Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/17/1999 01:05 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 1999
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chair
Representative Jerry Sanders, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 74
"An Act relating to hunting on the same day airborne."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 74
SHORT TITLE: SAME DAY AIRBORNE HUNTING
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PETE KELLY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/17/99 270 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/17/99 270 (S) RES
2/24/99 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/24/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/24/99 (S) MINUTE(RES)
2/25/99 (S) RLS AT 11:30 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
2/25/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
2/25/99 363 (S) RES RPT 6DP
2/25/99 363 (S) DP: HALFORD, TAYLOR, PARNELL, PETE
KELLY
2/25/99 363 (S) MACKIE, GREEN
2/25/99 363 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (F&G)
3/04/99 407 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/4/99
3/04/99 409 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/04/99 409 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
3/04/99 409 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 74
3/04/99 410 (S) PASSED Y14 N6
3/04/99 410 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
3/05/99 426 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
3/05/99 427 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
3/08/99 386 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/08/99 386 (H) RESOURCES, JUDICIARY
3/17/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
VICTOR GUNN, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Senator Pete Kelly
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 510
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3880
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 74 on behalf of sponsor.
WAYNE REGELIN, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 74 and answered questions.
DAVID KELLEYHOUSE
Alaska Outdoor Council
P.O. Box 81452
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 74.
RICHARD T. WALLEN
2940 Douglas Highway
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6517
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 74 in current
form.
JOEL BENNETT
15255 Point Louisa Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 74 in current
form.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-15, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Ogan, Sanders, Harris, Morgan and Joule.
Representatives Masek, Barnes and Kapsner joined the meeting at
1:06 p.m., and Representative Whitaker arrived at 1:09 p.m.
SB 74 - SAME DAY AIRBORNE HUNTING
CO-CHAIR OGAN announced the committee would hear Senate Bill No.
74, "An Act relating to hunting on the same day airborne."
Number 0183
VICTOR GUNN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Pete
Kelly, Alaska State Legislature, explained SB 74 on behalf of the
sponsor, who was out of town. In 1996, there was an initiative to
ban "same-day land and shoot," which the Alaskan people supported;
however, because of the advertising, he believes that some people
weren't sure whether they were voting on the aerial hunting of
wolves, which has been illegal since the 1970s. Mr. Gunn said the
initiative was sold as "a vehicle to put right violations of
principles of fair chase and sportsmanship."
MR. GUNN emphasized that SB 74 is not about hunting but game
management. He read from page 1, line 1: "A person may not shoot
or assist in shooting a free-ranging wolf, wolverine, fox, or lynx
the same day that a person has been airborne." He said the 1996
initiative had tied the hands of managers. Although proponents of
the current law claim it allows use of aerial means in certain
circumstances, fish and game managers say that in practical terms
it is a total ban on aerial means for hunting and all management,
no matter how significant the game emergency.
MR. GUNN noted that many alternatives exist; however, terms such as
"adequate data," "irreversible decline of prey population" or
"biological emergency" are ambiguous enough to be challenged in
court, which would tie up any emergency game management. This bill
removes that language, allowing game management to be carried out
by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) at the direction
of the Board of Game.
MR. GUNN concluded, "The people of Alaska don't want aerial wolf
hunting; they've spoken about that, and SB 74 does not subvert
their will. It's not about just prey populations. But people in
this state do want responsible management of the game or resources,
and this bill would give the Department of Fish and Game the tools
they need to carry out responsible management of their game
resources." He said SB 74 will help reduce costs, should they
choose to use this as a means of game management, and removing
ambiguous language would allow greater efficiency in addressing
emergency situations. He told members the written sponsor
statement is quite clear, providing background and the reasons for
introduction of the bill.
Number 0571
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether, when it was legal to "land and shoot,"
the requirement was in statute or regulation that specified the
distance a hunter must be from the aircraft.
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), answered that it was in
regulation.
Number 0619
CO-CHAIR OGAN commented that people he knows who hunt wolves had
said when that regulation was passed, their take had dropped about
80 percent. Co-Chair Ogan expounded on the difficulty of landing
a small airplane, getting out, putting on snowshoes, and then
pursuing wolves that are on the run. He asked whether Mr. Gunn
believes the bill sponsor would object to language that says a
hunter can get out and shoot as soon as the engine and the forward
motion of the airplane stop.
MR. GUNN pointed out that current law already allows the Board of
Game to authorize a wolf control program involving the shooting of
wolves from the air. However, he believes that the language that
allows them to come to a finding that they can do so is ambiguous
enough that it would probably be challenged in court, to tie it up
for political reasons.
Number 0828
CO-CHAIR OGAN said his concern is that the board could still pass
a regulation that would put the 100-yard limitation on it.
MR. GUNN restated that the ADF&G can hunt from the air now, without
landing; the question is how they get to that point. The bill is
not about hunting or hunters, who are prohibited from hunting from
the air under any circumstance; nor is that the intent of the bill.
He noted that SB 74 has language allowing an agent to do this for
the state, which has raised concerns. He specified that as the
bill is envisioned, an agent is considered to be someone that the
ADF&G would hire to act in the department's capacity, rather than
just hiring, carte blanche, hunters to go out and hunt wolves for
some management program. The ADF&G would have control over these
people, and it would be basically a contractual-type arrangement.
Number 0980
DAVID KELLEYHOUSE, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), came forward,
specifying that the AOC supports SB 74. He provided a written
statement and expressed his belief that the Defenders of Wildlife,
a national animal rights group, was instrumental in passing Ballot
Measure 3 in 1996. He said the voters were misled into believing
that the ADF&G would be able to continue to use same-day airborne
taking of wolves, if that were necessary to manage game. However,
while the wording of AS 16.05.783 appears to allow the Board of
Game to authorize a wolf control program using same-day airborne
taking, terms such as "biological emergency," "adequate data" and
"no feasible solution" ensure that no program authorized under this
section could withstand a legal challenge by animal rights
activists. Mr. Kelleyhouse told members he was working for the
ADF&G at the time of the initiative, and the commissioner strongly
discouraged their going public about those concerns.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE said a basic premise of sound wildlife management
is preventing decimation of a wildlife population that could be
important to tens of thousands of Alaskans. As written now, AS
16.05.783 requires not only that managers allow a biological
emergency to occur before being allowed to take action, but
biologists must then demonstrate "with adequate data" that a wolf
population "is causing the irreversible decline of a prey
population" and that "there is no feasible solution, other than
airborne control, that can eliminate the emergency." Mr.
Kelleyhouse said no professional biologist would risk credibility
attesting to these unreasonable criteria.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE told members:
There has never, in the state of Alaska's history, to my
knowledge, ever been an irreversible decline of a game
population. The addition of a single animal to a severely
diminished population, by definition, means that that decline
is not irreversible; but you still don't have enough animals
to use. Moose and caribou declines are almost always the
result of a host of mortality factors, like weather, bear
predation and wolf predation - not wolf predation alone.
Finally, it can always be argued in court that feasible
solutions exist other than airborne control to reduce
mortality on a herd, such as - aha - stopping all hunting is
a start, habitat acquisition and improvement, or heavier bear
harvests, or even poisons. Therefore, the current wording of
[AS] 16.05.783 provides limitless opportunities for a
successful court challenge of any necessary state management
program.
Senate Bill 74 does not allow same-day airborne hunting by the
general public; it simply clarifies that same-day airborne
taking can only be conducted by the state, if a state
management action is authorized by the Board of Game or the
commissioner. In short, it clarifies what the voters thought
they were voting on in 1996.
As we have been discussing right now SB 74, the Alaska Board
of Game is in Anchorage struggling with a chronic decline of
moose and caribou numbers in Game Management Unit 13, one of
the most important hunting areas in Alaska. A severe decline
in moose numbers ... has already occurred in the upper
Kuskokwim River drainage. AS 16.05.783, drafted by
anti-hunting and anti-management activists, is providing the
Administration a most convenient excuse to take no effective
management action to ensure sustained yield management for the
benefit of Alaskans. The council strongly urges that the
committee pass this out.
Number 1293
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether declining populations in Unit 13
and the upper Kuskokwim areas are attributed to wolves or something
else.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE said Mr. Regelin could probably address that
better, but the decline in Unit 13, the Nelchina-Copper Basin, is
from a combination of bear and wolf predation, probably along with
some depleted range conditions. The upper Kuskokwim problem is
from a combination of wolf and black bear predation. He restated
that seldom are wolves the sole blame for a decline.
Number 1376
CO-CHAIR OGAN noted that SB 74 doesn't say anything about shooting
wolves from the air.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE agreed that it just addresses same-day airborne
taking, whether the shooting is from the air or the ground. He
said he has been involved in both kinds of wolf control programs.
He added that former-Governor Hickel "had a thing about shooting
from the air, and consequently our staff couldn't do that."
Number 1443
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Kelleyhouse to state his past experience
with this issue.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded that he began work with the ADF&G in 1976
as a game biologist and was involved in the Unit 20-A, Tanana
Flats, wolf control program. He transferred to Tok in 1978, where
he was the area biologist until 1991; during that time, he and his
staff conducted wolf control operations in the Forty Mile country,
increasing that caribou herd from about 6,500 to 20,000 animals and
roughly doubling the moose population. Then, as director under the
Hickel Administration, the board authorized action to halt the
decline of the Delta caribou herd, which was successful; hunting
has been restored on that herd and the Forty Mile caribou herd, as
well as on the Unit 20-A and Forty Mile moose populations. Mr.
Kelleyhouse said he has spent an entire career with this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Mr. Kelleyhouse to comment on page 2,
lines 7 and 8. [Beginning on line 6, the bill read: "(b) This
section does not apply to (1) a person who was airborne the same
day if that person was airborne only on a regularly scheduled
commercial flight; or".]
MR. KELLEYHOUSE said that was part of the original wording put in
front of the voters, and it has not been changed. For example,
someone who flies to a village on a scheduled flight and then runs
a trap line that afternoon could shoot a wolf.
Number 1631
RICHARD T. WALLEN, artist and long-time resident of Alaska, came
forward. He advised members that shortly after statehood, he
worked for five years as a wildlife biologist for the ADF&G; he
also served on the Board of Game from 1989 to 1992. More recently,
he was a member of the steering committee for the initiative that
banned same-day airborne hunting. Mr. Wallen read a letter put
together by that steering committee when hearings on SB 74 were
held in the Senate Resources Committee. [He provided copies of the
letter, dated March 3, 1999, as well as the Dittman Research
Corporation poll results.] He read as follows:
We urge you to vote against SB 74. As members of the
coalition responsible for the citizen initiative that
restricted same-day airborne wolf hunting, we believe that a
vote to pass SB 74 in its present form is counter to the clear
will of the Alaska public. As evidence of this, we have
attached two polls by the Anchorage-based Dittman Research
Corporation, one from 1995 and one from 1998 ... and the
district-by-district breakdown of the vote on Proposition 3 in
1996. That tally also identifies the vote by town and
village.
We believe that the public still overwhelmingly opposes the
use of aircraft to control wolves except in exceptional cases
where wolves are causing a serous decline in a prey
population. It may be desirable to redefine this concept to
eliminate any ambiguity about what that point is, but
eliminating all reference to a biological emergency goes too
far.
In addition, we believe that only employees of the Department
of Fish and Game should be engaged in airborne wolf control
activities, if such activities are necessary. The use of the
public as agents raises serious questions of motive, control
and accountability and has been repeatedly criticized in the
past as enjoying little support.
On the matter of the department not been able to control
diseased or louse-infected wolves, we believe that the
commissioner has existing authority to remove individual
wolves that are a threat to the general population, under his
general authority to assure the safety and protection of
wildlife; and the steering committee indicated its intent on
this in a letter to the Attorney General during the campaign.
We respectfully urge you to oppose SB 74 and not vote counter
to the demonstrated public opinion on the matter.
MR. WALLEN noted that the letter was signed by steering committee
members Doug Pope, former chairman of the Board of Game; Joel
Bennett, former member of the Board of Game; himself; and James
Brooks, former commissioner of the ADF&G.
Number 1842
CO-CHAIR OGAN turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Jerry Sanders in
order to attend another hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK reported that she had received many calls and
letters from her district in support of SB 74; those constituents
had indicated they don't see why the hunting should be just allowed
to the ADF&G, and that all residents should take part. She sees
this bill as allowing the public to be able to fly their planes and
then shoot wolves, if they need to.
Number 1982
MR. WALLEN replied, "That point in the initiative really didn't
come out of thin air. In 1992, the Department of Fish and Game
authorized a citizens' wolf management planning team, and it was
people from all over the state; I think there were about a dozen
people, and they represented all different viewpoints. There were
aerial wolf hunters, and there were some animal protection people,
and everybody in between. ... There was no complete agreement
reached on any point, but one point was that the public would have
more confidence in a wolf control program if it were conducted by
[Department of] Fish and Game personnel, because that eliminated
the question of other motive coming into play in the control
program."
Number 2048
JOEL BENNETT came forward, noting that he had co-sponsored
Proposition 3 along with Doug Pope. He told members he continues
to be dismayed by the representation by Mr. Kelleyhouse that this
initiative was an anti-hunting measure created by anti-hunting
activists. Mr. Bennett stated, "I think anybody who took the time
to look into the basis of Proposition 3 knew that it was primarily
sponsored by active hunters, including myself, Jay Hammond, Jim
Brooks, Jack Lenford (ph), Dick Nelson (ph), Doug Pope. All hold
current hunting licenses and have had a long-term history of
hunting within the state, in many geographic regions." He noted
that many of them had served on the Board of Game through the years
of controversy and wrangling over the question of at what point the
use of airplanes would be appropriate, in both hunting and wolf
control.
MR. BENNETT stated, "I have to say that I'm so seriously convinced
that the public in this state wants to have some parameters on the
use of airplanes. I think if any of you followed the recent game
board meeting in Anchorage, which considered the idea of using
airplanes, same day, to hunt bears in Unit 13, you know the degree
of concern the public had with that; and the board subsequently
acted to table that regulation. So, in our view, the genesis of
Proposition 3 was a good-faith effort to try to implement what the
public felt was appropriate."
MR. BENNETT disagreed with earlier assertions about what the
campaign for the initiative had depicted in the media. He stated,
"I was involved in that; I will stand by the media campaign. I
don't think the Alaska public was naive enough to think that what
we were seeking to do ... was eliminate the practice of shooting
from an airplane. Most people in this state know that that's been
illegal for a long time, many decades, and that's not what the
current statute was designed to remedy." Mr. Bennett pointed out
that in one advertisement, the photography of the wolf was from the
ground, not from an airplane, and it wasn't even a simulated
land-and-shoot wolf hunt. The other advertisement was a simulated
land-and-shoot wolf hunt, and he said that everyone he spoke to
understood that.
CO-CHAIR OGAN remarked that his staff member, who is intelligent
and college-educated, had been misled by television commercials
into believing that Proposition 3 was to ban hunting from
airplanes; however, now that she has the facts, she supports SB 74.
Number 2339
MR. BENNETT reminded members that the ultimate act is in the voting
booth, where the public actually reads the text of the proposition.
There is also supposed to be an impartial description of what it
does in the election pamphlet. Mr. Bennett stated, "If people
believe something based on a television ad only, I think that's
ill-advised." He noted that in all but six of the forty election
districts statewide, this measure passed by a substantial number;
that includes Co-Chair Ogan's district, as well as most of the
committee members' districts.
MR. BENNETT concluded by urging the committee not to take this
superficially, saying, "This is a serious statute. If there are
problems with ambiguity, this committee can take a hard look at
that and see if there can be some improvements. But ... to just
pass SB 74 in its current form out quickly, without further real
scrutiny, I think is a mistake."
Number 2405
CO-CHAIR OGAN expressed concern that some questions on the Dittman
surveys had been ambiguous. He cited examples from the 1995 survey
and contended that the ambiguity was deliberate.
Number 2500
MR. REGELIN came forward, noting that SB 74 modifies the same-day
airborne statute that was adopted by ballot initiative November 5,
1996. This bill does not affect airborne hunting, but it does
three things. First, by removing the language it removes the
requirement that before an aerial wolf program can be authorized
for the ADF&G to conduct, the commissioner must make a written
finding demonstrating that a biological emergency exists and that
there is no other feasible solution to eliminate this biological
emergency. Second, it deletes the definition of "biological
emergency" from the statute. And third, it authorizes use of
non-department personnel, or agents, in implementing a department
predator control program.
MR. REGELIN said the ADF&G realizes that "biological emergency," as
currently defined in this statute, is a very difficult standard to
meet; it requires a determination that an irreversible decline in
the moose or caribou population will occur if no action is taken.
However, it is impossible to predict that a population will suffer
an irreversible decline. Predation doesn't drive populations to
extinction, but it can reduce them to very low levels and can hold
them there. The ADF&G is willing to work with the legislature to
develop a different definition or different wording there.
However, they believe it is a good idea to have a standard,
established in statute, that must be met before wolf control can be
initiated. The department cannot support SB 74 without such a
standard.
MR. REGELIN said furthermore, the ADF&G doesn't believe it is wise
to have non-agency personnel conduct predator control programs,
because these programs are extremely controversial. The ADF&G does
realize the need for non-department personnel to fly helicopters
and fixed-wing aircraft to use in the predator program; the
department also believes it currently has the authority to contract
for these services. If, however, members think that language needs
to be clarified, Mr. Regelin offered to work with them on that.
MR. REGELIN told members the ADF&G knows from experience that any
wolf control activity will be extremely controversial. A large
segment of the Alaska public doesn't want lethal wolf control by
the department to become a routine part of its wildlife management
program. However, the public may except wolf control in some
circumstances, where it can be shown to be necessary. The ADF&G
has learned that decisions on predator management need to be made
through a public process that people think is fair; there are many
different ways to have that public process, including the Board of
Game process, use of advisory committees, or the way they did it in
the Forty Mile area, with the special planning group that
represented all the different users.
MR. REGELIN advised members that the department will initiate wolf
control once three criteria have been met. First, they have to
have sound scientific evidence that predation is the fundamental
cause of the decline or the continuing low level. Then, in
cooperation with the Board of Game, they need to look at the
economic benefits associated with the control program, and the
benefits that they expect. And third, there needs to be an
indication of not necessarily support but public acceptance of such
a control program.
MR. REGELIN concluded by emphasizing that SB 74 doesn't change the
prohibition on hunting the same day one is airborne. It only
affects how it relates to department-sponsored wolf control
programs.
Number 2765
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked how much the sterilization program is
costing the state.
MR. REGELIN replied that the program is still underway, in its
second year. The budget is about $270,000 per year for the entire
program, which includes the biologists' time, sterilization, moving
of wolves, and then the monitoring of populations of wolves,
caribou and moose. Without doing some figuring, however, he
couldn't say what portion is for monitoring and what portion is for
sterilization and movement of the subdominant wolves in that area.
He added, "That's typical. Any time we get into a
department-sponsored wolf control effort, it's expensive."
Number 2818
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES mentioned how people's beloved pets are
killed at animal shelters if the owners aren't located. The public
accepts that, and she suggested that if they knew the truth about
the predation of the wolves, they would also accept that control.
MR. REGELIN said that is a good point; whenever the department has
been able to sit down with groups and work through it in detail,
such as the planning for the Forty Mile area or the wolf planning
group that was statewide, people have agreed, if it was deemed
necessary. However, they say it must be done under tight controls,
and not often. It is okay if it needs to be done periodically, in
emergency situations or special situations, but they don't want it
to be a routine measure, which is something the department hears a
lot. Mr. Regelin added that there are hunters in most Alaskan
families.
TAPE 99-15, SIDE B
Number 2968 [Numbers run backwards because of machine]
MR. REGELIN said the department has learned that if they don't do
that process, they don't have a chance. Even then, it is tough to
do, because a certain segment will fight this, and they have a very
emotional appeal.
CO-CHAIR OGAN and REPRESENTATIVE BARNES engaged Mr. Regelin in a
discussion of the legislature's authority to manage Alaska's fish
and wildlife resources.
Number 2780
CO-CHAIR OGAN pointed out that the legislature delegates authority
to the Board of Game to carry out the legislature's policy, then
suggested that SB 74 was spurred by the Governor's failure to carry
out that policy. He asked what control the board would have over
how the department conducts these hunts.
MR. REGELIN answered that under the intensive management law, the
Board of Game has more than two pages of regulations that tell the
department how to conduct wolf control measures; for example, there
must be a defined geographic area and certain data. The department
doesn't have to land and shoot; they can shoot out of an aircraft.
General regulations under SB 77 (passed four years ago, then
amended by another bill two years ago) allow or require the ADF&G
to do these things. The board has a lot of flexibility in certain
ways, because the language says it needs to be prudent,
cost-effective and something that will work. If the board
determines that wolf control should be done in any area, then they
require the department to put together an implementation plan that
describes such things as a geographic area, the biology, and how
many wolves will be taken. That goes before the Board of Game
again, which adopts it as a regulation. The board is very, very
much involved in authorizing wolf control.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether the board would have the ability to set
the methods and means of how the ADF&G would conduct these hunts.
MR. REGELIN said they do, and it varies. For example, in the
implementation plan in the Forty Mile area, the method is
sterilization and movement of wolves, whereas in Unit 20-D it is
shooting from the air, which is authorized. However, it would be
illegal for the board to pass a regulation changing it so that
hunters could shoot wolves the same day they were airborne, for
example, because it is prohibited by a statute.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether, in theory, the board could set a
limitation that required landing and traveling a hundred yards from
the airplane before shooting.
MR. REGELIN answered, "The board could probably do that, but ...
when we get into a department control program, it's not a hunting
program, and ... it's nothing to do with fair chase. We try to do
it in the most cost-efficient and effective manner possible. ... I
can't imagine the board doing that, because it wouldn't be
effective or efficient."
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked whether the department would conduct this
program, as set forth in SB 74, even if the Governor objected.
MR. REGELIN said it would be up to the Governor and the
commissioner as to whether the ADF&G implements the program.
Number 2444
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said it sounds as if Mr. Regelin has some
suggestions to make SB 74 more workable. He asked what those are.
MR. REGELIN said he didn't have any to present that day, but he
would be happy to work on that.
Number 2361
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked whether, since the date that the
initiative went into law, the commissioner had made any findings on
adequate data demonstrating that a biological emergency exists.
MR. REGELIN replied, "No, I don't believe so. Since the initiative
passed and became law, the Board of Game has not authorized any new
wolf control initiatives or efforts. There were three that were
already on the books when this passed, and they still are there."
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK commented that her brother hunts on the Yukon
and has confirmed that wolves there are aggressive, killing moose
but not necessarily even eating them all. She added that
sterilizing the wolves is probably worse than anything else,
because it disrupts the nature of the wolves.
Number 2154
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES read at length from the state constitution,
in particular, Article III, Sections 16 and 18, and Article VIII.
She emphasized that, throughout, it allows legislators to make
these determinations by law.
MR. REGELIN pointed out that when the Board of Game, under
authority delegated by the legislature, has these three wolf
control plans on the books, the plans say the commissioner "may"
authorize or extend funds to do wolf control, or "may" implement
wolf control. They do not say he "must."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested the legislature needs to pass a
law, then, saying the commissioner "shall" do it when there is a
biological reason to do so.
MR. REGELIN replied, "You could pass such a law. We try, as a
department, [to] work in a close, cooperative working relationship
with the board; it can't work if we don't." He noted that the
ADF&G provides biological data for the board, for example, and does
its very best to implement the actions that the board takes. There
is a very good working relationship.
Number 1886
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked whether Mr. Regelin believes there would
ever be a predator management program undertaken using the language
in the initiative that passed.
MR. REGELIN answered that he thinks it could be authorized and
allowed, but because the language in the statute says there must be
an irreversible decline, it leaves it open for a court challenge
because of the difficulty in meeting that standard. He added,
"Even the sponsors of the initiative have said that that's not what
was meant, and they are not adverse to changing that."
Number 1791
MR. GUNN closed by noting that the Dittman Research Corporation
polls were commissioned in 1995 and 1998 by the Defenders of
Wildlife. He said in the Senate, much was made about opposition in
Alaska to hunting from the air. He read the third question from
the 1995 poll, which asked, "Do you agree or disagree with this
statement: If a biological emergency exists, such as a moose or
caribou population in danger of local extinction, the Department of
Fish and Game should be allowed to use airplanes to conduct limited
aerial wolf control programs?" Mr. Gunn noted that 69 percent of
those polled had agreed with that statement.
MR. GUNN then read the fourth question from that poll, which asked,
"If Alaska had a statewide ballot initiative that said, 'No person
may shoot a wolf, coyote, wolverine, fox or lynx that same day that
person is airborne. However, if authorities conclude that a
biological emergency does exist, a same-day aerial wolf control
program conducted by Fish and Game personnel only may be
authorized' - Do you think you would vote for or against that
initiative?" Mr. Gunn noted that 63 percent of those polled had
voted "For."
MR. GUNN pointed out that in 1998, the poll questions asked whether
people supported or opposed hunting of wolves the same day that
hunters had been flying. He concluded, "This bill is not about
hunting. It's about the two questions that were asked in 1995, and
that's what we were here to change, in Senate Bill 74."
Number 1630
CO-CHAIR SANDERS asked whether anyone else wished to testify, then
closed public testimony on SB 74. He announced that the
co-chairmen did not intend to pass SB 74 out that day but planned
to work on it. [SB 74 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1618
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|