04/24/2002 01:11 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 24, 2002
1:11 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Joe Green
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 232
"An Act permitting state residents to purchase remote
recreational cabin sites."
- MOVED CSHB 232(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
3d SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 178
"An Act relating to the powers and duties of the commissioner of
fish and game, the Department of Fish and Game, and the Board of
Game, to taking and use of certain game animals, and to
consideration of the budget of the Department of Fish and Game
by the legislature; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CS 3d SSHB 178(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 299
"An Act providing for the naming and renaming of Alaska
geographic features."
- MOVED CSHB 299(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 232
SHORT TITLE:REMOTE RECREATIONAL CABIN SITE SALES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)FATE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/05/01 0860 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/05/01 0860 (H) RES, FIN
04/06/01 0890 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILSON
04/11/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/11/01 (H) <Bill Postponed>
04/20/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/20/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
01/23/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/23/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/01/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/01/02 (H) Heard & Held Subcommittee
assigned
02/01/02 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/06/02 2170 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER
03/04/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/04/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/15/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/15/02 (H) <Bill Postponed to 3/18/02>
03/18/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/18/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/20/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/20/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/20/02 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/17/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/17/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/22/02 (H) RES AT 1:45 PM CAPITOL 124
04/22/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard --
Time Change --
04/24/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 178
SHORT TITLE:MANAGMENT OF FISH AND GAME
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)FATE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/13/01 0560 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/13/01 0560 (H) RES, FIN
03/16/01 0636 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
04/05/01 0860 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
04/05/01 0860 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/05/01 0860 (H) RES, FIN
01/18/02 2002 (H) 2D SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED
01/18/02 2002 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/18/02 2002 (H) RES, FIN
03/25/02 2668 (H) 3D SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED
03/25/02 2668 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/25/02 2668 (H) RES, FIN
04/01/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/01/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/08/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/08/02 (H) Heard & Held
04/08/02 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/17/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/17/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/22/02 (H) RES AT 1:45 PM CAPITOL 124
04/22/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard --
Time Change --
04/24/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 299
SHORT TITLE:ALASKA PLACE NAMES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)DYSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/02 1953 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/02
01/14/02 1953 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/14/02 1953 (H) CRA, RES
03/19/02 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/19/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/26/02 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/26/02 (H) Moved CSHB 299(CRA) Out of
Committee
03/26/02 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/27/02 2699 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 5DP 1NR
03/27/02 2699 (H) DP: KERTTULA, SCALZI, HALCRO,
MEYER,
03/27/02 2699 (H) MORGAN; NR: MURKOWSKI
03/27/02 2700 (H) FN1: ZERO(H.CRA/DNR)
04/17/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/17/02 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(RES)
04/22/02 (H) RES AT 1:45 PM CAPITOL 124
04/22/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard --
Time Change --
04/24/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
DICK MYLIUS, Resource Assessment & Development Manager
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1050
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3579
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained DNR's concerns about HB 232,
Version U, and answered questions.
DANA L. OLSON
HC-30 Box 5438
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 232.
RALPH SEEKINS
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association
1625 Old Steese Highway
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the sponsor's
efforts on HB 178, noting that his association is composed of
Alaskan hunters and fishermen.
DICK BISHOP
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
1555 Gus's Grind
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the purpose of
HB 178 and management to increase wildlife abundance where it
has been determined to be appropriate; recommended moving
Version B from committee, but acknowledged that AOC's board
hadn't seen it yet.
VIC VAN BALLENBERGHE
8941 Winchester Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 178, Version B; strongly
urged deletion of term "maximum sustained yield" because it has
a different definition to biologists and managers; supported
deletion of "historic high" from Section 8.
PAUL JOSLIN, Executive Director
Alaska Wildlife Alliance
P.O. Box 202022
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
POSITION STATEMENT: Cautioned against passage of HB 178,
Version B, unless the legislature is prepared to spend a lot of
money.
WAYNE REGELIN, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 178,
Version B.
BOBBY FITHIAN, Executive Director
Alaska Professional Hunters Association
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that his organization, in
general, supports HB 178, Version B.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-37, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:11 p.m. Representatives Masek,
Scalzi, Fate, McGuire, Chenault, and Stevens were present at the
call to order. Representatives Kerttula and Kapsner arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 232-REMOTE RECREATIONAL CABIN SITE SALES
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the first order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 232, "An Act permitting state residents to purchase remote
recreational cabin sites."
Number 0133
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), version 22-LS0791\U, Kurtz, 4/4/02, as a work
draft. There being no objection, Version U was before the
committee.
Number 0170
REPRESENTATIVE FATE, sponsor of HB 232, informed fellow members
that he had some amendments proposed by the Alaska Miners
Association, Incorporated, and that although he'd called Steve
Borell [the association's executive director], Mr. Borell was
out of town and unable to testify.
Number 0203
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, line 10, following "section":
Insert "from lands that were not selected by the
state for mineral values and lands having a low
mineral potential based on a geophysical survey
complete not more than 15 years before the offering,"
Page 3, Line 22, following "use":
Insert ", other than merely transiting over the
parcel by any means,"
Page 3, Line 22-24:
Delete "or at least five years of use including
two years of active mining under a mining claim, by
the person immediately preceding the nomination,"
Insert "or that person has held the area under a
mining claim, as shown through not less than 5
consecutive years of production royalty reports to the
state, on claims that are contiguous with the parcel,"
REPRESENTATIVE FATE informed the chair that where it says "with
the parcel" on the last line of the amendment, it should say
"are contiguous with or ... part of the parcel". He said it was
a mistake "on our part" when formulating this.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER requested an at-ease until all members
had copies of Version U.
CO-CHAIR MASEK declined and announced that discussion of the
amendment would continue.
Number 0424
REPRESENTATIVE FATE explained Amendment 1:
These were the suggestions, and I concur with the
Alaska Miners Association. It simply ensures that
mining or mineralized ground that has been identified
by the state will not be part of the nomination for
this entry. And there's some pretty good reason for
that, because ... even where people understood that it
was mineral ground in the past and they understood
that they were subject to under -- or underground
location of the assets under the mining claims, they
still, in future years, litigate it by saying, "Well,
the noise - they're disturbing me," and all these kind
of things. So rather than to get into this fight that
has happened before - even though the people have
settled on that ground, even though the people had
remote-parcel sites, why, then, they went into
litigation and they cost everybody a lot of money; so,
rather than to do that, we are just saying that any
ground that's identified by the state as mineral
ground will not be open to this entry. So, ... that's
basically what one of those amendments says.
Number 0569
The other one was concerning a person who snowshoes or
skis a piece of property and then says, "Gee, I've
been doing that for three or four years." Well, does
that constitute, really, the use of a property for
three consecutive years? It really doesn't. ... He
just transited across this property in pursuing the
activities that he wanted to pursue. So that was put
in there so that a person truly had to use that, on a
sustained basis, for whatever - for berry picking, for
hunting, as a campsite, or for truly a stationary
location - during the three years prior to the
nomination.
Number 0615
And under the "other mining", which I think was a good
idea, the mining association really came up with the
idea that the royalty reports should be the criteria
for whether or not ... the people on that mining
ground truly staked that ground for mining purposes,
not just simply to squat on that ground under the
mining laws to be able to take advantage of this. And
so that was a good rule, and whether you've really
mined any metal or not, ... you still have had the
activity, and you have to file that report, even
though the report may say "zero," that there is no
royalty.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE thanked the Alaska Miners Association for
helping to straighten out some of these issues.
CO-CHAIR MASEK indicated copies of the proposed CS had been
distributed. [Comments from her staff indicated copies of the
amendment were still being made.]
Number 0734
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked about criteria under which the
state can determine what is "mineral land," or whether, because
of Amendment 1, the department could just decide everything's
mineral land.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE affirmed that there are criteria and added
his belief that "this alludes to the geomagnetic surveys that
they're doing across the state or other areas that have already
been withdrawn as known ... geologically prone areas or
mineralized-prone areas." He said these are identified areas,
and that [the department] can't just go willy-nilly into an area
and announce that it is mineralized.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked whether Representative Fate was seeking
unanimous consent with Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded in the affirmative.
Number 0850
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected for discussion purposes.
Inquiring about the second two parts of the amendment, she
requested confirmation that "these are the people who can
nominate to get the recreational parcel."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE answered, "It's not exclusive to them, but
it includes them, yes." He added:
To make it clear, this situation came up because there
were many miners who really are for this bill, who
have had mines for many years. They spent years on
that property, and they like to go back to it, whether
it's still an active mine or even whether it's mined
out. That's part of their spirit, really. And so
they said, "We still have equipment out there. We
would like some private land that is not still state
land where we can either keep our cabin and have ...
maybe a shed so that we don't have to move this
equipment to keep it out of the weather." And they
were really for this because it allows these people to
have a small, two-and-a-half-acre parcel of land very
close or on, as a matter of fact, those claims that
they have.
And throughout this, where it's shown and proven that,
... in the event of mining claims, ... they have been
on these mining claims for five years, as proven by
this amendment, then they can nominate. Then ... what
happens is that once they nominate ... this land, the
state can also nominate the surrounding land if it so
chooses. If it's shown to be mineralized land - that
we now have in ... this bill by amendment [if
Amendment 1 is adopted] - then they would not open
this to nomination but would still retain the right
[of] that person to nominate ... his own parcel. Now,
that's specific to this type of nomination.
Another type of nomination is where the state
nominates a large parcel of land for entry into a
remote cabin site, and where the individual either has
the right, through the commissioner, to appraise and
have the survey done by himself or herself, and pay
for that by themselves, to get clear title to that
land; then that's another type of nomination. And
there are restrictions in that, as the bill says, a
half-a-mile-apart separation - if you're on a river,
it's two miles of meander; if you're on a lake, I
think it's now, what, 15 acres per cabin. ... It's
truly a "remote" bill, so that it allows a person to
get in to that country and still enjoy the remoteness
of it. It also says that it can't be within a half a
mile, for example, of ... a land claim or another
parcel that is already occupied or designated ... as a
non-open area for this kind of ... entry.
Number 1089
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked what happens with the old mining
claims: whether there is another way to get final ownership
from the state after having [a claim] for a period of years, or
if it is just the "mineral entry" that a person has a right to.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied that there are federal patent laws,
although they've changed over the years. He added, "On the
state end of it, ... because of our constitution and the way the
royalties are described from minerals to the benefit of all the
people, constitutionally, I don't believe that the patent laws
... on state mining claims apply anymore." He acknowledged he
might be incorrect about that.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA remarked, "I like our miners, so if
anybody gets a benefit, I'd like to see them be able to get it."
She requested clarification about what miners could receive now,
however, and whether this might conflict with either that or
what the federal law requires.
Number 1278
DICK MYLIUS, Resource Assessment & Development Manager; Division
of Mining, Land and Water; Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), responded via teleconference, affirming Representative
Fate's understanding that under state mining law, which is tied
to both the constitution and the Alaska Statehood Act, one
cannot get title to a mining claim [on state land], but can only
get the mineral rights. That Act and the constitution basically
say that if the state alienates title to the minerals - in other
words, gives it to a private entity - the land technically can
revert back to the federal government. He added:
As a result of that, under state mining law you can
never get the right to ... fee-title ownership, which
you could under the old federal law, although the
federal government's made it so difficult that even
under the federal law you can pretty much ... never
get full title - fee title - to the land through a
mining claim anymore.
Number 1329
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether this provision that grants
title would fly in the face of the [state] constitution.
MR. MYLIUS answered, "That is a concern of ours, that ... it
essentially allows the use of mining claims in a way that is not
envisioned under the constitution."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded:
That's specific to mining claims, and that's specific
to the use of the resources. But it also has
provisions in the constitution for the settlement of
the land ..., and this actually does adhere to that
constitutional edict. So, ... in my view and in the
legal view - ... we've been over this many times -
there was no conflict in that.
Number 1482
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA announced her objection to Amendment 1.
She explained:
As I read the amendment, it would grant title to
mining lands; otherwise, you wouldn't have the
production royalty report for the five years. So I
think we're creating a problem there. ... What I think
I'm reading is that you'd want someone who had an old
mining claim, ... who kept it around, but if there's
no more mining going on it, maybe it could happen.
But if there's five consecutive years of mining
reports, it seems to me ...
REPRESENTATIVE FATE interjected:
That's really not true. It could be an active mining
claim. But you have to remember that once that fee-
simple [title is] granted, it's no longer a mining
claim. You can get fee-simple ground through this and
through other land-disposal processes by the state
already. And a mining claim is not ... a claim in
perpetuity. ... You have to do certain work; you have
obligations to do assessment work. And so ... if you
really want to get technical about this, a person
could let ... that portion or a portion of the claim
lapse ... and it goes back to the state and you'll
immediately [stake] it ... under this law, and it
becomes a fee-simple land again. So the mining claim
itself is correct, that the claim itself does not
revert ... in private interest as a mining claim. But
this isn't about mining claims. This is about private
ground and how we can get private ground into the
hands of the people in the state of Alaska.
Number 1605
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked, "So you're saying ... that the
claim is separate from the land, that the state holds the
mineral rights but that ... we could give the land in fee
simple?"
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied:
Well, you haven't stated it quite the way I stated it,
but when you stake a claim, you only stake a claim to
the subsurface minerals, not to the surface. And so
when you're talking about subsurface rights, you can't
own those subsurface rights; you have to lease those
subsurface rights. That's not necessarily so on the
surface. Actually, other people can use that surface.
I'm saying that even ... under the most bizarre
circumstance, if worse came to worst, you could ...
let the lease lapse - or the claim lapse - and restake
it, and it would still come under ... this law, if you
had to do that. I don't believe it does, according to
some of the "legal" that we've already had, because
... when you're mining, you're talking strictly about
subsurface rights, even though you may have the use of
the surface ... in conducting the mining operation.
But I think we're down a rabbit track right here,
going into the mining operation rather than what we're
trying to do ... in getting people ... fee-simple land
in the state of Alaska.
Number 1688
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA maintained her objection to Amendment 1,
saying it wasn't clear whether it could be allowed.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McGuire, Stevens,
Kapsner, Fate, Chenault, Masek, and Scalzi voted in favor of
Amendment 1. Representative Kerttula voted against it.
[Representative Green was absent.] Therefore, Amendment 1 was
adopted by a vote of 7-1.
Number 1760
REPRESENTATIVE FATE, in response to Mr. Mylius, who didn't have
a copy of Amendment 1, reiterated what it does.
Number 1994
MR. MYLIUS offered testimony on Version U. Noting that he
oversees the state's land-disposal program, he first thanked
Representative Fate and his staff for working with DNR on this
bill and sharing ideas. He expressed DNR's overall concern,
however, that the bill changes DNR's existing remote
recreational cabin program. In effect since 1997, that program
was first funded last year; it is the first such program in more
than ten years, and it seems to work, although some bugs may
need to be ironed out. Last year, he told members, DNR offered
295 parcels in ten different areas under the program and
received about 700 applications; it plans to offer another 250
stakings this summer. In future years, he indicated, DNR hopes
to offer "new and better areas" instead of just those offered
previously under the homesteading program; there hadn't been
time to identify new areas, which need to go through a best-
interest finding, public notice, and land-title work, for
example.
MR. MYLIUS reported that the current program about breaks even:
it costs about $400,000 a year to administer and is expected to
yield about $400,000 in revenue in FY 05. He pointed out that,
basically, stake-it-yourself land disposals aren't big
moneymakers because the costs to administer them are usually
fairly high and the land available under these programs
generally is more remote and of lower value. These programs
aren't designed to make money, but are designed to get primarily
recreational lands into private ownership.
Number 2104
MR. MYLIUS explained DNR's concerns about changes to the program
under Version U:
The fundamental changes are: that the bill
establishes a very strict timeframe for completing
surveys and appraisals, ... in one year; it allows DNR
to negotiate private, noncompetitive sales, rather
than ... just public sales, which is all we currently
... do; the bill requires that we ... try to offer 300
parcels a year, and, again, the bill is subject to
appropriations from the legislature, is in there, but
we have a concern about having ... a quota in there;
it allows members of the public to nominate a specific
site, and if they can demonstrate the past
recreational or mining use of that, we would be
required to offer that site to the individual; and the
final major change is that it restricts parcels to 2.5
acres - the current program allows parcels of up to 20
acres to be offered.
Our specific concerns related to those things are
that, first, the program will cause difficulty in
meeting municipal platting requirements. The current
program we have was designed so that municipalities
could exercise some control over how land disposals
occur. Our biggest concern is the issue of lot sizes,
that the bill specifies a minimum lot size of 2.5
acres. The minimum lot size in most boroughs that
exercise planning authority is about 10 acres for
remote parcels of land, and that's based on what's
generally been considered the minimum size for [an]
onsite sewage disposal program. So that'll either
mean that in municipalities such as the [Matanuska-
Susitna] Borough, Fairbanks North Star Borough, or
Kodiak [Island] Borough, we'd ... have to go against
their municipal platting rules or not offer the
program in those areas.
Number 2170
MR. MYLIUS continued addressing DNR's concerns:
Secondly, the bill establishes [a] preference right
for individuals who use the land for recreational or
mining purpose. We've had a lot of discussion with
Representative Fate on this issue, but DNR has a
concern with any sort of preference right, because our
existing sale programs almost entirely are offered to
all Alaskans ... [as] an equal opportunity, basically,
... through an auction or lottery where every Alaskan
has an equal chance to ... get the land. The
provision in this bill that allows people who can
demonstrate use, whether it's for recreational or
mining-related purposes, is contrary to that, by
giving those folks a preference right. And we have a
concern about that.
Regarding recreational use, we are concerned that ...
the program would encourage people to build cabins and
other structures in trespass, because they would build
cabins to help demonstrate that they use the land and
then they would apply to purchase the land. So we
think it's subject to abuse.
We have similar concerns under the mining law that ...
the provision that allows people to use a mining claim
to establish a right will result in people's staking
mining claims with the idea of eventually getting
ownership for recreational cabins. And we don't
believe that's the intent of the mining law.
Our other concern related to mining - and this is
partly resolved by the amendment - is that our
experience has shown that you don't really want to
have private recreational parcels scattered amidst
mining areas, because people that get those cabins
eventually build houses there and don't want to see
mining. We've had that problem with the True North
project in Fairbanks, ... where people that we sold
land to 20 years ago have become the leading opponents
to the mining project in their backyards.
Number 2275
MR. MYLIUS continued addressing concerns:
A third concern that DNR has about the bill is we feel
that it should not contain a requirement to propose
300 parcels a year. Such quotas set in legislation,
even when it specifies that it's subject to
appropriations, build up an expectation with the
public that DNR will offer that amount regardless of
whether or not sufficient funding is provided.
And fourth, we feel that the program will be expensive
and will lose money. Our concerns about this ... stem
from two things. One is, the preference-right
provision will result in people applying for isolated,
scattered parcels that we'd have to process or could
end up processing individually, which is inefficient.
The current program allows us to group areas or group
parcels [and] offer a bunch - open one area, ... and
we go through one title check, one best-interest
finding, and so on, that covers a number of parcels.
We do one survey, one appraisal that covers a number
of parcels. And by having individuals apply and kind
of dictate where the program goes could end up being
very ... inefficient. And the other concern is, the
minimum size, again, of 2.5 acres results in fairly
small parcels and less revenue to the state.
MR. MYLIUS again thanked Representative Fate for working with
DNR on the bill.
Number 2349
REPRESENTATIVE FATE contended that these are first-come, first
served sales and that neither the constitution nor the statutes
necessarily call for competitive bids. He said the present
disposal program is popular, and there are always too many
people who qualify for desired plots; thus there is a lottery
that people have to be lucky enough to win in order to get a
parcel from the state. He referred to two letters in packets
with regard to doing one's own survey and appraisal, which the
bill would allow; he said it would take 80 people doing that in
order [for this program] to break even, and it would make money
if there were 150 applicants.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE questioned the fiscal note. He referred to
the projection in DNR's fiscal-note analysis of the need for "2
staff for Public Information Offices (Fairbanks and Anchorage),
2 staff to review/approve applications, 1 appraiser and 1 survey
position to review and approve appraisals/surveys, 1 staff to
issue deeds (and conduct related title search), 1 FT staff to
keep land status maps current". He offered his belief that it
would take only two persons spending 1 to 1.5 hours each to plat
the new sites, instead of the seven personnel he said were
listed. Furthermore, he said, a revolving fund in the land-
disposal program can be used for the surveying and appraisal,
"if required ... by people who don't want to pay for this."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE also said the higher down payment, 20
percent instead of the current 5 percent, will increase the
front-end money required to do these things, "if an individual
doesn't choose to do them himself, and most will." He further
suggested that the best-interest finding is retained in order to
ameliorate any problem with a sale to an individual "after the
first-come, first-served concept came into play." Addressing
the concept of preferences, he pointed out that laws and even
the constitution have preferences, such as those for veterans.
Number 2541
DANA L. OLSON testified via teleconference, noting that she had
provided written testimony previously. She read from the state
constitution, Article VIII, Natural Resources [Section 1], and
told members that she doesn't believe a piecemeal best-interest
finding on each parcel complies with that, "especially ... this
committee holding that I would have to have a revision of the
Susitna area plan." She said:
I have been very patient over the years, but I ...
really think that if you're going to act quasi-
judicial, then the committee should have a factual
finding or a factual basis for making a decision
concerning disposal in the Susitna area. A lot of
things have changed. New laws come into place. The
classification by itself becomes meaningless without
consideration of the other laws and constitutional
requirements.
So I am generally in favor of recreational cabin
sites. However, ... I would encourage the committee
to ... put of record what the factual basis of holding
one disposal requirement for this extensive review,
and holding another one to bare-bones minimum. ...
There must be some basis, or at least provide a means
[by which] ... a person might question the committee's
expertise.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked whether anyone else wished to testify;
there was no response. She closed public testimony.
Number 2699
REPRESENTATIVE FATE wrapped up by saying DNR and he had "agreed
to disagree" on this. He emphasized the number of people he has
heard from who want to get small pieces of land into the hands
of private citizens. He also said the 2.5-acre size fits well
"within the platting context of the Department of Natural
Resources, in spite of what we've heard, because we've had
testimony to two cartographers in that regard." He said he has
nothing against the current disposal plan and that he sees this
as a reinforcement tool to be used by DNR, because the
commissioner would have the ability to approve or deny
applications. He concluded by saying the bill would ensure that
people who qualify could choose "the parcel of their desire,"
provided that they meet the criteria, "and then they have a
piece ... of Alaska that they've been trying to get for years
and years."
Number 2772
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report CSHB 232, version 22-
LS0791\U, Kurtz, 4/4/02 [as amended], out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Number 2781
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER objected. She said Bob Loeffler [of DNR]
had raised some excellent points, the bill hadn't been fine-
tuned, and she didn't believe it should move out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained why she couldn't support the
legislation, although she believed Representative Fate had his
finger on a problem and she didn't disagree with trying to get
more land to people. She pointed out that fundamental problems
raised in the last hearing still exist; for example, someone who
can fly to a piece of land - and therefore notice it, file for
it, and receive it - could receive [title] over perhaps
indigenous people or people who are less wealthy. She also
expressed concern that the amendment steps over the line
constitutionally with the mining claims.
Number 2847
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Stevens, Fate,
Chenault, McGuire, and Masek voted to report CSHB 232
[Version U, as amended] from committee. Representatives Kapsner
and Kerttula voted against. [Representatives Green and Scalzi
were absent.] Therefore, CSHB 232(RES) was moved out of the
House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
HB 178-MANAGMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Number 2908
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the next order of business, 3d SPONSOR
SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 178, "An Act relating to the
powers and duties of the commissioner of fish and game, the
Department of Fish and Game, and the Board of Game, to taking
and use of certain game animals, and to consideration of the
budget of the Department of Fish and Game by the legislature;
and providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR MASEK called an at-ease at 1:57 p.m. She called the
meeting back to order at 1:58 p.m.
Number 2934
REPRESENTATIVE FATE, sponsor, referred to Version B, a new
proposed committee substitute (CS). Addressing why he believes
the bill is needed, he said the people in the state are taking 3
to 5 percent of the game population "in a state where the
ability to take more is much higher."
TAPE 02-37, SIDE B
Number 2980
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asserted that [deterioration in game
populations] either hasn't been dealt with in a timely fashion
or has been dealt with "within a storm of controversy."
Therefore, this bill attempts not only to clarify the duties of
the commissioner and the Board of Game, but also to establish
"the sideboards as to what the population could be to create a
higher yield, given the habitat and the biology of the species
in question." He mentioned a perception among people who live
in the wilderness or in rural Alaska - or who live in urban
Alaska but love to hunt and fish - that the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G) "manages more passively than actively."
He told members:
Whether or not ... you ascribe to that particular
perception really isn't the point. This is to
alleviate any of those perceptions by making it clear
that there now is statute and policy which has the
sideboards that will try to produce the maximum amount
of game that we should have for both subsistence
hunting and for sports hunting, or just for viewing,
if that's what a person wants to do.
Number 2876
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT moved to adopt version 22-LS0695\B,
Utermohle, 4/16/02, as a work draft. There being no objection,
Version B was before the committee.
Number 2847
RALPH SEEKINS, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association,
testified via teleconference, stating support for Representative
Fate's efforts on the bill. He informed the committee that his
association is a group made up of hunters and fishermen who are
Alaskan residents.
Number 2809
DICK BISHOP, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), testified via
teleconference, calling the AOC "a growing statewide
organization of clubs and individuals advocating sound,
scientific state management of fish, wildlife, and habitats, and
of fair opportunities for all Alaskans to use these great
resources." He advised the committee that AOC supports the
concept of management to increase the abundance of wildlife in
areas where harvest by people is very important, and that AOC
has supported statutory provisions "previously enacted to
facilitate application of this management concept." He said AOC
supports the purpose of HB 178, "which refines statutory
language relating to management for abundance of fish and
wildlife." He offered his belief that the main thrust of HB 178
relates to only those populations that the Board of Game has
decided warrant intensive management.
MR. BISHOP indicated AOC had worked with Representative Fate on
HB 178 since its inception, including the current version
[Version B], which he recommended moving from committee. He
pointed out, however, that AOC's board hadn't yet reviewed the
current draft, although AOC "supports the concept of active or
intensive management of fish and game where and when it's
appropriate, as determined by the Board of Game or the Board of
Fisheries, to increase harvest opportunities for people." He
suggested this concept is of increasing importance "due to the
lack of management on federal lands, which includes 60 percent
of the state; the creeping constriction of harvest opportunities
due to the federal subsistence law; and, in some cases, a
declining big-game ... population base; and also to the
avoidance of active management by the current state
administration." He again recommended moving the bill.
Number 2688
CO-CHAIR SCALZI apologized for being late and asked Mr. Bishop
whether he is in support of the "maximum sustained yield concept
for fish and wildlife resources."
MR. BISHOP replied:
Yes, ... we're in support of the maximum sustained
yield in those areas and populations where that's been
determined to be the appropriate measure, and
certainly with the other provisions of the
constitution that [specify] maximum benefits of the
people, managing on the sustained yield principle.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked whether that also applies to "mixed-stock
fisheries management."
MR. BISHOP replied, "In general, yes."
Number 2628
VIC VAN BALLENBERGHE testified via teleconference, noting that
he is a wildlife biologist with about 28 years' experience in
Alaska. He first elaborated on his previous testimony about
problems associated with managing for maximum sustained yield, a
concept that persists in the current work draft. Cautioning
that such a management approach leaves virtually no room for
error, he explained:
What maximum sustained yield [MSY] management means
and requires is that you have an accurate population
census for each of the populations that you're trying
to manage for MSY; furthermore, that you have an
accurate estimate of the harvest from that population;
and, finally, that you have an accurate estimate of
the carrying capacity of the environment to support
that population.
Number 2558
Let me just give you an example ... of the problems
involved with MSY management for moose. I have before
me the latest moose-population summary prepared by the
Department of Fish and Game, dated January 2002. Now,
this summary contains information on 65 different game
management units and subunits across the state that
contain moose and on which the game board promulgates
regulations. In order to manage each of those 65
different units and subunits for MSY would require an
accurate population estimate. ...
Game management Unit 13, which is located in the
Glennallen area, contains about 20,000 square miles of
moose habitat, and it's one of the most important
moose-population hunting areas in the state, and has
been for decades. There are five different subunits
in Unit 13: A, B, C, D, and E. And on this summary
sheet, I note that for four of those five subunits
there is no moose population estimate at present. The
department does not have a moose population estimate
for four of those five subunits, which contain about
88 percent of the moose in that entire unit.
And so, for one of the most intensively managed moose
populations in the state - game management Unit 13 -
it would not be possible at this time to manage that
area for maximum sustained yield because you simply do
not have a population estimate; you do not have an
estimate of carrying capacity; and you could not do
what this law mandates the commissioner do, which is
to manage for MSY.
Largely, the same issues would apply to the other
species of interest here: caribou and deer and sheep
populations - all the important wildlife populations
in the state. And so ... I strongly urge the
committee to consider amending the bill to delete the
term "maximum sustained yield" and to perhaps replace
it with "maximum benefit". During the ... last
hearing you heard some discussion of the term "maximum
benefit", and there was even some agreement, I think,
that, in a lay sense, maximum benefit and maximum
sustained yield are not that far apart.
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE commended the sponsor and committee for
deleting ["historic high"] population levels from Section 8 of
the work draft following previous testimony about the enormous
problems associated with that concept.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE, after confirming that Mr. Van Ballenberghe
had read the definition of "maximum sustained yield" in
[Version B], asked:
Wouldn't you agree with that? Because you described
that basically in your description of Unit 13; the
maximum ... sustained yield in Unit 13, for example,
would be far different than in Unit 20. It describes
a carrying capacity ... of that, whatever that
carrying capacity is, and for harvest, whatever that
harvest may be. So it's not trying to dictate a
standard. When you say "maximum sustained yield",
you're talking, certainly, different habitats,
different bag limits imposed by the Department of Fish
and Game, different predator control procedures to
achieve that maximum sustained yield. And to get to
that maximum sustained yield is entirely up to the
management of the Department of Fish and Game, based
on the best scientific evidence. And so, I don't
think we're that far apart ... on what we're trying to
get at here, as far as the maximum sustained yield.
Wouldn't you kind of agree on that?
Number 2317
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE replied:
I would disagree on that. And part of the problem
here is a problem of definitions. And the definition
contained in Section 10 of the bill is not something
that a biologist ... or a manager would recognize.
It's a generic definition of MSY. And MSY has a very
precise definition to biologists and managers. And as
I read the direction to the commissioner in
Section 1(B), relating to the fact that he shall
manage for maximum sustained yield of resources, the
problem would come ... in the arguments before the
game board over what that means: does it mean some
generic term that's more close to the term "maximum
benefit" as stated in the constitution, or does it ...
mean the biological definition, which is what most
biologists and managers are going to assume it means
when it comes time to make these decisions? And
because of those problems, the differences of
definitions, again, I strongly urge ... the committee
to amend by striking the term "maximum sustained
yield" and inserting something closer to what the real
intent is, namely, maximum benefit ... to users.
Number 2202
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked Mr. Van Ballenberghe whether he had the
biological definition of "maximum sustained yield" that he'd
referenced.
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE replied:
Yes, I do. And I tried to give it last time, but ...
it gets a little technical, and I think people kind of
hear it and ... it's a little bit difficult to grasp.
But what it involves is this: for any population of
wildlife - or fish, for that matter - there is
something called a carrying-capacity density. And
carrying capacity is that point at which recruitment
into the population balances mortality, and there is
no room for human harvest or predator harvest, for
that matter. So at carrying capacity there is no room
for harvest and the population is balancing its
mortality with what few young members they recruit.
Okay, maximum sustained yield for moose and caribou
and ... sheep and the larger ungulate game populations
occurs at a density about one-half ... of that
carrying capacity. And ... maximum sustained yield
occurs at the point at which you are cropping the
maximum number of animals from that population,
considering the recruitment into that population and
... the reproductive rate that occurs that.
Number 2112
PAUL JOSLIN, Executive Director, Alaska Wildlife Alliance,
testified via teleconference, noting that he is a wildlife
biologist by training, with many years of fieldwork on wolves,
bears, and other large carnivores, mostly with government
agencies and universities. He told members:
At the last hearing, you heard from several experts,
both within the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and
outside, that were critical of HB 178. The new
language that we have continues to bear some of these
difficulties. One of them deals with Section 1(B),
where it states, and I quote, "to achieve an abundance
of fish and wildlife resources sufficient to provide
the maximum sustained yield of those resources". As
it's currently defined, that applies to all species;
so that hasn't changed.
The next difficulty that continues with the new
language is the focus that you just heard about on
maximum sustained yield, which troubles many
biologists, as it creates expectations that are both
costly and risky. In order to reach the limits that
natural systems ... can produce, biologists need to
have a lot of solid information at hand concerning all
of the major factors that drive the system.
Biologists are well aware that the closer one gets to
achieve the maximum possible in output, the riskier
the likelihood of making an error that could have
devastating results.
And the only way to avoid this happening is to make
sure the information used in making the calculations
is accurate. This can be done, but it costs a lot of
money and should not ... be pushed for at this time,
when the main focus by the legislature is ... trying
to close the fiscal gap. I don't see that you're
about to spend a lot of money on the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game to get the levels of accuracy that
you're going to need to do the job correctly.
Normally, the biologists have to be content with
lesser funds. And that's okay as long as you accept
the idea that you're going to be working [with] cruder
levels of accuracy, and so long as the expectations in
the way of output are not set too high, because
nature's pretty forgiving, and so it corrects a lot of
the mistakes that are made.
Number 1979
MR. JOSLIN cited the recent McGrath situation as "an experiment,
in a sense, of the very type that you're indicating." People
were concerned about increasing the moose population there;
there was a belief that the population was in decline, that it
was because of wolves, and that the Board of Game should put
into place a control program. However, the administration chose
instead to say, "Let's make sure we got our facts straight," Mr.
Joslin reported; a lot of money was spent to determine that, in
fact, "the moose population was not in decline, and to discover,
gee, wolves weren't to blame, [and that] if you had to pick a
predator, [it'd be] brown bears in one area and wolves in
another, plus there were several other factors." He again
cautioned that if the desire is to manage wildlife to the levels
that this bill would force, the legislature should be prepared
to spend a lot of money. In the alternative, legislators
shouldn't pass the bill.
Number 1872
REPRESENTATIVE FATE offered a different understanding of the
alleged moose population decline in McGrath and said that
clearly there was a problem regarding the number of moose that
people could hunt.
Number 1802
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, came forward to testify,
noting that Matt Robus and Gordy Williams had testified
previously, while he himself was out of town, about the many
reasons ADF&G opposes the bill. He told members:
I'd like to talk a little bit more on the general
situation. I reviewed the changes in the committee
substitute that became available last Wednesday, and
they do make some improvements in the bill. But I
still think that ... the bill is based on a flawed
concept, and if it was passed, it would result in a
bad law that would hinder the ability of the Board of
Game and the Department of Fish and Game to
effectively manage the state's wildlife.
In my opinion, the primary purpose of the bill is to
micromanage the Board of Game and the Department of
Fish and Game in order to mandate intensive management
of moose and caribou populations. The bill makes
numerous changes and additions to several statutes,
but its end result is to try to require predator
control. It would require ... that the department
place the highest priority, for manpower and funding,
for implementing ... intensive-management programs.
I think you have to place this bill in context with
the current intensive-management law. And when you do
that, the effect is that wolf or bear control would be
mandated over large parts of Alaska - the majority of
Alaska - on a continuous basis. The public simply
isn't going to allow us to manage our wildlife that
way. Alaskans have voted twice in the last five years
to prohibit the public from shooting wolves the same
day they've flown aircraft. And these ballot
initiatives [have] also provided very stringent
guidelines that must be met before the department
[can] conduct wolf-control programs.
The current intensive-management statutes [require]
the board to authorize intensive-management actions,
primarily wolf control or bear reductions, if the
board finds it necessary to reduce the seasons or bag
limit on a moose or caribou population. In some
cases, they are required to do this even though ...
predators aren't ... the cause for the decline. But
you can't reduce seasons and bag limits for moose and
caribou without triggering the intensive-management
law. And so the only viable action that the board can
take to meet the law or the statute is to authorize
intensive management.
Number 1640
MR. REGELIN continued:
Now, this bill before you goes a step farther and
tries to force the administration to undertake
predator-control programs everywhere that the board
has authorized them or has been forced to authority
them. In my opinion, this just can't work. I don't
think that the legislature is going to succeed in
forcing any administration - I don't care who's in
charge - to implement a program that has little public
support and might not be successful.
Now, having said that, I'm still confident that
predators can be managed in limited areas where we
have the severe imbalance between moose and caribou
and wolves or bears. But we already have adequate
laws to make this happen. We just don't need more
laws that make it more difficult.
I realize that many hunters are frustrated and mad
because high levels of wolf and bear predation have
limited their opportunities to harvest moose and
caribou in many areas of Alaska. Most people,
including me, would like to return to the abundance of
wildlife we had in the late 1960s and 1970s. But you
have to remember that those high populations were
attained through intensive management of predators or
control of predators [that] included poisoning,
bounties, and aerial gunning. And ... I can guarantee
you that the public will no longer allow their
wildlife to be managed that way. I'm convinced, based
on the 14 years I've served as director and deputy
director of this agency, that widespread, continuous
wolf control is simply not possible.
Number 1526
MR. REGELIN continued:
But I also know how important predation can be, and
how it limits people's opportunities to harvest in
many areas. I haven't given up on trying to manage
predators, and I know we need to regulate predator
populations, and, in my opinion, we should do it the
same way we regulate moose and caribou populations.
But the problem is that hunting or trapping of wolves
and bears in many areas just doesn't take enough
animals to keep them in balance with their prey.
Now, reduction of a wolf population or a black bear
population, beyond that provided by legal hunting or
trapping, very quickly becomes highly controversial;
I've lived through it a few times. The issue is very
emotional, and it provides the anti-hunting groups the
opportunity to raise funds, and they use them, then,
to convince other Alaskans - both hunters and
nonhunters - to join them, ... temporarily, anyway, to
stop wolf control; we've seen it happen twice in
Alaska and with recent ballot initiatives.
The only answer I have is to continue to work to
manage predators in small areas where we have the
biggest problems. I think we ... have to involve the
local users, hunters from around the ... state, and
reasonable members ... of the environmental community
in developing management plans to reduce predation to
allow the ungulate populations to grow. It's a time-
consuming and costly process, but ... at least it has
a chance to succeed. Trying to mandate widespread
wolf control has no chance of success; it's going to
only result in public outrage, lots of lawsuits, and
more ballot initiatives, and increase tensions between
the legislative and administrative branches of
government.
Number 1429
MR. REGELIN noted that he hadn't covered specific points, line
by line, in the bill, but said there are a lot of them. With
regard to maximum sustained yield, he cautioned that it is a
mathematical concept "of where you manage" that is very
difficult to define. He explained, "You manage below carrying
capacity so that you maximize offtake and maximize the take from
the harvest, and you do need good information to do that. And I
know that the lawyers are really concerned that we ... not do
that in the way it's being done right now."
Number 1364
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked Mr. Regelin to specifically point out in
the legislation where he has "heartburn about wolf control."
MR. REGELIN answered that the bill, when read in context with
the statutes it cites, says the highest priority for manpower
and money will be to implement intensive management. He
paraphrased from page 3, beginning at line 6, which read:
(9) to assign the highest priority to the allocation
of the fiscal, personnel, and other resources of the
division of wildlife conservation for implementation
of the plans, programs, and regulations adopted by the
Board of Game under AS 16.05.255(e)-(g) in a timely
and effective manner;
MR. REGELIN explained that the cited statute is the current
intensive-management law. He added his belief, and that of
[ADF&G's] attorneys, that the bill also conflicts with another
part of statute that says the Board of Game has no fiscal
authority or authority over manpower, which are reserved for the
administration.
Number 1239
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked what in the bill gives Mr. Regelin the
impression that it "micromanages the commissioner."
MR. REGELIN responded that there are several places. One is
that all cooperative agreements would have to have public notice
and then be given to the President of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House for review. He emphasized the cost, questioned the
need to do it, and said, "I think it's trying to tell us exactly
how we spend our money and use our manpower, on a very small
part of my job, and that's got to be the priority. To me,
that's micromanagement."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE disagreed and mentioned missions and
measures, that there is a budget process, and that it is the
legislature's duty to do exactly what Mr. Regelin had described.
MR. REGELIN replied:
I agree, and I really appreciate that system. I've
worked for it for 14 years, and that's the system I
want to use - not to be mandated by statute to not
even be able to consider other things that are highly
important to many Alaskans, and that are necessary for
us to do to be a good wildlife-management agency. I
... have no problem with working with the ... finance
committees or the budget committees, and I've done it
for a long time - given them all the details they
want, and taking their direction. This is something
very different, in my opinion.
Number 1089
REPRESENTATIVE FATE requested Mr. Regelin's definition of
"intensive game management."
MR. REGELIN answered that current statute "requires that
intensive management can be reduction of predation ... or
management of habitat." He added that in the vast majority of
Alaska, habitat isn't a problem, although there are concerns in
some areas. By and large, though, intensive management refers
to reducing predation by bears and wolves.
Number 1014
REPRESENTATIVE FATE noted that Mr. Regelin, in speaking of the
bill, had characterized it as managing wolves or bears, rather
than habitat or the board's ability to "allocate according to
good management principles." He asked, "In light of what the
governor said - and he has stated that you can manage for
sustained yield through habitat restoration, and I'll paraphrase
what he said - don't you think that habitat management is just
as important as ... predator management?"
MR. REGELIN answered:
I think it depends on the circumstances. ... I guess,
in general, they're all important. And if habitat is
a problem, ... you're not going to have an abundant
population, no matter what the predators are. But the
point is, in Alaska we're fortunate that, ... through
... essentially, I'd say, all of the caribou range and
nearly all of the moose range, habitat isn't the
limiting factor. Habitat varies in quality across the
state, but, in general, it's very adequate; it is not,
in any way, limiting the populations, the population
growth. So we could go out and spend a lot of money
in areas where we have too many predators, and you
will get absolutely no benefit because the predators
are going to take the calf crop, rather than letting
it grow up.
Number 0847
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA requested clarification about how the
bill interacts with what [ADF&G] already does. She said she
sees in the statute now that [ADF&G] is to adopt the regulations
to provide for intensive management, to restore abundance of
productivity of identified big-game populations, if necessary to
achieve human consumptive-use goals, "where you've got a
preferred use, where you've got 'depletionary' reductions and
you need enhancements." She asked whether Mr. Regelin was
saying, then, "If you already have to intensively manage, the
only way that you can reach this level that the bill would
require would be to put into place predator control."
MR. REGELIN answered:
That is how I read the bill, and the reality of the
bill will be to do that. The Board of Game has
already gone through and (indisc.) the intensive-
management law that's on the books. They have
identified the populations of moose, caribou, and deer
around the state ... for intensive-management
criteria. And it's most of Alaska because wildlife
all across Alaska is very important for human use;
that's a primary [criterion]. And they've identified
that, and now they've set ... population goals and
harvest goals for each one of those, and we're trying
to meet those.
This would now add a second layer. ... There's five
areas of Alaska where the Board of Game has authorized
wolf control or predator management, predator
reduction, both wolves or bears - either/or. Those
areas are pretty large parts of Alaska. And ...
they're ... considering another one right now; we're
going through the process of looking at another area
because the board had to reduce ... the season length
on moose because we just couldn't sustain a harvest
level. ... What I see this bill doing, then, is
requiring, in each of these five or six areas where
the board has authorized wolf control, that we would
have to do it. It would become our highest priority
for fiscal and personnel and manpower. I don't know
how you get around not doing that, and that's where I
would see that you'll very quickly, then, have ballot
initiatives that say, ... "No, you're not going to do
that."
Number 0625
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether [ADF&G] had submitted a
fiscal note for the cost of that management.
MR. REGELIN replied:
On our fiscal note, we thought a lot about it, and I
did not submit a fiscal note on what it would cost,
because I thought if it passes, we would just have to
shift the money around. We're not going to get more
money. ... We only get a tiny amount of general funds.
We would have to take the fish and game fund, license
fees, and the federal-aid monies we have, and spend it
this way.
The fiscal note I have put together, it says
"indeterminate" because it only relates back to the
requirement to have public notice for all cooperative
agreements that we would do with the universities and
places like that, and that ... depends on how many
there are and if we keep that. The only way I know
how to give public notices is to print them; it costs
us about $1,200 every time we have to put notices like
that in the paper.
Number 0539
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Regelin whether he had a
ballpark figure for what a program like this would cost. She
also asked what programs would suffer if resources were shifted.
MR. REGELIN noted that data collection and getting ready to do
predator management for wolves in the McGrath area had cost
about $.5 million. He estimated that each area would require
about $.5 million to collect the appropriate information and
then probably about $100,000 to $150,000 a year to carry it out.
That isn't for manpower, but just for the operating costs.
Number 0450
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT turned attention to fish. He mentioned
biologists and asked Mr. Regelin what his definition is of "OEG"
versus MSY. In response to Mr. Regelin, he clarified that by
OEG, he meant optimum escapement goals.
MR. REGELIN replied that he knows they are inextricably linked,
but didn't have any management authority over fisheries and
didn't know enough about the escapement goals to answer. He
said, however, that to trained biologists, maximum sustained
yield is a mathematical concept "based on curves that we do all
those things with." On the other hand, politically it is used
to mean the desire to maximize harvest. It gets complicated and
worries him, he said, "because when you get into a courtroom,
you're going to go back to the definition in those textbooks ...
that we all studied in college."
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT expressed concern about moving away from
sustained yield and going towards optimum escapement goals in
certain fisheries, which he said he believes are two different
things. He offered his understanding from talking to biologists
that some people aren't listening to the biologists, and he
suggested the possible need to add sideboards to "rein in some
boards or some board members that are allowing this to happen."
Number 0192
CO-CHAIR SCALZI referred to page 3 [paragraph (9), lines 6-7],
which added language that read in part, "to assign the highest
priority to the allocation of the fiscal, personnel, and other
resources". He requested a definition of "fiscal" and
"personnel" in layman's terms.
MR. REGELIN answered that it relates to how the department
spends the allocation given to it by the legislature and how the
department assigns manpower. He added:
In my opinion, this bill says that I will assign the
highest priority to personnel and funding to predator
control, ... with or without regard to other things.
I think that those are the kinds of decisions that
should be reserved [for] the budget process.
Number 0070
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to [Section 6], [paragraph]
(10), page 6, lines 27-19, and asked what it would do. It read:
(10) regulating [SPORT] hunting [AND SUBSISTENCE
HUNTING AS NEEDED FOR THE CONSERVATION, DEVELOPMENT,
AND UTILIZATION OF GAME];
TAPE 02-38, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. REGELIN answered that it didn't raise any alarms for him or
his staff. The department regulates hunting but doesn't use the
term "sport hunting" or necessarily differentiate between
hunting for recreation and hunting for subsistence, except for
some certain cases under state law. "We don't really try to
differentiate in how we collect data or manage wildlife," he
added. "The Board of Game gets involved in allocating to either
... recreational hunters or subsistence hunters."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether it is Mr. Regelin's
opinion that [ADF&G] would still have "every authority," that
this is perhaps "cleanup language," and that "you're going to
control subsistence hunting ... just as you normally do."
MR. REGELIN answered in the affirmative, adding, "The part that
worries me is that I have responsibility for almost 480 species
of mammals to manage in the state of Alaska, and this is going
to dictate that ... our priority is just for moose and caribou.
I don't think that's wise."
Number 0213
BOBBY FITHIAN, Executive Director, Alaska Professional Hunters
Association, testified that, in general, his organization
supports this bill. He offered the following information as
facts that his organization has compiled:
In current and existing extensive wildlife management
areas where we actually know the numbers of predators
and ungulates, we have lost over 55 percent of the cow
moose population to predation and natural mortality
over the last eight-year period. The calf survival
rate in these areas is under 7 percent. The number of
female calves that are living to recruitment age are
not enough to replenish the naturally depleting herds.
What this proves is, if we stopped all human harvest
of moose today, a year from now there will still be
less moose. Hunting is having no significant impact
on the declining sheep, moose, and caribou
populations.
Alaska has chosen to manage its wildlife populations
at low-level natural-equilibrium levels, instead of
higher-level equilibriums with sustained yield
principles for human use. This decision has pitted
user group against user group, Alaskan against
Alaskan, all vying for a declining ungulate
population. The Alaska Board of Game has responded to
this situation by restricting hunting season dates,
implementing antler and horn restrictions,
implementing drawing and registration permit hunts,
implementing Tier I and Tier II designations, and
eliminating user groups.
During 2001, 83,700 Alaskan residents purchased 88
percent of the hunting licenses sold in the state;
12,100 nonresidents purchased 12 percent of the
hunting licenses sold. Resident license sales
generated $1.83 million for the State of Alaska;
nonresident license sales generated $7.1 million.
Pittman-Robertson ... sportsmen's excise tax
contributed $10.4 million. CARA [Conservation and
Reinvestment Act] funds contributed $1.75 million.
The total Alaska Department of Fish and Game budget
for 2001 was $21.3 million. The Alaska general fund
contributed $250,000 to wildlife conservation last
year. As shown by these facts, hunters and fishermen
pay for their own management of our fish and game
resources.
Number 0461
MR. FITHIAN continued:
A generalized annual harvest of moose in Alaska for
the past eight years would be approximately as
follows: 86 percent predator, 10 percent natural
mortality, and 4 percent human harvest. The 1997-
through-2001 annual human-harvested moose average is
8,000 moose or ... 4 percent of the statewide
population. Some European countries have large
populations of moose and few natural predators. These
countries regularly achieve a 33-percent annual human
harvest of their total moose population without
depleting their [overall] herd size.
In relation to the McGrath situation, I am a master
guide. I have lived a subsistence lifestyle 30 miles
upstream of McGrath at the village of Medfra. I'm
intimately familiar with that situation. I've been
guiding, raising my family there for portions of the
last 20 years. Once the prey populations are
depressed by wolf predation, the impact of bear
predation becomes more prevalent. The pendulum for
predator control in Alaska has swung from one extreme
to another in the last 30-year period. The pendulum
is now starting to fall down. Broader public support
in Alaska is showing that ... more people are
supporting the higher-level sustained yield
equilibriums.
Number 0590
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to page 7 [Section 9], which
would define "high level of human harvest" as a "harvest of not
less than 10 percent of the harvestable surplus". She asked why
the specific number of 10 percent was arrived at.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded that the original bill had 15 to
33 percent, but testimony was heard that the range was too high,
given certain facts about habit and so forth. He added, "We
dropped it from 15 percent to 10 percent, realizing that this
was an obtainable goal. And when I say goal, that's exactly
what it is, is a goal." He offered his belief that 10 percent
isn't a high level, given that only 4 percent of the moose
population is taken for human harvest.
Number 0728
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA requested more information on the
European countries and what they allow.
MR. FITHIAN answered:
European countries that have large populations of
moose but very few predators ... regularly obtain an
annual harvest of 33 percent of their overall moose
population by using high-level sustained yield
principles. These are all moose harvested for human
use; ... there's very little predator impact on these
particular herds.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether some of those countries
also have "moose farming" and people get permits but it is more
like a farm situation.
MR. FITHIAN responded:
This may be a fact in some of those particular herds,
but it's still wise to realize that the climatic
situation, the geographical situation, the moose
population scenario is similar to ours, and they're
still obtaining these type of high-level ... sustained
yields annually.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked whether anyone else wished to testify;
there was no response. She closed public testimony.
Number 0862
REPRESENTATIVE FATE wrapped up as sponsor. He offered his
opinion that this isn't a predator-control bill; he mentioned
the statutes cited by Representative Kerttula. Disagreeing with
testimony from ADF&G that the bill will micromanage [the
department], he suggested it actually gives broader ability to
the commissioner to do certain things, striking out and cleaning
up some language that he said inhibits the commissioner from
doing certain things. Representative Fate also said he might
offer an amendment to change "maximum sustained yield" to
"maximum benefit", as suggested by a testifier, "because that's,
after all, what we're trying to achieve here, is the maximum
benefit to the people in the state of Alaska." Offering his
belief that management of fish and game in Alaska needs some
sideboards, he mentioned input from a lot of people on this
bill. He concluded, "We've tried to be balanced and fair in
this bill, at the same time [trying to] be sure that the fish
and game in the state of Alaska is actively managed."
Number 1044
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to adopt conceptual Amendment 1,
wherever the bill says "maximum sustained yield", to replace it
with "maximum benefit".
CO-CHAIR MASEK pointed out the definition of "maximum sustained
yield" at the top of page 8 [Section 10, paragraph (37)]. She
asked whether conceptual Amendment 1 would affect that.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE agreed that it would instead define "maximum
benefit", a definition he suggested would have to be
conceptually defined as well.
CO-CHAIR MASEK inquired whether the committee wanted to define
"maximum benefit."
CO-CHAIR MASEK called an at-ease at 3:01 p.m. [There is some
blank tape; nothing is missing.] She called the meeting back to
order at 3:04 p.m.
Number 1265
REPRESENTATIVE FATE renewed conceptual Amendment 1, but changed
the wording to "maximum beneficial use".
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked whether there was any objection. There
being no objection, she announced the adoption of conceptual
Amendment 1, which would replace "maximum sustained yield" with
"maximum beneficial use".
Number 1315
CO-CHAIR SCALZI expressed concern about page 3, lines 6-9
[paragraph (9), discussed previously], which read:
(9) to assign the highest priority to the allocation
of the fiscal, personnel, and other resources of the
division of wildlife conservation for implementation
of the plans, programs, and regulations adopted by the
Board of Game under AS 16.05.255(e)-(g) in a timely
and effective manner;
CO-CHAIR SCALZI, alluding to Mr. Regelin's explanation that AS
16.05.255(e)-(g) is the intensive-management law, explained his
own concern with that directive to the [Board of Game] that
mandates intensive management. He said it isn't the
legislature's duty, because the board is the allocating arm of
[the legislature]. He asked to hear committee dialogue about
members' comfort level with that directive.
Number 1480
CO-CHAIR SCALZI, in response to Representative Fate, read aloud
from the statute. He then noted that the bill would assign the
highest priority of the ADF&G personnel and financial resources
to [implementing] that statute. That may direct funds from
habitat or any other thing that the department or the public may
feel is more warranted, he pointed out.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE highlighted the bill wording [page 3,
line 8] that says "implementation of the plans, programs, and
regulations adopted by the Board of Game" under that statute.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI again read from subsection (e) of the statute
and offered his belief that [the bill] would "make a precedent
for big-game resources."
Number 1621
REPRESENTATIVE FATE countered by saying it doesn't change the
existing law. He offered his intent and how he said he believes
[the bill] still reads:
It's to assign the highest priority of the resources.
It's not assigning the highest priority to that. It's
just assigning the highest priority to resources -
personnel, fiscal resources - assigning those high
priorities to the division of wildlife conservation.
Number 1666
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked, however, whether that sentence [in the
bill] directs all of the top resources to this provision.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE answered:
Not all of the top resources. It just says to assign
the highest priority to those resources to help with
that provision. So, in other words, ... what we're
saying here is to use the resources and prioritize
those resources for the implementation of that
statute. It's a matter ... of prioritizing the
resources to implement that statute.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI responded, "That's the way I read it."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE continued, "But not to prioritize the
statute itself, necessarily, because ... there's going to be
other resources, for example, that they'll be using for other
areas - not just this one area."
Number 1718
CO-CHAIR MASEK offered her understanding:
It just sends a message to the commissioner or to the
Department of Fish and Game, whenever there is a
problem in the state on game issues, that we would
have them working and make it their highest priority
as -- in the past when we had the trouble with the
moose situation in the McGrath area, we passed
legislation here for intensive management. And the
board of fish and game did not take action on it, and
we therefore had to take other action, and ...
Representative Fate, from what I understand, is trying
to clear it up so that in the future, if we have
emergency situations, that we can use this portion of
the bill to expedite the problems that are out there.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked, "Kind of like our emergency orders?"
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied, "Right. And we don't have any."
He suggested it is narrow in scope because it isn't for the
entire ADF&G, but just for the division.
Number 1856
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered her belief that Co-Chair
[Scalzi's] concern was well placed. She suggested that the
section, in a back-door way, gives the Board of Game fiscal
power over the department [as mentioned in previous testimony]
because right now the board cannot "order the department
fiscally"; those powers are specifically excluded by statute.
Doing this will result in the board's actions' being the highest
priority for ADF&G's fiscal responsibility. She noted that [the
committee] has talked more about balance between the board and
the department with regard to fish, but said there is a similar
kind of balance that she believes this [bill] upsets in favor of
the board.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked whether it would allay some concern if
the language were to assign "a high" priority or "a" priority,
rather than "the highest" priority.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI indicated that would ease his concern, and
surmised that if the same highest priority for MSY were added
for fisheries, it would seem like an allocation measure from
[the legislature] because it would be telling the department
what it must do.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE concurred.
Number 2024
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to adopt Amendment 2, to change "the
highest" priority to "a high" priority [paragraph (9), page 3,
line 6].
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected. She said the whole section is
the problem under the other statute.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kerttula, Fate,
Chenault, Stevens, Masek, and Scalzi voted for Amendment 2.
There were no votes against it. [Representatives Green,
McGuire, and Kapsner were absent.] Therefore, Amendment 2 was
adopted by a vote of 6-0.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained her vote: "I'll say 'yes' to
the amendment; it's not that. It's that you can't do this under
other statute."
Number 2130
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report [Version B, 22-LS0695\B,
Utermohle, 4/16/02, as amended] out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying [indeterminate] fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected. She explained:
We just had a lot of discussion about how we're going
to implement this overall, and what it means with the
other statutes that govern the way we deal with our
wildlife in Alaska. We've heard the director [of the
Division of Wildlife Conservation] say he's got many
species of animals, and what this is going to force
him to do is to look at two. It's not that I don't
think that we have problems in those two; I do. But
to just try to craft something without understanding
what the language means, without understanding what
it's going to do to the department, ... ignoring the
statutes that say that the boards can't control the
fiscal policies of the department, it's just out of
control.
Number 2190
CO-CHAIR MASEK remarked that she believes the boards need some
direction. Although this bill may not pass, she said a change
is needed and that the bill sends a message that [the
legislature] is concerned "about how things are being run in the
state." She indicated it is a start.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE offered his belief that if there hadn't been
problems in management of fish and game, this wouldn't have come
up; the bill tries to address some of those problems. He
suggested it will take an entire change in philosophy to get
fish and game back to where they once were. He said the statute
that had been read was fairly recent. He indicated the bill is
a way of encouraging ADF&G to manage actively and properly [for
the benefit of] rural Alaskans and urban hunters.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI thanked Representative Fate for [Amendment 2].
He agreed that [the legislature] doesn't want to micromanage the
boards or ADF&G, but also agreed with the need to send a message
of frustration with some of the practices, and to show the
public that efforts are being made towards a better process. He
said perhaps the bill isn't "it," but that it certainly sends a
message.
Number 2382
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fate, Chenault,
Stevens, Masek, and Scalzi voted to move [Version B, as amended]
from committee. Representative Kerttula voted against it.
[Representatives Green, McGuire, and Kapsner were absent].
Therefore, CS 3d SSHB 178(RES) was moved out of the House
Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5-1.
HB 299-ALASKA PLACE NAMES
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the final order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 299, "An Act providing for the naming and renaming of Alaska
geographic features." [Before the committee, adopted as a work
draft on 4/17/02, was Version F, 22-LS1193\F, Kurtz, 4/11/02.]
Number 2439
CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that there had been public testimony and
that public testimony was closed; there was written testimony
from previous testifiers. She reminded members that [on
4/17/02] the committee had rescinded its action [in failing to
move Version F from committee with a zeroed-out fiscal note].
[Therefore, the subsequent motion this day to bring the bill
before the committee was not needed.]
Number 2507
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report CSHB 299 [Version F, 22-
LS1193\F, Kurtz, 4/11/02] out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being
no objection, CSHB 299(RES) was moved out of the House Resources
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:26 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|