) NR: G.DAVIS
01/19/96 2483 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
01/19/96 2483 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV)
01/19/96 2483 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
01/31/96 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 81
SHORT TITLE: CLASSIFYING WOLF AS PREDATOR
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP, Taylor, Miller
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/09/95 222 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/09/95 222 (S) RESOURCES
02/20/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/20/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/22/95 (S) RES AT 03:15 PM CAPITOL ROOM 408
03/27/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/27/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/28/95 808 (S) RES RPT CS 5DP 1NR NEW TITLE
03/28/95 808 (S) FN TO SB & CS (F&G)
03/28/95 808 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
04/24/95 (S) FIN AT 11:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/25/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/26/95 1248 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 3NR NEW TITLE
04/27/95 1269 (S) FN TO FIN CS (F&G)
04/27/95 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
04/27/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/29/95 1337 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/29/95
04/29/95 1340 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/29/95 1340 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/29/95 1341 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD READING FLD Y12 N6 E2
04/29/95 1341 (S) THIRD READING 4/30 CALENDAR
04/30/95 1366 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 81(FIN)
04/30/95 1367 (S) PASSED Y13 N5 E2
04/30/95 1367 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
05/01/95 1396 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
05/01/95 1396 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y12 N7 E1
05/01/95 1398 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/02/95 1728 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/02/95 1728 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
01/31/96 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 447
SHORT TITLE: CAN'T CLOSE LAND TO TRADITIONAL REC. USES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MASEK, Williams
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/24/96 2524 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/24/96 2524 (H) RESOURCES
01/26/96 2548 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILLIAMS
01/31/96 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Deputy Director
Division of Income and Excise Audit
Department of Revenue
P. O. Box 110420
Juneau, AK 99801-0420
Telephone: (907) 465-2320
POSITION STATEMENT: The Department of Revenue supports HB 397.
DICK BISHOP, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council
1555 Gus's Grind
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone: (907) 455-6151
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 81 and HB 447.
SANDRA ARNOLD
P.O. Box 202022
Anchorage, AK 99520
Telephone: 455-8120
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 81.
BO FORREST, Volunteer
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P. O. Box 2215
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 81.
WAYNE REGELIN, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish & Game
P. O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-6626
Telephone: (907) 465-6196
POSITION STATEMENT: The Administration is opposed to SB 81.
BILL HAGAR
431 Gaffney Road
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-6295
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 81.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-10, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS called the House Resources Committee
meeting to order at 8:06 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Williams, Green, Ogan, Austerman, Davies, Kott
and Long. Representatives Barnes and Nicholia were absent.
HB 397 - FISH LANDING TAX/SEAFOOD MARKETING ASSESSMENT
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced that the committee would hear from
the sponsor, Representative Alan Austerman, and the Department of
Revenue. He stated his intention to move SSHB 397 from the House
Resources Committee and declared that CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN would
chair the remainder of the meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN said two years ago, the legislature
passed the Fishery Resource Landing Tax which established a tax on
offshore fisheries which landed product in Alaska. HB 397 was
introduced to clean up a problem area in the tax so that it will
not be challenged in court.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN continued, the American Factory Trawlers
Association filed action against the state after the landing tax
was passed. He said the court remanded the case back to the state
asserting that the American Factory Trawlers Association had to go
through the state process of review on their tax claim before it
came to the court. He said the original tax included .3 percent
for the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI), and HB 397
separates the ASMI .3 percent tax from the 3.0 percent Fisheries
Business Tax. He asked the Department of Revenue to explain the
technicalities.
Number 290
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, Deputy Director, Income and Excise Tax Division,
Department of Revenue said HB 397 was introduced to strengthen the
Fishery Landing Tax implemented by the legislature in 1994 and,
subsequently, challenged in its first year. He said the tax raised
$7 million in its first full year of collections; half of which is
shared with the communities where the fish are landed and the other
half goes into the general fund. He said the Department of Revenue
supports HB 397 to strengthen existing statute. It has a zero
fiscal note.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW said the bill does not change the program. HB 397
makes the Fishery Landing Tax which is essentially for the offshore
fishing fleet as close as we can get it to the Fisheries Business
Tax. The intent is to match the two fisheries taxes and make it so
that all taxpayers are treated equally.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW identified changes in the legislation. In HB 397,
the 3.3 percent landing tax which includes .3 percent for ASMI is
reestablished to a 3 percent landing tax with a separate .3 percent
seafood marketing assessment. This separates the marketing
assessment in statute and equalizes the landing tax and the shore-
based fisheries business tax. A new section is added: Section 22.
AS 43.77.045 Fisheries Resources Landing Tax Education Credit which
adds to this tax the ability to take an education credit.
Number 506
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if HB 397 addresses or circumvents the
problems with the trawlers association and similar plaintiffs.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW said the bill was introduced to meet the challenges
brought by the association, and any weaknesses in the tax.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if this fix will take care of any other
litigants.
MR. BARTHOLOMEW said the bill will take care of any challenges the
Department of Revenue is aware of.
Number 580
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked explanation of the multiple
changes to the language concerning the value paid being substituted
by seafood products "produced."
MR. BARTHOLOMEW said the Department of Revenue feels the intent is
exactly the same. We are just clarifying the fact that if you do
not purchase the fish, you just catch it; the Department of Revenue
is going to call that "produced" and it should be subject to the
seafood marketing assessment.
Number 711
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted the presence of Senator Bert Sharp.
Number 752
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT said HB 397 is a good bill and it cleans
up the statutes. He moved that SSHB 397 move from the Resources
Committee with individual recommendations with the attached zero
fiscal note. Hearing no objections, it was so ordered.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS turned the gavel over to C0-CHAIRMAN GREEN.
SB 81 - CLASSIFYING WOLF AS PREDATOR
Number 780
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the committee would hear CSSB 81(FIN)
concerning the reinstatement of the harvest incentive on wolves.
He said there are a number of witnesses on the teleconference
network who wish to testify.
Number 832
SENATOR BERT SHARP said SB 81 had changed considerably since it was
originally introduced in the Senate by accommodating many of the
Department of Fish and Game's objections. He said the DF&G was
still negatively neutral and he would let them address their
concerns.
SENATOR SHARP referred to his sponsor statement: "Why It's Time to
Re-instate a Harvest Incentive on Wolves. The history of season
accessibility to game by Alaskan Hunters as determined by open
season lengths. He said, "particularly, in the area north of the
Alaska range there is only a forty mile area where there is road
and river access into the caribou ranges. There has been very
restricted seasons and very restricted access primarily in Tier II
that keeps many licensed hunters from participating in the caribou
harvest there."
SENATOR SHARP discussed a recent Division of Game study of the
Forty-mile caribou herd, and said the results pointed out
interesting factors which he would not address except the results
that the range, over the years, had supported as high as an excess
of 500,000 animals in the herd and went down as low as 15,000. He
said the herd had stabilized at 22,000 over the past four years.
The range is in excellent shape and the herd is highly productive,
with about 8,500 calves born from 22,000 animals every year. The
primary problem is, out of those 8,500 calves, less than 10 percent
survive to be yearlings, and less than that into full-fledged
adults.
SENATOR SHARP said the study indicated that the "culprits" were
five or six packs of wolves in the area at calving time. He said
he would make the task force results and recommendations available
to the committee which he added, "did not recommend any predator
harvest." He said the recommendations included the findings that
the human harvest is insignificant and has no effect on the
biological growth because the herd has the highest proportion of
bulls to cows of any herd in the state. He said there was no
problem with taking 350 bulls, the study reduced that down to 150.
Number 1092
SENATOR SHARP continued, "So, why has things like this happened and
why are vast areas of the state closed or we have very limited
access for the privilege of hunting, I won't call it privilege, I
will call it right to harvest natural resources.
SENATOR SHARP stated, "The last four governors, and now Governor
Knowles, have consistently ignored the recommendations of the
Department of Fish and Game calling for intensive predator control
actions. These were Department actions based on bookcases full of
scientific studies, game surveys resulting in results that cost
tens of millions of dollars and years of public testimony.
SENATOR SHARP continued, "The actions of Hickel and Knowles have
twice squashed pilot wolf reduction programs which meticulously
evolved out of years of planning, public input and Board actions,
and it only applied to 6,500 square miles, less than 1 percent of
our state lands.
SENATOR SHARP said, "Previous governors as well as the current
governor choose to thwart Department, Board, Public and Legislative
directions for predator control programs by executive orders,
removal of key personnel and shifting legislatively approved
funding to other passive management areas.
SENATOR SHARP said, "Two years ago, this legislature passed
intensive game management mandated legislation.
Number 1163
SENATOR SHARP stated, "At the December, 1994 and March 1994 Board
of Game meetings, public proposal called for intensive management
implementation in Game management Units 13, 19, 20A, 20C, 20D and
25C.
SENATOR SHARP continued, "At the December meeting, the Department
gave the following Review on Unit 13:
1. Another deep snow, tough winter this year which will make it an
unprecedented four in a row.
2. Moose populations down 20-25 percent and continuing down.
3. Moose calf and `15 month yearling' populations are at extremely
low levels which will cause additional deterioration of Unit 13
Moose numbers.
4. A higher than average wolf population with strong indications
of a much more lower wolf harvest by trappers and hunters this
season.
5. Continue record high levels of Grizzly bear population levels.
SENATOR SHARP proceeded, "Based on the state statute on intensive
management and this criteria, what do you think a responsible
Department would recommend? Reduce wolf population, liberalize
bear hunting seasons from 1 every 4 years to 1 each year. Planned
control burn to improve habitat? The fact is none of the above.
No resource management recommendations from the department to the
board on Unit 13."
Number 1217
SENATOR SHARP emphasized that the department did eliminate the
Grizzly bear permit for residents and allow a Grizzly Bear harvest
every year instead of every four years. He said the Board of Game
had made that recommendation over the objections of the Department
of Fish and Game.
"The Department of Fish and Game ignored these warning signals and
gave their standard signal, business as usual, proposing reduced
seasons and more stringent antler size limitation. Continue
managing people not the resource.
SENATOR SHARP resumed his testimony, "At the next Board meeting, 3
1/2 months later, the only positive action was reluctant approval
to liberalize the bear harvest in Unit 13. This was done by the
Board without a recommendation from a passive Department. No
active predator control was authorized.
SENATOR SHARP said, "I would like to continue to work toward
getting the Department focused on resource management and not
people management. Budget shifts can get the job done with no
increase in costs. We are trying to do this.
SENATOR SHARP stated, "Some who will come forward in opposition of
this bill will justify their testimony by saying we must keep
politics out of the game management process.
Number 1311
SENATOR SHARP proceeded, "I can only reply that we are at this
point only because of blackmail politics by special interest groups
who are financed primarily by outside interest. They have totally
thwarted and frustrated the public process in our state.
SENATOR SHARP said. "This bill is a simple statement. Alaskans
demand that this resource be managed with their best interest being
the paramount issue. This bill is here because of politics
destroying wise game management in our state.
SENATOR SHARP continued, "Many believe this bill is far from what
is needed. They point to sections which still leaves the power to
initiate harvest incentive at the discretion of the Board of Game.
At this time, I am still hopeful the Board will use this authority
in specific areas where high predator populations are a major
contributing factor in destroying game resource availability to
Alaskans.
SENATOR SHARP concluded his sponsor statement, "This bill simply
stated gives the Board of Game the authority and a tool to put the
power back into the hands of the people in an arena where
government has miserably failed. Careful examination of this bill
reveals another feature. It's an Alaskan Hire piece of
legislation."
Number 1446
SENATOR SHARP said SB 81, by reclassifying the wolf from game
animal to unclassified game animal, and a fur bearer, will go a
long way in allowing the board to focus pressure on predators,
specifically wolves, where it is a major, major problem.
Number 1520
REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG asked clarification of the procedures used
by the Board of Game in the designated harvest incentive areas.
SENATOR SHARP answered that the Board of Game has, historically,
accepted public input when local citizens say there is a problem,
and they study the game management subunits. That is why the bill
allows focusing by the board in areas designated by the board.
SENATOR SHARP said one objection to the original bill was that it
allowed incentive on wolves statewide and could jeopardize areas
where the wolf populations are low, thus creating an endangered
species. That is why the bill was restructured in Senate Finance
Committee. So, the board focused on areas within a game unit where
the scientific data showed there was a problem on game population
levels and predation was significant.
Number 1606
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES said the bill talks about harvest
incentives, he asked if that term also means "bounty."
SENATOR SHARP said, "It could be, it could also be incentives paid
to recognized groups that the department may want to contract with
to perform the harvesting of the predators within the bounty where
these groups live, particularly in Game management Unit 19. He
said six or seven villages wrote in support of the bill last year.
The bill was broadened to allow the department to pay individuals,
or contract with a village council, or a group that lives close to
the area, to trap the area. He said harvest incentives could also
mean an agreement based on the achievement of the goals of the
agreement.
Number 1678
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he was a little confused by that
explanation. He said as he reads the bill, it just says "pay an
harvest incentive of $200.00 per animal to a person." He said he
did not see anything in the bill about contracting with a village
council.
SENATOR SHARP said the bill does not preclude a group from getting
together. The key is about "per animal" and subject to working out
arrangements with the department, or focusing on a group. The bill
points out the controls that have been proven effective on ceiling,
validating and so forth by the department.
Number 1718
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said one of the objections to "bounties" in
the past has been the potential for abuse in terms of harvesting
outside the area that is designated by the board. He asked Senator
Sharp to comment on that aspect and to explain how the state can
expect to control since there is no fiscal note from the Department
of Public Safety.
SENATOR SHARP said most of the control will be done by the
biologists in the field because they give the advice to the board
on what areas should be done. He said if the department wants to
call in the protection, prosecution and follow up of investigative
work, they can do that. He said if there are apparent abuses, the
department has adequate personnel to keep tight controls. If this
happens in the first couple of projects, the department is going to
be very tight on the harvest and direct the exact packs they want
the pressure on. The Forty-mile people indicated that they knew
what the pack activity was.
Number 1810
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Senator Sharp if he felt the Department
of Fish and Game can put regulations in place that make it harder
to take wolves from out of the designated areas and claim they were
taken from "within the designated areas."
SENATOR SHARP deferred to the Department of Fish and Game.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to the Department of Fish and Game
fiscal note assumptions "any enforcement costs will be assumed by
Department of Public Safety." He said that was the reason for his
earlier question and stated that he felt the department will very
carefully outline the area in which they expect the harvest
incentive to be focused. Representative Davies wanted further
clarification on people who will collect wolves from remote areas
because it happens to be convenient. How are we going to know that?
SENATOR SHARP replied the same way moose is monitored in areas
where they are not supposed to be harvested. The department has
the parameters set up and should be able to monitor it better than
monitoring other game regulations because it will be a high profile
exercise.
Number 1878
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to Senator Sharp's sponsor statement
concerning the "squashed pilot wolf reduction programs that
meticulously evolved out of years of planning. He said it is true
that this has been addressed for years. One of the problems with
the wolf control projects that we have had is, perhaps, that they
have not been meticulously planned.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES continued, one specific aspect is public
relations. This an area that has attracted a public interest beyond
the immediate areas involved. He said earlier versions of wolf
control programs recommended the state put resources into doing the
public relations before the problem developed. He asked Senator
Sharp if he agreed that the state has not done enough public
education to gather acceptance for intensive game management
programs.
Number 1930
SENATOR SHARP said it depends on who the public relations targets,
Alaskans or the whole world; and we do not have the resources to
educate the whole world. He said we are subject to high technology
like CNN type news and anything can be news from Fairbanks, Alaska
to Timbuktu. He felt that it is not the department's
responsibility to get into high profile public relations to try to
influence and control the attitude and the minds of the general
public. He said the department should focus on the biological data
that we spend millions of dollars developing and make their
recommendations based on that and proceed.
Number 2028
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said he has personal experience hunting
on horseback in Unit 13, and can testify that there are very few
moose calves in that area. He said he supports SB 81 because it
offers a better way to manage predators.
C0-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he would take teleconference testimony at
this time.
DICK BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, said he
agreed with comments made by Senator Sharp and Representative Ogan
about management of big game prey populations in parts of the
Interior and Southcentral Alaska. He said, in the past, control of
wolf populations has been the only effective means of allowing the
prey populations to recover. The problem is real. You are looking
at only 10 to 20 percent of the state where active game management
can and has the availability of prey for human uses.
MR. BISHOP said the question raised by Representative Davies
concerning bounties is that bounties were a general application of
a financial reward or remuneration for taking a particular kind of
animal. This bill does do that it, it addresses it to a specific
area. One of the difficulties with game management is the
disinformation distributed widely and callously by opponents of
game management in the media.
MR. BISHOP said he felt that the department has not adequately
presented the facts relating to the predator-prey system management
even though they have done an outstanding job of researching it. He
felt the department has not made the effort that should be made to
inform the world that sound fish and game management does not
threaten wolf populations.
Number 2323
SANDRA ARNOLD testified relating that she has a science degree in
wildlife ecology and Masters degree in wildlife policy. She said
she opposes SB 81 for multiple reasons. Ms. Arnold said she had
researched bounties in professional wildlife management literature
and quoted from the following:
Robertson and Bollen, Wildlife Management, Stanford, University.
"Putting a price on the head of an animal, at first, seems to be an
effective way of reducing its numbers. However, millions of public
dollars have been paid to hunters in the West with no detectable
finding of diminishing predators. Bounties are also subject to
fraud."
Young and Goldman, The Wolves of North America. "Bounty systems
are honeycombed with fraud and centuries of its use brings to light
endless examples of this. It is a system that just can't work."
Dr. Mark Keikoff, (Sp.) Predators and Wildlife Management, Academic
Press. "Historically bounties with rare exceptions have
consistently failed to achieve their goals."
Gerald Eddy, Director, Minnesota Department of Conservation.
"Bounties fail to control predators. We are paying bounties for
animals that will be killed anyway." Ms. Arnold noted that Mr.
Eddy points out the invitation to fraud.
Number 2380
MS. ARNOLD said, "Missouri paid more than $2 million to kill
200,000 coyotes with no effect on the coyote population."
Elmer Shaw, Analysis of Laws Relating to Wolf Bounties, Library of
Congress. "Professional wildlife biologists do not consider the
bounty system to be an effective method of predator control.
L. David Meach, The Wolf. "The bounty system is an ineffective and
inefficient method of controlling wolves and millions of dollars
have been wasted through bounty payments. However, bounties can
persist whether or not they are actually needed or have any effect
because basically a strong political tool especially to legislators
from the fringes of wild areas, such as Fairbanks, because there
are relatively few spectacular issues that can project a
representative from such an area into the headlines. All this is
aside from whether or not the bounty is necessary or useful."
Number 2449
MS. ARNOLD said Department of Fish and Game reports indicate that
Alaska has abolished bounties three times in its history because it
was a waste of money, it did not work and it was unpopular with the
public. She said bounties do not work, yet we are considering this
meritless idea once again because a small number of extremists
cannot accept the fact that this is not the "good old days."
CHANGE TAPE
TAPE 96-10, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. ARNOLD stated that the urban centers of Alaska care more and
pay more attention now to its wildlife management because our
constitution says that wildlife belongs equally to all of us.
MS. ARNOLD concluded, bounties hold an overly simplistic view of
ecosystems, they do not work. They are expensive in the time of
cutting government programs and subsidies, and they are not
supported by the public; and public opinion does count.
Number 063
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN addressed Ms. Arnold about her views and said
there are some areas where wolf control has been effective.
Number 106
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented on Ms. Arnold's testimony saying that
it is hard to believe that the taking of 200,000 coyotes had no
effect on the population. He said the Alaska Constitution does not
say that wildlife belongs equally to all of us; it talks about the
common use clause which the framers of the constitution were likely
talking about consumptive use.
Number 125
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT countered to Ms. Arnold that her testimony
seemed to indicate that she is strongly in opposition to the bounty
system, but that she did not seem to be opposed to the harvesting
of wolves.
Number 143
MS. ARNOLD felt there is a legitimate use of wolves, foxes and
lynx. She said what she is opposed to is trying to artificially
boost game numbers in areas along the road system that is being
used, primarily, by the urban sporting population. The statistics
show us that in Unit 13, for example, nearly 80 percent of the
hunters in that unit are from the urban areas and earn more than
$80,000 a year. She said is opposed to manipulating that component
of all the parameters of the ecosystem which does not always work,
at the great expense of eroding Alaska's public image and offers
something that often times has no measurable benefit and ends up by
dividing Alaska. She said we can better spend that money on better
wildlife law enforcement, habitat protection or, if we want to
subsidize hunters, how about flying them out to Western Alaska
where we have an oversupply of caribou.
Number 197
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said there seems to be a perception here that
sportsmen want to eradicate wolves. He said no one wants to
eradicate wolves. We either manage people or we manage wildlife.
He said we can allow Mother Nature to manage these wildlife or we
can control the situation and keep enough wolves to do their job
and provide that balance. He feels the state should actively
manage its wildlife rather than managing it by default.
Number 261
BO FORREST, Alaska Environmental Lobby Volunteer, presented his
testimony for the record stating:
"SB 81 is a prime example of extreme politicians trying to strong-
arm inappropriate legislation into law. This legislation denies
economic reason. The last wolf-kill legislation the state
implemented was budgeted for $100,000 dollars, but ultimately the
state shelled out over $229,000 for 120 mutilated carcasses. This
doesn't include legal expenditures for defending such irresponsible
policy in the eyes of an outraged state, nation and planet.
MR. FORREST said, "Currently, $675,000 dollars is earmarked for the
proposed wolf-bounty program, a program which could realistically
pay out cash for the skin and foreleg of a protected wolf, or even
a wolf from another country. There is no way to control the
location of the proposed killing, and the skin remains with the
person receiving the bounty. Who can say with certainty what the
bottom line will be?
MR. FORREST continued, "Furthermore, there will be lawsuits, loss
of tourism revenue, public hearings, and the loss of public
confidence in our political system and Alaska's ability to manage
its wildlife in a responsible and sustainable way.
MR. FORREST stated, "Many legislators proclaim that the highest and
best use of our wildlife is provided through human consumptive use
of this wildlife. ADF&G, however, has recent economic research
figures indicating that the large number of tourists that visit the
state each year would pay higher amounts of cash to view Alaska's
big game populations, including wolves and bears, than would the
handful of recreational hunters that feel they don't have an
adequate chance of killing something unless they are the sole
predator on the clock that particular day. And under the Alaska
State Constitution's `common use clause,' Alaska wildlife belongs
to all Alaskans, not only the consumptive use bidders or the
highest users. There are a multitude of wildlife interests in
Alaska, and SB 81 threatens the balance of the community at the
focal-point of those combined interests.
MR. FORREST proceeded, "Passage of this bill will be political
suicide. In the face of public censure based on existing
scientific evidence and consensus, this bill represents a
contemptuous response to a workable problem. If in extreme cases
wolf control is needed in specific circumstances, let's make
scientific decisions backed by public understanding and support.
MR. FORREST stated, "The current policies allowing the killing of
wolves with strangulation snares, steel-jawed traps, the use of all
terrain-vehicles and snow machines combined with semi-automatic
assault rifles, and the same-day land and shoot approach using air-
craft already has Alaska under worldwide scrutiny. The additional
bounty on wolves is unnecessary and unacceptable.
MR. FORREST continued, "Many past policies are no longer
acceptable. Bounties have not been successful throughout their
history in this state, and there's no reason to suffer through
another attempt now. Alaska's physical and biological complexities
deserve responsible and realistic nurturing towards a sustainable
and optimal yield, not a reductionism approach to management.
MR. FORREST said, "The proposal before you is not a well-meaning
attempt to exploit responsibly, but a stumbling, uncontrolled, and
unnecessary lunge at a monster that does not exist beyond the
boundaries of a few archaic minds.
MR. FORREST testified, "This is the same type of mentality that
called for and received a bounty on the American Bald Eagle, a
bounty that was in effect from 1915 until as recently as 1953 in
Alaska. Have we not learned our lesson yet?
MR. FORREST concluded, "The cost of each dead wolf will well exceed
its $200 limit. In the end, Alaska will pay with Her soul.
Number 436
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN introduced Wayne Regelin from the Department of
Fish and Game.
Number 454
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Department of Fish and Game introduced Ken Taylor, the new Deputy
Director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation. He said would
address SB 81 and then he wanted to address some of the earlier
testimony.
MR. REGELIN said SB 81, as it has been changed, and if it were
passed, would reclassify the wolf as an "unclassified" game animal
rather than being a big game animal. It would provide a harvest
incentive of $200 per wolf in areas designated by the Board of Game
where it was necessary. It would eliminate nonresident and
nonresident alien tag fees for hunting of wolves. This version of
SB 81 has been changed very significantly and is much improved over
the original SB 81 which was a bounty system statewide.
Number 530
MR. REGELIN said the Department of Fish and Game still has some
real concerns about SB 81. The Administration does not support the
bill.
MR. REGELIN said game in Alaska is classified by the Board of Game
as either big game or small game; unclassified game is fur animal
or fur bearer. A trapping license is required to take an animal
under the "fur bearer" regulations and a hunting license is
required to take animals classified as a big game or fur bearer
animal. Some animals, like the wolf, have dual classifications so
they can be trapped as well as hunted. The wolf is now classified
as both a big game animal and a fur bearer.
Number 556
MR. REGELIN said the Board of Game has adopted specific methods and
means of restrictions for the harvest of big game for hunting, but
they have not done so for unclassified game. It is legal to hunt
unclassified game the same day a person has been airborne while it
is not for most big game species in Alaska. So, by changing the
classification of the wolf to "unclassified," it will send a
message to Alaska that we consider the wolf in the same class as
those species commonly considered vermin. The current unclassified
species in Alaska are rats, mice and starling. There are no
seasons and no bag limits, and no restrictions on the taking of
unclassified game. Sending this message will provide a lot of
ammunition to the animal rights groups and extremists which will
further erode the department's ability to manage Alaska's wolf
populations.
Number 603
MR. REGELIN felt the harvest incentive program as outlined in SB 81
will be impossible to implement. He suggested instead that the
Board of Game establish regulations and procedures to control,
properly manage and eliminate fraud in the program.
MR. REGELIN stated that the $200.00 incentive, added to the pelt
value, might be incentive enough for some trappers to increase
their harvest in the areas.
Number 636
MR. REGELIN said even though this is called the harvest incentive
program, and only would be applied to a few areas in Alaska; the
press and the public are going to call it a bounty. The state of
Alaska will suffer severe criticism by those who have been very
effective in the past at crying wolf.
MR. REGELIN said that repealing the nonresident and nonresident
alien tag fee will have little impact on wolf populations because
nonresidents do not take many. The revenue generated by
nonresident wolf hunters is about $50,000 per year. A lot of
nonresident hunters buy a tag just in case they might see a wolf.
Number 668
MR. REGELIN conjectured that he felt it unwise to pass this bill
because of the overwhelming public opposition to bounties and that
SB 81 is not in the best interest of wolf management in Alaska, in
the long term.
Number 702
MR. REGELIN said he would address earlier testimony and discussed
the two areas of Alaska where there are real problems with wolves.
In the area around McGrath, the moose population is being severely
impacted by wolves and it is reducing the ability of the people
there to harvest moose. In the other area, the Forty-mile caribou
herd, there is about 22,000 caribou. He said there is no doubt
that there could be 200,000 and what is keeping the herd from
growing is wolf predation.
MR. REGELIN said last fall, the Board of Game implemented SB 77,
the intensive management law that was passed in 1994, and
authorized predator management programs for both McGrath and the
Forty-mile caribou herd, but delayed implementation of them until
1997, in order for the National Academy of Science to complete the
review that the Governor requested them to do.
Number 769
MR. REGELIN said in Unit 13, the management of wolves is not a big
problem in that area. He said there are about 350 to 400 wolves in
the area with a harvest goal each year of 170 to 180. The trappers
and hunters have been able to achieve that goal each year leaving
a minimum population of wolves to maintain in that area. He said
we do not need wolf control in Unit 13, the big problem there is
Grizzly bears predation on moose calves.
MR. REGELIN discussed statewide statistics of wildlife management
and the ability of the Board of Game to maximize harvests on a
sustained yield basis. He said there are two areas where we have
a big problem with predators and it is beyond the division's
control to fix those. Those decisions are being made at much
higher levels and the division is in real jeopardy of losing its
ability and funding to manage wildlife around Alaska because we
cannot do wolf control in a couple of areas.
Number 962
MR. REGELIN talked about the seasons along the road system being
restricted and the department's ability to extend the season to 30
days in most road connected areas, and to begin the season before
school starts. He said we are harvesting just as many moose as we
did 20 years ago along the road system in Unit 13, it fluctuates
from about 800 to 1,000 in that area, and it is the same in Unit
20A. He said there are a lot of moose in those Units and they need
to be harvested.
Number 1033
MR. REGELIN said the department was prevented from having cow
harvest seasons in those areas because of the way the law is
structured. Local advisory committees can stop cow moose hunts and
have done so in Units 13 and 20A. We are near carrying capacity in
both of these areas, but we cannot increase the harvest of bulls
only or the bull-cow ratio gets out of balance and productivity
declines. He said it is the same in the Nelchina basin, the
division will recommend to the Board of Game to take action to
allow taking about 6,000 to 7,000 caribou in Unit 13. He said the
caribou population there is about 50,000. He said we just cannot
carry that many caribou because of federal intervention in the
subsistence laws. A caribou hunt is a Tier II. It is difficult
for us to manage, but we are going to issue enough Tier II permits
or go from a Tier I to a Tier II combination. That will be a board
decision on how to allocate the permits. Mr. Regelin said the
department would like to harvest about 12,000 caribou in that herd
to reduce it.
Number 1104
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Regelin to confirm that the department
is currently using predator control in some areas.
MR. REGELIN said the department prefers to call it regulation of
populations or just good wildlife management. He responded that in
Unit 13, the department has changed the season and the bag limits
on Grizzly bears. That has been done in areas where there are a lot
of Grizzlies and the board decided that the management goal of this
one area is to produce more ungulates. He said the department is
not doing any wolf control as such, but manages wolves by trapping
and hunting. About 1,200 to 1,500 wolves are taken each year. In
Unit 13, we set goals on the numbers on wolves we would like
hunters and trappers to take. That is done through a management
plan with a lot of public input to make sure that wolves are not
overharvested and are kept in balance.
NUMBER 1180
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he appreciates Mr. Regelin's caveat, but the
fact is, there are wolves and bears being taken now through animal
control or through the department's animal management program. So,
the hue and cry, the concept that we are destroying Rin Tin Tin
from the Outside, that is already there. The fact that we are
already doing it should not be foreign to the state.
Number 1258
MR. REGELIN said the department tries to regulate through science
and good management practices all of the game populations which
includes wolves and bears. We do not call it "moose control" when
we regulate the numbers of moose and we have to do that.
MR. REGELIN said in response to Chairman Green's question about the
state having very few roads that if you build roads in Alaska, it
increases opportunities to harvest and the department can manage
that access appropriately.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said that was exactly his point, we will do
things for the sake of mankind by allowing him to live and move
around here, yet for the sake of mankind, to get an additional
harvest, we are resistant to that because we would have to kill
wolves.
Number 1310
MR. REGELIN said the department is not resistant to that and work
hard to enhance hunting opportunities throughout the state. It is
one of the many legitimate uses of wildlife and we want to increase
that. The problem, when you get to wolves, is that science and
logic seem to be lost. It becomes an emotional argument and a
clash of value systems and people just do not want wolves to be
controlled. The department is still managing, regulating and
harvesting wolves in most areas of the state, but when you request
the department to take direct action where we would shoot wolves
out of airplanes or whether we have a trapping program; then you
get the public in a furor and we are kind of in a box.
Number 1367
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN discussed pictures the committee was shown of
partially eaten and mutilated carcasses of moose and dogs where
wolves were not just killing to eat; they were killing to kill.
Number 1400
MR. REGELIN said wolves are a very efficient predator and there are
cases the department is aware of called "surplus killing" when the
wolves find a very vulnerable population of animals. They can kill
more than they need to eat. It is not common but it has happened.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted the arrival of Representative Barnes.
Number 1429
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES talked about several instances in the
Anchorage area of wolves carrying off little dogs and mutilating
them. She asked Mr. Regelin if the department was attending to the
wolf population on the fringes of Anchorage.
MR. REGELIN responded that the hunting and trapping season is open
in that area so people can harvest or take those wolves, but there
is no department action to find the wolves in that area.
Number 1479
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES expressed concern that there are that many
wolves around a large population area killing little dogs for no
apparent reason. She said there is a misnomer that wolves only
kill the old, she said wolves also kill the very young.
MR. REGELIN agreed, he said most of the predation done by wolves is
on younger and newborn animals up through that first year of life.
Number 1570
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said we have heard testimony that this bill is
just for urban hunters. He asked Mr. Regelin if he would classify
the hunters around the McGrath area as urban hunters.
MR. REGELIN said McGrath is a very rural area in Unit 19. He said
the people of McGrath, Telida and Nikolai are primarily dependent
on the resource for food.
Number 1613
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to Mr. Regelin's testimony as saying
Grizzly bears have a long life and low reproductivity. He asked if
that is a fair characteristic of a wolf as well.
MR. REGELIN said wolves have a very high reproductive rate and, for
that reason, why they can be managed differently. They move around
and interchange in packs and colonize new areas very rapidly. They
have a reproductive rate of up to 40 percent a year.
Number 1646
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked, is it true that the Forty-mile caribou
herd is in serious trouble? If it is, is wolf predation a major
factor in the decline of that herd?
MR. REGELIN responded that the Forty-mile caribou herd, located
north of Tok covers a large area of eastern Interior Alaska. It is
not in trouble, there are 22,000 animals there. He said the herd
dropped to about 7,500 in the late 1970s and has gradually built
up. But it is not growing. The range there is good habitat, in
empty country, and can handle ten times or more caribou. The
department is trying to get that population to grow. We have had
restrictive seasons of bulls only, but it is growing slowly because
of wolf predation on newborn calves.
MR. REGELIN discussed the Forty-mile Planning Team which included
participants from Anchorage, Fairbanks and Canada. He said this
not a departmental planning team, this is a grass roots effort that
came out of the local advisory committees in the area. The team
asked themselves what they could do to solve the problem of
predation on calves to increase the caribou herd from 20,000 to
200,000. The planning committee recommended moving juvenile wolves
and sterilizing adult male wolves. The department is looking at
that to see if it can be done. The planning team is still intact
to help us do this and we are hopeful there will be something to
come from their recommendation. This group, which included some of
our most vocal critics, realized that wolf control was probably not
going to happen and they looked at alternative ways to take actions
to be successful.
Number 1844
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN related that the federal government had once
maintained a wolf control, almost an eradication program, in Alaska
using methods such as cyanide traps. He said there is a perception
by the public that Alaskan hunters think that the only good wolf,
is a dead wolf. We are simply trying to manipulate the situation
to bring the levels down to assure there are adequate populations
of wolves. He asked Mr. Regelin to compare this to the activities
that went on in the past, in Alaska.
Number 1955
MR. REGELIN said before statehood there was widespread wolf control
programs. The federal government had predator control agents in
Alaska whose job was to trap and poison wolves. At statehood, one
of first acts of the legislature was to ban the poisoning of
wildlife except in Southeast Alaska, and it was banned there in
1968.
MR. REGELIN said there are about 7,000 to 8,000 wolves in Alaska
right now, probably as many as the state has ever had. He feels
most hunters and Alaskans are proud of the fact that we do, but the
state must also regulate their harvest and manage them properly or
in the long term there won't be any wolves. He said good wildlife
management is regulating harvests and regulating wolf populations.
Number 2078
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN concurred saying he also wants to keep a
healthy population of wolves in the state and that he wants to
manage the wildlife also.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the committee would hear from Bill Hagar on
the teleconference network.
Number 2106
BILL HAGAR said SB 81 is long overdue. He testified that predator
harvest is difficult physically and economically. Currently, with
a temporary depression in fur prices, it is not economically
feasible to harvest wolves. A raw wolf, taxidermy quality, brings
about $200.00 to the fur buyer. SB 81 will help restore the
feasibility to the economic side of the equation. He said that
predator harvest is routinely ignored, and the imbalance of
management threatens the purpose for which we manage our renewable
resources. There are hundreds of thousands of moose, sheep,
caribou calves and lambs that die needlessly every year. About 87
percent of the harvestable surplus, under proper and balanced
management could be managed to grow and feed many Alaskan families.
MR. HAGAR said there are biological predator pits developing all
over the state, and they are not being spoken to or managed
adequately. SB 81 is good, it is required constitutionally, and is
the reason we started managing game in the first place.
Number 2365
MR. HAGAR provided statistics on the growth of wolf populations and
said if that is not cared for on a routine basis, it can easily get
out of hand. He referred to Unit 13 saying the department had
demonstrated that the sustaining portion of the herd had actually
decreased from 25,000 to 19,000 in one year. That caribou herd is
in jeopardy from the wolves and the bears. The Board of Game took
action only on the bear predation.
Number 2446
MR. HAGAR said, "the National Academy of Sciences was founded by
the medical community to deal with medical scenario's. I have some
correspondence from them that they feel reluctant to deal with the
issue based on".....end tape.
CHANGE TAPE
TAPE 96-11, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS recapped earlier testimony from the sponsor,
Senator Sharp, that said four Governors have dealt with this issue;
the department recommended that we have an intensive management
program and we stopped because of public pressure. Now another
scientist is looking at intensive game management in an area we
know is being hurt by the wolves. When do we take a strong stand
and say who is correct? Who is funding this scientific review?
Number 135
MR. REGELIN agreed saying the state has started numerous times,
since the 1970s, to do more intensive management and wolf control.
Each time it has gone on for a while and then been stopped due to
public opinion, and the political leadership chose to curtail those
activities.
MR. REGELIN said the National Academy of Science study came about
because the science of predator management that we were using was
challenged by animal rights groups and people who work for animal
rights groups. The credibility of that science was challenged and
when that happens, it is very difficult to sit and argue amongst
ourselves whether the science is valid. The Governor requested
that we have an outside review of the science and economics of
predator management in Alaska and wolf control. That study will
begin very soon. He informed the committee of the background and
logic for hiring the National Academy of Sciences. He said the
division had $160,000 in last years general wildlife budget set
aside to do wolf control. The money was kept at headquarters and
that money will pay the National Academy of Science review.
Number 390
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS emphasized that the legislature has been
studying this issue for years. He said the legislature spent three
years working on an intensive game management bill, SB 77; which he
felt was a good bill at that time. Again, the legislature is
funding the division for more expert advice on an issue the
legislature already said was needed.
Number 542
MR. REGELIN said wolves and wildlife have coexisted forever, in
Alaska; and in most places there is not a problem. There are two
areas where there are severe problems and when you get into those
predator pits without proper action, it is going to take a very
long time to recover.
Number 576
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she felt the problem the state has with
wolf control is because it is classified as a big game animal; and
she supports SB 81 taking it out of that classification. She
questioned the necessity of the bounty.
MR. REGELIN said it is not necessary, in certain key areas with
this incentive, it might increase the harvest, but the department
is not sure.
Number 637
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES moved to pass SB 81 from the Resources
Committee with individual recommendations with attached fiscal
note.
Number 637
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected and proposed an amendment to delete
lines 8 through 12 on page one.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he objected to SB 81 because the bill is
inserting politics into the management of game. It is the purview
of the Board of Game to make these decisions on classifications and
the arguments ought to be made there. We do not have the time or
the expertise here to make this kind of decision. Secondly, in the
fiscal note, the state loses about $50,000 a year. He said the
purpose of the bill is the harvest incentive, and feels that lines
eight through 12 are not necessary to achieve the harvest incentive
in the designated areas as indicated. The amendment does not harm
the underlying purpose of the bill, it nets the state $50,000; and
it leaves the management and classification issues to the Board of
Game.
Number 761
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES strenuously objected to the amendment because
the "guts" of the bill is the classification of the animal. She
said she also takes exception to anyone saying the legislature has
no business doing classification. Under the Constitution of the
state of Alaska, we are solely responsible for the fish and game
resources and the allocation of them. We have delegated that
responsibility to the Board of Fish and Game, but we are the
ultimate, responsible body.
Number 825
Representative Davies voted in favor of the amendment.
Representatives Austerman, Barnes, Kott, Long, Nicholia, Ogan,
Williams and Green voted against the amendment. So the amendment
failed.
Number 872
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said her motion was still pending to move
CSSB 81(FIN) from committee with individual recommendations with
the attached fiscal note. She asked for unanimous consent. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 447 - CAN'T CLOSE LAND TO TRADITIONAL REC. USES
Number 882
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said three people on the teleconference network
wished to testify on House Bill 447.
Number 915
DICK BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, testified
in support of HB 447 saying the council strongly advocates
protection of public access for trails and traditional uses such as
hunting and fishing and other outdoor activities. He said in some
cases state land can be put off limits administratively to those
kinds of access, we do not feel that is appropriate. This bill
addresses that particular problem and it is important to ensure
that access to public land doesn't slip through the cracks. He
urged the committee to pass the bill.
Number 991
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the committee will schedule HB 447 for
another hearing.
He announced that HB 325, Heavy Oil, will be heard by the committee
on Wednesday, February 7.
Number 1033
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES informed the chairman that he had prepared an
amendment to HB 325.
Number 1050
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 9:56 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|