Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/02/2003 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
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 2, 2003
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Hugh Fate, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Cheryll Heinze
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 208
"An Act relating to hunting on the same day airborne; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 11
Relating to Alaska Salmon Day.
- MOVED CSHCR 11(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 86
"An Act relating to permits issued by the state; and amending
Rules 65, 79, and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 208
SHORT TITLE:HUNTING SAME DAY AIRBORNE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FATE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/24/03 0617 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/24/03 0617 (H) CRA, RES
03/24/03 0622 (H) REFERRALS REVERSED
03/24/03 0622 (H) RES, CRA
03/24/03 0622 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
03/28/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/28/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/31/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/31/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
BILL: HCR 11
SHORT TITLE:ALASKA WILD SALMON WEEK
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WOLF
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/28/03 0339 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/28/03 0339 (H) FSH, RES
03/17/03 0566 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER,
COGHILL, MEYER
03/19/03 0593 (H) COSPONSOR(S): LYNN, FATE,
SAMUELS
03/19/03 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
03/19/03 (H) Moved CSHCR 11(FSH) Out of
Committee
03/19/03 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/24/03 0615 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NT 4DP
03/24/03 0615 (H) DP: BERKOWITZ, WILSON,
SAMUELS, SEATON
03/24/03 0616 (H) FN1: ZERO(LEG)
03/26/03 0652 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HEINZE,
CHENAULT
03/28/03 0687 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MCGUIRE
04/02/03 0749 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OGG, HARRIS
04/02/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 86
SHORT TITLE:INJUNCTIONS AGAINST PERMITTED PROJECTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)FATE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/10/03 0169 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/10/03 0169 (H) RES, JUD
02/21/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/21/03 (H) Failed To Move Out Of
Committee
02/21/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/24/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/24/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
03/07/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/07/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/02/03 0738 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
04/02/03 0738 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/02/03 0738 (H) RES, JUD
04/02/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KAREN DEATHERAGE
Defenders of Wildlife
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 208 and SB
155, the companion bill.
PAUL JOSLIN, Conservation Biologist
Alaska Wildlife Alliance
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 208 and
SB 155.
ROBERTA HIGHLAND
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 208.
ROBERT ARCHIBALD
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 208.
GREG ROCZICKA
Central Kuskokwim Moose Management Planning Committee
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 203 and SB 155
on behalf of the 12 planning committee members out of 14 who had
met in Aniak the previous week.
GEORGE SIAVELES
Aniak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 208.
TED SPRAKER, Member
Board of Game
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 208 and SB 155,
the companion bill, on behalf of the six out of seven board
members who'd been polled.
JOEL BENNETT
Alaskans for Wildlife
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 208 as a member of the 2000
referendum committee, saying the referendum's essence was the
desire to not involve the public in predator control, and that
the department has the authority now and should use it; answered
questions.
CARL L. ROSIER
Alaska Outdoor Council
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the provisions of
HB 208 and SB 155, the companion bill; provided suggestions to
strengthen the legislation; answered questions.
TOM SCARBOROUGH
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 208 with regard to reasons
for the urgency.
MATT ROBUS, Acting Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 208 and answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-21, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR HUGH FATE called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Fate, Masek,
Gatto, Heinze, Wolf, and Guttenberg were present at the call to
order; Representative Morgan arrived immediately thereafter.
Representatives Lynn and Kerttula arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 208-HUNTING SAME DAY AIRBORNE
[Contains testimony on SB 155, the companion bill]
CHAIR FATE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 208, "An Act relating to hunting on the same day
airborne; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0145
CHAIR FATE reminded members that the committee would continue
taking public testimony.
Number 0231
KAREN DEATHERAGE, Defenders of Wildlife, testified that the
Defenders of Wildlife is a nonprofit wildlife conservation
organization with offices throughout North America, including
Juneau and Anchorage. Ms. Deatherage said the organization is
strongly opposed to HB 208 and SB 155, the companion bill. She
said a 1996 ballot initiative banned same-day-airborne wolf
hunting by a person holding a hunting or trapping license.
Furthermore, a 2000 referendum prohibited the state from
allowing the public to engage in same-day or aerial wolf killing
under an approved predator control program. However, both
ballot measures allowed [Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G)] employees to engage in aerial or same-day-airborne wolf
hunting if necessary under a predator control program.
MS. DEATHERAGE said while there appears to be confusion by the
state over the intent of the referendum, the language the public
voted upon couldn't be clearer. She said the 2000 referendum
voter book reads as follows:
This referendum would refer to the voters for approval
or rejection of a law allowing hunters to fly into an
area where the Alaska Board of Game has established a
wolf control program and on the same day land and
shoot a wolf. ... The law also adds agents of ADF&G to
the people permitted to conduct same-day-airborne wolf
hunting as part of a game management program.
Number 0350
MS. DEATHERAGE told members that if the state currently believes
it is legal for the public to engage in [same-day-airborne] wolf
control, then [Defenders of Wildlife] has questions. She
stressed that the 2000 referendum, passed by the public,
rejected an amendment to AS 16.05.255 making public same-day-
airborne [hunting] legal under intensive management as long as a
person held a valid hunting or trapping license. She asked,
"Are you telling the public that this referendum was a waste of
public time and money?" Noting that she'd spent countless hours
collecting some of the 38,000 signatures from Alaskan voters to
put this referendum on the ballot, she asked, "If same-day-
airborne wolf control by the public was legal, why, then, did
the legislature introduce Senate Bill 267 to add a subsection to
the law at that time?" She further asked if the state is
uncomfortable with the interpretation of the current law and
therefore introducing this bill to overturn Alaskan voters and
allow the use of public same-day-airborne hunting of wolves.
MS. DEATHERAGE said [Defenders of Wildlife] believes removing
the prey population objectives is an assault to sound wildlife
management that gives the Board of Game and ADF&G authority to
implement predator control for any reason at any time.
Furthermore, she said, because the board has authority to change
prey, predator, or harvest objectives, predator control would
become a virtual free-for-all.
MS. DEATHERAGE suggested that the law had already gone well
beyond the public's original desire in 1996 to allow same-day-
airborne wolf hunting by ADF&G only under biological
emergencies, and that it is disingenuous to push this further as
an arbitrary or preemptive wildlife management tool. She said
she hoped the committee would honor the vote of the people and
recognize that same-day-airborne wolf hunting for any purpose is
believed to be illegal by Alaskans. On behalf of Defenders of
Wildlife, she requested that the bill not move out of committee.
Number 0539
MS. DEATHERAGE shared her personal feelings as follows:
At a time when our public representatives need our
support and trust more than ever, it is important that
you, as public servants, reciprocate by honoring one
of the few requests on wildlife issues ever made by
the public in 40 years - three to be exact, of which
two involved this issue, and that is to prohibit the
use of aircrafts by hunters and trappers to kill
wolves for hunting and/or predator control.
Number 0587
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked Ms. Deatherage about the
percentage on the referendum vote.
MS. DEATHERAGE offered her belief that it was 53 percent. She
explained that [Defenders of Wildlife] thinks the number would
have been higher but that it was a very confusing vote for the
public, and its polls reflected higher numbers for public
rejection of that bill.
Number 0655
MS. DEATHERAGE, in response to questions from Representative
Wolf about Defenders of Wildlife, said the nonprofit
organization is a wildlife conservation group that pays
particular attention to and advocates for sound ecosystem
management. Heavily involved in issues regarding endangered
species outside of Alaska, it promotes sound ecosystem
management and coexistence with wildlife, particularly
carnivores. It has its home base in Washington, D.C., with
regional offices throughout the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The
vast majority of its funding comes from individual donors and
members. She affirmed that it has a web site. In response to a
question from Representative Lynn, she said [Defenders of
Wildlife] is a member organization of the Alaska Conservation
Alliance.
CHAIR FATE asked what year Ms. Deatherage was referring to when
she was discussing the percentage of voters who voted [in favor
of the referendum].
MS. DEATHERAGE remarked, "The recent one passed at 58 percent in
1996, and then we did a ballot ... referendum in 2000 - at the
2000 elections."
CHAIR FATE announced that testimony would be limited to two
minutes each because of the number of people waiting to testify.
Number 0850
PAUL JOSLIN, Conservation Biologist, Alaska Wildlife Alliance,
testified that the alliance supports neither HB 208 nor SB 155,
the companion bill, both which are seen as a deliberate attempt
to circumvent the will of the people regarding same-day-airborne
shooting of wolves after the voters said "no" at the ballot box
in 1996 and 2000. He talked about a poll conducted by Dittman
Research Corporation in March 2003 that indicated Alaskan voters
were not in support of the same-day-airborne shooting of wolves.
MR. JOSLIN told members, "The voters just do not like unfair
chase using aircraft as a method of killing wolves, be it land-
and-shoot or taking from the air or however a method you may try
to indicate." A wolf biologist whose job was to follow wolf
packs around [the state], he said that his current job is as a
conservation biologist with the Alaska Wildlife Alliance.
Having attended most Board of Game meetings over the last five
years, Mr. Joslin said at almost every meeting he heard the same
mantra: "Moose and caribou numbers are plummeting everywhere;
there is a wolf behind every tree; the voters took away the only
tool that works, same-day-airborne hunting of wolves."
MR. JOSLIN said the truth is very different, however, and
banning same-day-airborne hunting of wolves doesn't put a dent
in the killing of wolves. He elaborated:
Looking at ADF&G harvest summary figures between 1978
and 2002, what we see is that we are currently
averaging a kill of about 1,500 wolves a year, or
close to double what it used to be. The trend upward
began about 1983, and it has been fairly steady and
consistent ever since. Projecting the current trend
outward, I would predict that we shall be killing
about 2,000 wolves a year by ... 2007 or 2008.
Why the steady upward trend in wolf killing: better
snow machines; better equipment, generally; changes in
the law that allow hunters to actively pursue wolves
on snow machines and kill them; wolf-trapping clinics;
private bounties like the $100 one in McGrath; $45
government research that's [the] equivalent of bounty,
... et cetera. ...
Number 1057
MR. JOSLIN continued:
Alaska is not bursting at the seams with wolves, nor
are the moose numbers plummeting, and the best case
that we have before us is certainly the McGrath area.
... Hopefully, you're aware that ADF&G has conducted
... only two surveys of the moose population there
that they regard as reliable. ... Currently, Alaska
is well back in the pack when it comes to wolf numbers
per square mile; we're not the top of the heap like
you might think.
Minnesota now has two and a half times as many wolves
per square mile as does Alaska. ... There are many
aspects to do with this, and the most important, I
think, is the failure of our state to look at the
habitat in conjunction with the prey and the
predators, and the other part of it is the failure to
educate the people. ...
We have a lot of misinformation out there. You heard
some the other day that said ... the moose population
in McGrath had plummeted 75 percent. Well, the facts
by ADF&G are very different, and it's that kind of
thing that there needs to be a lot of education as the
focus, in addition to the science that's done.
There's no evidence ... that the need for same-day-
airborne of wolves should be on the books.
Number 1132
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked Mr. Joslin if there was any
scenario in which he would support predator control.
MR. JOSLIN said predator control is certainly supported when it
is justified, for example, when foxes were foolishly introduced
to the Aleutian Islands. That had to be turned around and made
right; otherwise, the bird rookery could have been destroyed.
In such conditions, predator control is definitely the sort of
tool that might be used. However, he said ADF&G had indicated
the [moose population] in McGrath has not gone down and doesn't
justify predator control.
Number 1217
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked Mr. Joslin how he can compare
Minnesota with Alaska.
MR. JOSLIN responded that it has to be done on the basis of
density, not size. He indicated that if the density per square
mile is compared, Minnesota has a wolf population 2.5 times the
size of Alaska's. At the same time, hunters in [Minnesota] are
able to kill hundreds of thousands of deer, which he equated to
the moose and caribou in [Alaska], and they seem to be able to
coexist.
MR. JOSLIN remarked, "I think we can learn to coexist as well;
they've done a lot of research on their predators; they learned
that they weren't the big monster that they were made out to be
in the past - those days have changed." He said the people
there have also changed because federal and state agencies there
have put a lot of focus on education so that the public catches
up to the findings of the biologists. Mentioning a former myth
that if a person sees a dead moose or caribou it must be a lost
hunter opportunity, he added "It's a lot more complex than that,
and they've been able to demonstrate it."
CHAIR FATE asked for clarification on the information Mr. Joslin
presented relating to wolf-kill statistics.
MR. JOSLIN replied:
From about 1977 to about '83, '84, we were averaging
somewhere around 700 to 900, somewhere in that general
range. And then at about '84 we began to increase,
and it's been ... up and down a bit, but essentially
it's been a fairly steady increase. ... Essentially,
... I'm just quoting ADF&G harvest summary reports
from '78 onward.
Number 1374
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered his understanding that some
biologists make a living writing books about wolves and have a
vested interest. He asked, "Would you be referring to Farley
Mowat as one of the biologists that you're referring to when you
say that we are behind the biologists in understanding the
wolves?"
MR. JOSLIN replied, "Absolutely not. I trained under Dr. Doug
Pimlott, a world-famous wolf biologist, ... those sort ... that
carry a whole lot more weight when you're dealing with
credibility within the wolf world." He said Farley Mowat is a
fiction writer who, at a time when people were into bounties and
didn't understand wolves very well, helped the general public to
catch up quite a bit, but he also dealt with some myths and so
forth and wasn't a scientist by any stretch of the imagination.
Number 1461
[Dorothy Keeler noted that she had testified during the previous
bill hearing, would be filming this meeting, and would be
available for questions.]
Number 1536
ROBERTA HIGHLAND told members that her original intention was to
represent the Kachemak Bay Conservation Society but that she had
already faxed those comments to the committee and would only be
representing herself. She testified as follows:
I am very sad to be here to speak against what I
consider to be a barbaric bill. Every time I picture
the wolves running for their lives and people shooting
them, I actually become physically ill. I have heard
very little about the real problem, which I believe is
human predation ....
In my opinion, if you just stop people from hunting in
these areas for a few years, especially the trophy
hunters, ... I suspect ... there would be an increase
in moose population. If you pass this barbaric bill,
you will have put a black mark on this great state.
You are our leaders. ... What are you thinking?
Wolves do not have other choices of food as humans do,
and managing for human consumption, I really don't
understand this idea at all.
Let me give you some numbers from a 2001 Alaska fish
and wildlife ... survey: approximately 420,000 people
spent nearly a half a billion dollars viewing
wildlife, wolves being one of the top three animals
[that] people wanted to see. Why would you consider
even doing away with such a popular viewing animal? A
live wolf is worth way more than a dead one. Millions
of people appreciate the wolf and do not consider them
vermin as the [Board of Game] and, apparently, some of
you. I remember a group of doctors shooting wolves
out of airplanes years ago for fun. These doctors
were boycotted, as our state could very well be. I
already know of people staying away because of this
very bill.
We were in Africa a couple of years ago; ... what is
going on in Africa is seeing the animals. Alaska is
very much the same for the United States. I have
lived in Alaska for over 30 years and have never seen
a wolf. I ask you to do the moral twenty-first
century thing: vote this bill down; protect one of
our valuable natural resources.
Number 1675
ROBERT ARCHIBALD testified, noting that he had resided in Alaska
for over 25 years. He told members:
I am real sorry to see us come back to this ... issue.
But ... I'm [even] more upset with the performance of
this administration on this issue - hearing in ... the
meeting the other day that [a] helicopter is out of
the picture as far as using for control of predators,
when it's probably one of the best platforms. ... It
appears to me that ADF&G does not want to do this
because they're financially hogtied and they can't do
it, and to put this out into the private sector, I
think, is intolerable.
It might be time to find some way to get ADF&G some
better funding, as in a stamp or a user's fee instead
of a tax, as we're talking about the same issues with
gasoline and tourists right now - a user fee. Maybe
it's time to have a user fee to help fund ADF&G to do
their mandated task. And I do believe by the statutes
they have the right to do it right now; I don't see
[how] putting this into the private sector would do
any good.
Number 1799
GREG ROCZICKA, Central Kuskokwim Moose Management Planning
Committee, testified that he works at the local tribal council
for the community of Bethel; has spent the last 15 to 20 years
dealing with natural resource issues; and served two terms,
through the previous administration, on the Board of Game, a
difficult and sometimes painful process. He told members:
It's almost like I had to watch the moose populations
plummet under my watch, and pretty much powerless to
do it despite all the best efforts of the board - and
that board, as you may be aware, has been labeled as
having a fairly liberal background to some degree.
And when looking at the issue in depths, as anybody
will if they try to do it in as objective fashion as
you possibly can, that predator control is a necessary
tool. And I commend you for bringing this forward,
given the apparent lack of ability for the state to
carry it forward under the "holy war" that they're
being presented with on this issue.
MR. ROCZICKA informed members that the Central Kuskokwim Moose
Management Planning Committee was established by the departments
through the request of the board in the spring of 2002 to
establish a management plan and provide recommendations
regarding problems with moose in units 19A and 19B. Its 14
members were selected to include a broad diversity of user
groups from throughout the political spectrum; there are urban
representatives from Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna area as
well as people from the villages of the Kuskokwim River
drainage. Saying his committee was just made aware of HB 208
and SB 155 at its meeting the previous week in Aniak,
Mr. Roczicka announced that the 12 members present had expressed
ardent support for the legislation and had requested that he
speak on their collective behalf; he offered to provide the
names of those 12 members.
CHAIR FATE asked that Mr. Roczicka fax those names.
Number 1941
MR. ROCZICKA said the central Kuskokwim region - along with
other areas of the state, according to observations and the most
recent scientific data - has suffered a dramatic decrease in its
moose population over the last decade, perhaps 60 to 70 percent.
Yet the habitat is considered to be in excellent condition and
weather factors have been conducive to good winter survival in
recent years. Compared with the 10-year averages prior to the
1996 initiative, he said that in the last survey the total
number of moose observed was 196, down from 473; moose observed
per hour equaled 59, down from 154; and calf-cow ratios were 8
per 100, down from 56 per 100. Furthermore, the nine-month-old
survival rate of calves was less than 5 percent - extremely low.
However, people have seen an inversely proportionate increase in
wolf numbers. In short, he said, the situation there is pretty
grim.
MR. ROCZICKA opined that there are similar effects throughout
the state and that the common denominator, in most if not all
cases, is that the drop in moose populations coincides with the
1996 and 2000 initiatives. He said he didn't want to deride
what he considered to be 60 to 80 percent of the general public,
but suggested those people are largely misinformed or uninformed
about the practical effects and have voted based on their gut
reactions. He characterized this as an instance when the road
to hell is being paved with good intentions.
Number 2013
MR. ROCZICKA requested that legislators ask the following
question of themselves and constituents: How would Alaskans
react if it were realized that managers of the permanent fund
knew of a 25 to 50 percent drain in the fund's growth potential,
which represents wolves, and another 25 to 50 percent variable
source of reduction, which represents bears, and that - either
alone or in combination - those factors directly caused a 60 to
70 percent decline in the fund's principal? He suggested there
would be total outrage about this if the people were really
informed and educated. Calling fish and wildlife populations a
permanent fund as well, he said they're being managed, in this
case, for one singular purpose: "the tourism and the wolf-
welfare aspect." He suggested it can't be dealt with
objectively on a management basis in that sense and still
provide "the most ... for the most people" or provide for
sustained yield.
MR. ROCZICKA turned to [Game Management] Unit 19D and said the
media had proclaimed in 2000 or 2001 that the moose flourish in
McGrath and that there were double the number of moose compared
with the previous year, due to an error in the survey and the
methodology. He remarked:
There was absolutely no mention made, or allowed, I
guess, that this double amount was still less than the
1995 and '96 - when the former governor went out there
and pounded the pulpit and said he was going to do all
in his power to reverse the decline. And the Board of
Game initially authorized a predator control
implementation plan. And staff that tried to set the
record straight or clarify or offer any more objective
information were censured or had their word (indisc.)
to the point of ... obfuscation. So I'd hope that, if
this goes forward - and we are going to be dealing
with an initiative, no doubt, ... if it does pass -
that ... public information is allowed to go out in a
more objective fashion.
MR. ROCZICKA said he had a lot more, but would stop in the
interest of time.
CHAIR FATE requested that testifiers stay on teleconference in
case there were questions later.
Number 2272
GEORGE SIAVELES testified that he is a subsistence hunter and
fisherman, professional hunting guide, wildlife viewing guide,
member of the board of directors of the Alaska Professional
Hunter Association, and someone who has made his living
exclusively and directly from the land in rural Alaska on a
year-round basis all of his adult life. Stating strong support
for HB 208, he told members:
The so-called experts who are against HB 208 don't
have any rural dirt on their souls. HB 208 has
science behind it. The only thing against it is
misguided emotion and organized boycotts - threats of
boycott. Over the last 15 years I've watched the wolf
population in the western portion of Unit 19 increase
from a healthy level that allowed both wolf numbers
and moose numbers to be stable and safe to the present
level that has significantly contributed to the
present zero moose-calf recruitment.
The present high wolf density here is so bad, it has
already caused a significant negative impact on my
rural business. It threatens to soon completely
eliminate that business and my family's ability to
support itself. It has made it impossible for the
local people here ... to harvest enough food to feed
their families. It threatens to eliminate a diversity
of users of Alaska's wild resources. And it threatens
entire industries that depend on a sensible, managed
balance of nature.
GEORGE SIAVELES suggested HB 208 will again make it possible for
the State of Alaska to fulfill what he called its legal
obligation to manage Alaska's wild resources on a "maximum
sustained yield" principle. Under current law, he said, most of
Alaska's rural people believe this isn't possible. He offered
his belief that Alaska's rural people are extremely frustrated
"when hundreds of northern gray wolves are presently being
harvested by U.S. Fish and Wildlife aerial hunting in Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming, yet we are not allowed to manage our
resources in a sensible, reasonable, renewable, and biologically
sound way because of threats of boycotts." He opined that the
State of Wyoming is going broke because of what he called
depredation lawsuits; he asked whether this is where Alaska is
headed as well. He suggested that HB 208 will pull Alaska's
rural and urban citizens together on a solution, rather than
driving a wedge, as he said happened under previous
administrations.
Number 2420
TED SPRAKER, Member, Board of Game, noted that Michael Fleagle,
chairman of the board, was unable to testify and had asked Mr.
Spraker to testify on behalf of the board. Mr. Spraker said
he'd polled board members about HB 208; although he'd only been
able to poll five of the six other members, their vote, as well
as his, was unanimous for strong support.
MR. SPRAKER expressed hope that HB 208 and the companion bill,
SB 155, will be put on a fast track and made effective as soon
as possible. Citing McGrath as an example of a place that has
been "basically on hold" for about eight years, he said people
in McGrath and subsistence hunters up and down that part of the
Kuskokwim region need something changed so the moose population
can recover.
MR. SPRAKER noted that up to 40 wolves can be taken if there is
quick passage this spring. He reported that the estimate of
[the Alaska Department of] Fish and Game, heard at the Board of
Game [meeting], was 32 to 34 wolves in the McGrath area. "So
that's all the wolves we're talking about that would be
removed," he told members. With three or four packs of wolves
in the area, averaging about five pups per litter, he predicted
that there may be 50 or so wolves next fall. Furthermore, ADF&G
is geared up to remove bears this spring from the McGrath area.
If half of the predators are moved and thus half the job is
done, he said only half the results can be expected.
MR. SPRAKER reported that during testimony at the spring board
meeting, a retired fish and game biologist who'd worked in the
McGrath area had testified that the moose density is one-quarter
of what it was 15 to 20 years ago and that it clearly was
because of predation and lack of land-and-shoot methods. He
said that something needs to be done, especially in these
subsistence areas, and that passage of this bill is needed,
hopefully soon.
Number 2673
JOEL BENNETT, Alaskans for Wildlife, testified as a member of
Alaskans for Wildlife, the 2000 referendum committee, noting
that he was one of the three sponsors who brought that measure
before the public for a vote. A 36-year resident and active
hunter all those years, Mr. Bennett pointed out that he'd served
almost 14 years on the Board of Game through four different
administrations.
MR. BENNETT disagreed with the position of the Department of
Law, saying he wanted to dispel any misunderstanding that
involving the public in land-and-shoot wolf hunting, either as
agents of the department or as individuals, is permitted now and
was not prohibited by the referendum. He specified that,
indeed, that was expressly what was prohibited by the
referendum. He suggested that if people review the legislative
history, including the debates and sponsor statements, it is
clear that the essence of the referendum was to not involve the
public in predator control.
MR. BENNETT asserted that if Mr. Spraker and the Board of Game
want to do something now to remove wolves from McGrath, they
can; they have existing authority with department personnel and
department means, either using fixed-wing [aircraft] or
helicopters. Why isn't that authority being exercised? Mr.
Bennett said nobody seems to know.
MR. BENNETT said this legislation appears to be aimed at again
involving the public, which has serious problems such as
inefficiency. If the desire is to move predators, the state
should do it with its own personnel, using helicopters, and do
it quickly, efficiently, and humanely. "Don't let individual
people fly around in their own aircraft wounding animals, not
being able to retrieve them," he told members. "It's just not
good public policy." Referring to previous legal cases against
land-and-shoot hunters through the years, he said the history is
tainted with past abuses and lack of good game managers who have
the interests of wildlife in mind.
MR. BENNETT concluded by saying that the department has the
authority now and should use it if the program is justified, and
that this legislation is a wholesale reversal of two ballot
initiatives which fundamentally addressed the premise that the
public should not be involved, either as agents or individuals,
in predator control.
Number 2855
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that the justification for
predator control is based on moose harvest, and that testimony
has referred to record population highs. However, moose and
other animals have a [natural] cycle. He asked what the normal
moose density would be.
MR. BENNETT answered that it would differ from place to place,
and that in Alaska many areas aren't suitable for high-density
moose populations because of the habitat. Opining that McGrath
is one of those areas, he said:
I've flown over McGrath. I know, as others do, that
it's a mixed bag as far as habitat. I think the moose
densities there are just going to be lower than
they're going to be in Unit 13, for instance, or some
other area that has a richer habitat. So I think it
varies. ... McGrath has one moose per square mile;
that's on the order of McKinley National Park, where
there's no hunting. ...
I don't see the moose situation in McGrath as being a
dire emergency, quite frankly, in terms of the numbers
and the level. But, nevertheless, if it is ... a
grave situation ... [and] the department justifies a
predator control program, I think ... that's what the
public ... would accept, providing it's justified,
providing it's done professionally with department
personnel, and not involving the public. That's
simply what they voted on. ...
When we campaigned for the referendum in 2000, if we
had told the public that what we wanted to do was stop
predator control altogether and not leave an "out" for
the department to do it, we wouldn't have gotten that
many votes at all. The very reason that referendum
passed was because there was a specific exemption
allowing the state to conduct predator control using
department personnel.
Number 2953
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE remarked that this is a tough issue for
her. She referred to an article from the Anchorage Daily News
about [SB 155] that says who would do the shooting is still a
question, noting that [Senator Seekins, sponsor of SB 155] was
quoted as saying his intent isn't to "turn loose a bunch of
wild-eyed guys in a Super Cub." She asked whether there are
assurances somewhere [that this won't happen].
TAPE 03-21, SIDE B
Number 2985
[Not on tape, but reconstructed from the committee secretary's
log notes, was Mr. Bennett's reply that he didn't see any
sideboards in the bill.]
MR. BENNETT said he thinks that's a source of concern to many
people. He noted that from what Representative Heinze had read
of Senator Seekins' comments, it sounds as if the sponsor
himself doesn't want to see an uncontrolled situation involving
the public. He observed, however, that no specific terminology
in the bill says this is limited to permitted members of the
public who have been temporarily employed by the department
under specified conditions, for example. He suggested those are
the kinds of things that would further public acceptance, rather
than leaving it wide open to suddenly engage the public [in
predator control].
Number 2951
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN asked Mr. Bennett whether, before 1996,
there were wide-eyed Super Cub pilots in Bush Alaska who were
"just wounding and shooting wolves."
MR. BENNETT replied yes, saying there were high-visibility
cases; he offered to bring those up.
CHAIR FATE asked Mr. Bennett whether he was [in Alaska] from the
1950s through about 1965.
MR. BENNETT indicated he came to Alaska in 1968.
CHAIR FATE remarked:
During those years probably was the height of the
private citizen in the so-called Super Cub ... that
hunted wolves. And it was stated at that time, in
many sources, including the Department of Fish and
Game, which had not the funds in those days to do
those types of things: the efficiency of aerial
hunting of the wolves, which did not dissipate the
basic stock of the wolf, especially ... on the Koyukuk
River, was why the Koyukuk River and that country over
there had such a high density of moose population.
Number 2855
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF remarked that out of respect for the office,
he takes great offense at calling a former governor of Alaska a
wild-eyed hunter in a Super Cub.
Number 2842
CARL L. ROSIER, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), noted that he was
employed by ADF&G for nearly 30 years, finishing his career as
commissioner under the Hickel Administration. He told members
that AOC is a statewide association of 40-plus outdoor
recreation groups with a membership of more than 10,000
Alaskans; it promotes good conservation of the state's fish and
wildlife resources, sustainability of wildlife habitat,
protection of public access, and fair allocation of fish and
game resources for all Alaskans. He stated:
The council supports the provisions of House Bill 208
and its companion bill, Senate Bill 155. These bills
deal with clarification of airborne or same-day-
airborne as a tool for predator control in areas
identified by the Board of Game that require control
measures for recovery of low or declining prey
populations of game species.
You as legislators have the benefit of supporting one
of the finest Boards of Game I have personally
observed in many years. The newly appointed members
are solid, long-term Alaskans that have been managers
of the resource, carried on businesses dependent on
those resources, and know and appreciate the benefits
to all Alaskans from well-managed game herds.
It's unfortunate that the new game board has been
somewhat hamstrung by direction from the third floor
[the governor's office] that control with the use of
helicopters and state employees will not be approved.
This really boxes [in] you, as legislators, because it
doesn't leave many alternatives.
Keep in mind also that helicopters, which are not on
the table at the present time, are by far the most
efficient, humane, and economic method for conduct of
a control program. Please keep in mind also that we
are focusing here on a control program, not a hunting
action in which "fair chase" becomes a consideration.
Be aware also that AOC and our member clubs do not
advocate the extermination of any prey or predator
species out there.
Certainly, there are times when you must go in and, in
fact, bring balance back after tough winters and this
type of thing. But you have to have active management
on both the prey as well as the predators. And at the
present time, and for quite several years, we have not
had active management as far as the predator
populations were concerned. The boards have worked
hard to, in fact, try to rebuild game populations or
prey species populations all over this state, and have
been unable to do so. It's truly a frustration; it
has to be a major frustration for those game ... board
members that were out there trying to do the right
thing ... for the benefit of the people in this state.
Number 2677
MR. ROSIER continued:
The current Board of Game has identified three game
management units, 13, 16B, and 19D, that require
immediate control action. All three areas ... have
experienced tremendous drops of whatever the range is
[that you] want to use, but 70 percent is not a bad
figure on moose densities over the last 10 years.
Units 13 and 19D have had previous board control plans
gathering dust on the shelf for several years.
Implementation of these plans was never permitted
under the previous administration, with the resultant
continued decline in the moose populations. [Action]
at this time is critical in order to just stop the
decline and begin a long rebuilding process of the
moose herds in these areas.
Number 2643
MR. ROSIER provided three suggestions to strengthen the bill and
better protect aircraft owners who may choose to participate in
a board-approved control program, as follows:
The first is insertion of the words "in identified
game management units" following the word "shooting"
on page 1, line 8.
The second suggestion is insertion of the words
"harvest management objectives adopted" following the
words "based on", page 1, line 10.
A third suggestion is the addition of a new section
(a)(3) that reads: "Prior to taking a wolf,
wolverine, fox, or lynx, either airborne or same day
airborne, a person must obtain a permit issued by the
commissioner", page 2, last line.
Number 2594
MR. ROSIER concluded:
Game management over a broad area of the state is in
need of returning to a policy of intensive management.
The natural-cycle policies endorsed by the last
administration have created hardships for all Alaskans
and permitted many populations to decline into the
catch-term "predator pit." A long-term commitment to
intensive management is necessary to bring these
populations back and to protect herds that are
healthy. Passage and hopefully the actions to follow
will start us back on that path. It's only a small
step, but the bill is a step in the right direction
and will benefit all user groups as well as the
wildlife resources.
Number 2546
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked about the use of helicopters,
since the statute allows that now.
MR. ROSIER offered his understanding that it's perfectly legal,
but said [Governor Murkowski], even as recent as this morning's
press conference, has said, "We are simply not going to use
helicopters." Mr. Rosier added his understanding from the press
conference that it is considered a fair-chase issue. He
remarked, "I don't know how that has crept into this ... issue
all over again."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said it isn't about fair chase or
hunting for sport, however, but about predator control.
MR. ROSIER agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how long it has been since agents
[of the department] have been used. She also asked whether Mr.
Rosier believes, if the department were staffed adequately and
could use helicopters, that it would be better to have people
who really are good shots and are capable of doing it.
MR. ROSIER answered:
There's no question about it. ... In terms of doing
the job that needs to be done in some of these areas,
that's the way to do it. ... I can't speak too highly
of this; it's just ... such a logical thing in terms
of getting the job done, doing it humanely, and
actually getting the program off of the ground.
The public, ... as an alternative, that's about where
you're at. The only alternative you've got beyond
this, the public involvement here on this, is to go to
a ground-based program. ... That's a tough program -
you're going to kill some wolves, ... but it's not
going to be a controlled program; you just simply
cannot do the work on the ground ... in order to
accomplish what you're going to have to do. ... You're
going to have to take some pretty high percentages of
wolves in order to reverse the prey population and
begin to get enough food supply there to maintain the
wolves, as that'll begin to increase as the prey
population increases as well.
... You're really kind of being boxed here with the
policy direction that you're getting out of the
[governor's office] at the present time, in my
estimation.
Number 2383
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA remarked:
I think here's what the concern is: we may not
personally like the image of shooting from helicopters
or airplanes, but it's the cleanest, most humane way.
And I trust the department, if you have trained
professionals, to do it. What I'm worrying about is
what's the department going to do when they go back
out to the public, and how are they going to manage
that. And I can't remember if you had such a program
when you were commissioner, but ... you've explained
why it's necessary, and I agree. But I'm worried
about that extra addition there.
MR. ROSIER replied:
I can tell you how I would go about it, but we've got
another administration here and another commissioner
down there, and so they've got to make these tough
decisions along the way. But from my standpoint, ...
you sell this on the basis ... of the control program,
that this is not somebody out there playing around,
... chasing animals to exhaustion, this type of thing,
and leaving animals perhaps on the ground ....
And nobody does that intentionally; I don't mean to
[imply] that. But, certainly, those kind of things do
happen, and that's what gives the program a bad image.
Yet we still have the objective of wanting a control
program that's going to, in fact, turn those ... prey
populations around. And lacking that, we're spinning
our wheels. We are not managing wildlife in this
state for sustained yield under those circumstances.
And ultimately the department, in my view, must in
fact have predator control as an active program in the
department over a broad area of the state.
Number 2277
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Mr. Rosier to respond to written
comments on HB 208 from Peter Shepherd dated March 28, 2003,
which say in part that he was a game division area biologist in
McGrath from 1971 to 1981; that wildlife biologists have few
tools to actively manage game populations; that ADF&G must have
more flexibility with respect to predator control; that his
experience is that permitting aerial hunters to take wolves by
land-and-shoot means was sufficient to keep healthy levels of
prey and predators; and that department biologists can direct
and supervise wolf removal from select areas, which would
minimize costs to ADF&G.
MR. ROSIER replied that predator-management tools have been so
limited for so long that the program must essentially start over
again. He recalled the era discussed by Chair Fate, noting that
he himself was involved in dropping poisoned bait in
Southeastern Alaska; that was fairly effective in getting at the
populations of wolves, but was about the only effective method.
MR. ROSIER recounted his experience hunting in Unit 20 over the
last five years, saying he'd seen the benefits of removing more
than 200 wolves in various subsidized trapper programs carried
out. That, in conjunction with the sterilization program
carried out by the department, has done good things, he
asserted, but surmised that the sterilization program by itself
wouldn't have accomplished what occurred through initial removal
of 200-plus wolves: the caribou herds there are blossoming and
the cows have either single calves or twin calves with them in
the fall, after going through a critical life stage during which
they are quite vulnerable. There still are wolves there, he
said, as reported by some hunters. He reiterated the need to
knock down the predator population to begin with and then keep
the pressure on.
Number 2035
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to unspecified written testimony
and commented on her need, as a sled dog kennel owner, to
separate the dogs to prevent uncontrolled breeding; she compared
that to wolves and said moose only have two or three calves, one
of which survives.
Number 1969
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE commented that she keeps picturing a
choice between killing wolves or letting baby moose be killed, a
difficult image for her. She asked whether there is certainty
that lynx and fox are part of this predator problem, whether
there is a better way such as sterilization, and how she can go
along with this if it isn't certain whether the public will be
involved.
MR. ROSIER acknowledged Representative Heinze's reluctance to
make a quick decision. He referred to what he called "predator
pits." Although lauding possible benefits from sterilization,
he reiterated the need to knock down the population first before
using sterilization, aerial hunting, and so forth to keep the
pressure on. He also noted that an unspecified former ADF&G
biologist had countered the idea that only the alpha pair of
wolves breeds in a pack.
Number 1819
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO remarked that, like Representative Masek,
he'd had a dog team for which reproduction rates could be
explosive; however, he'd kept that dog team at home. He asked
about the statistics for healthy female wolves in a year.
MR. ROSIER suggested someone from ADF&G could answer.
Number 1773
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that the previous governor is
criticized for his predator control policy and that the current
governor can be accused of the same thing. Referring to
Mr. Bennett's testimony and the statutes, he said it seems the
department already has the tools, and that in the worst-case
scenario, agents would be allowed to do predator control. He
said he didn't understand why it wasn't being done now, and that
it seemed the department was funded to do this under controlled
circumstances.
MR. ROSIER answered that this is a policy direction from the
[the governor's office]. He said as he reads it under the law,
the policy direction just as well could have been, "Go ahead;
we're going to use helicopters; we're going to use department
aircraft; we're going to use that technique to, in fact, bring
this thing under control."
Number 1615
TOM SCARBOROUGH informed members that he'd submitted written
testimony that he would supplement. Noting that most testimony
has been about airborne hunting, he addressed what he said is a
second, vitally important issue in the bill, probably the reason
it is supposed to be on a fast track. He told members:
There's a reason why nothing's being done with the
wolves in 19D. ADF&G is presently preventing this
action because [the] moose population objective set by
the Board of Game in 2000 is being met. At the
department's request in the year 2000, the Board of
Game ... lowered the population objective so that the
Knowles Administration could avoid the intensive-
management statutes coming into effect and requiring
predator control.
A problem is that there's a difference between harvest
objectives and population objectives. The statutes
deal with population objectives, not harvest
objectives. HB 208 would allow harvest objectives to
become a [criterion] and therefore allow the
department to act.
[ADF&G] Commissioner Duffy has advised in writing -
the Board of Game members each have a letter - that he
cannot proceed with predator control for wolves, as
current statutes prohibit him from acting. This is
why nothing is being done. And, gentlemen, you may be
able to get a copy of this letter from the
commissioner's office, and you may want to read it.
... If we can get action now and get this legislation
passed, maybe we can take some action in 19D and get
something accomplished. ... That's the reason for the
urgency here.
Number 1462
MATT ROBUS, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, referring to the Department
of Law, put forth the state's opinion that the current statute
already allows public involvement in the predator control
program. He said he could understand that proponents of the
initiative who set up this law would feel the foregoing is
contrary to what they meant in going through the initiative
process, but Mr. Robus said several legislative actions have
taken place since that initiative, in addition to the referendum
[which repealed some legislative action].
MR. ROBUS told members that he would try to show why [the
administration] believes there is authority under AS 16.05.783
currently for the board and the commissioner to involve public
same-day-airborne participation in a predator control program,
which, he asserted, is different from same-day-airborne hunting.
Saying the state sees the bill as making two basic and fairly
small changes to the existing statute, he said the current
statute has two different pathways to same-day-airborne predator
control activities. He addressed the second one first, as
follows:
The second part of the existing statute allows the
department to go ahead and do same-day-airborne
activities with department staff without the need for
any special authorization. And that's the section of
the statute where the referendum removed the word
"agents" in two different places, because the public
made it clear that in proceeding with that type of
activity, they did not want the department to involve
the public; they wanted that to be department
professionals, period.
But the first pathway in the bill, toward same-day-
airborne predator control activities, no longer limits
it only to department personnel. That language was
taken out as ... one of the previous legislative
moves. And ... we believe it allows the authorization
of the [public's participating] if some fairly
complicated hoops are jumped through.
Number 1248
MR. ROBUS continued:
The first change in the bill, in lines 7 and 8, would
make the language in paragraph (a), which is the first
pathway that I'm talking about, the same as that which
occurs in subparagraph (a)(2), which is on lines 8
and 9 ... on the second page. Although paragraph (a)
allows for the authorization of shooting from the air
as part of a predator control program, subparagraph
(a)(2) implies that a broader array of methods is
contemplated by the current statute, that is, both
aerial shooting and other forms of same-day-airborne
take such as landing and shooting. We believe that
conforming this language in these two different places
would make it clear that predation control programs
can employ any of these methods.
The second change proposed in the bill, which I
believe is the original genesis for it, is to modify
the phrase "prey population objectives" on line 10 to
a more general statement. To go into the mechanics of
intensive management and what the Board of Game and
the department have to do, ... I'll tell you that for
each prey population identified under the intensive
management law as being important for high levels of
human consumptive use, the board needs to establish
two different management objectives. One is the
population objective; that's the size of the herd that
we want. Secondly is the harvest objective, the
number of animals that we want to be able to be
harvested out of that herd each year.
As shown in regulation at 5 AAC 92.108, each of the
ungulate populations that has been identified as an
intensive management herd has both population and a
harvest objective listed there in regulation. For
each population, those two objectives are linked.
They differ ... in their ... relationship to each
other, based on many factors such as each herd's
productivity and the habitat condition in the area,
the predator load, and the hunter demand and so forth.
Number 1104
MR. ROBUS continued:
Generally speaking, the Board of Game would request
the commissioner to make a finding under paragraph (a)
to allow the public to participate in the predator
control program when an identified intensive
management prey population falls below its population
objective and predation is implicated as a primary
cause of the decline or a factor limiting the recovery
to levels above the population objective.
However, in some cases a prey population could meet
its population objective but fall short of meeting its
harvest objective. In some such cases, predation
control measures may be a tool that would be
appropriate for trying to resolve that situation.
Under the current language of this statute, a strict
reading of the phrase, quote, "prey population
objectives", unquote, could be interpreted to prevent
the commissioner from being able to make a finding, as
outlined in paragraph (a), in a case where the herd
met the population objective but fell short of meeting
the harvest objective.
Adopting the proposed language in the bill would make
it clear that the commissioner would be able to make a
finding based on either or both of the two management
objectives established under the intensive management
law.
Number 1023
MR. ROBUS continued:
So, to sum up: good, bad, or indifferent, the
language in the present statute is different than what
was originally intended in the initiative. The state
believes that involvement of the public, not in same-
day-airborne hunting but in same-day-airborne predator
control programs, is potentially something that can be
authorized if the board and the commissioner go
through this complicated process. And right now, in
most populations, the population objective is a pretty
good measure of whether or not predator control should
be something to be considered.
In the specific case of the moose herd at McGrath in
Unit 19D East, we have a situation where an adaptive
management team appointed during the last
administration as part of a compromise lowered the
existing intensive management population objectives -
basically cut it in half - and we do have a situation
there now where the moose population is meeting the
population objective, [but] is failing to meet the
harvest objective, which is based on a longstanding
need for moose meat ... in that part of the country.
And, as Mr. Scarborough referenced in his testimony,
when the board requested the commissioner of fish and
game to make a finding under part (a) of this statute,
the commissioner declined because our moose herd out
there is meeting that rather low population objective,
but we still have a tremendous need for moose meat in
that valley that we're not meeting. And so, if you
broaden the language in the statute, it would allow
either of those two objectives, or both, if we're
failing to meet those, to be used as a basis for
considering inclusion of the public in a same-day-
airborne predation control program.
MR. ROBUS said he'd taken some notes while on teleconference
during the previous hearing, and he offered to answer questions.
Number 0855
MR. ROBUS, in response to a question from Representative
Guttenberg, specified that under the second part of the statute
as it's presently written, department personnel can engage in
same-day-airborne predator control activities without going
through the complicated process he'd just mentioned. He added,
"Under the authority of the administration, we could go out and
conduct those programs."
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked, "So why aren't you?"
MR. ROBUS replied:
It's complicated because of the various different
situations around the state. But in the case of
McGrath, the department has a management experiment
ready to go, in the sense that we have several years
of research data on moose-calf survival, bear
movements, wolf movements. We have prepared ourselves
to be able to conduct a study there which would live
up to the National Academy of Science report's
criticism that we have not looked at the results of
these programs in the past.
The present policy position of the administration is
that there's a desire to try to involve local people
in dealing with some of the wildlife management
situations, both as a way to reduce costs to the state
and, I guess, the feeling that the people benefiting
from the improvement in the local resources should be
people we try to get involved in managing to a better
situation.
Number 0692
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether this year's executive
order moving [ADF&G's habitat division] to the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) will affect the department's ability to
do the scientific research needed to justify predator control as
one of many programs.
MR. ROBUS answered:
No, sir. The habitat division, ... despite the name,
has not conducted the work we'd done on the habitat in
Unit 19D East; we've got a couple of wildlife
biologists who have worked on those activities. And
all of the capture work and tracking work and so forth
is done also within my division.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked, "Not even indirectly?"
MR. ROBUS replied, "I can't think of any way that that move
would affect that particular project."
Number 0613
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked whether, in Mr. Robus's division,
there has been any talk of the sterilization program.
MR. ROBUS responded:
Yes, indeed. That's a very interesting tool, and it's
been effective in that Fortymile caribou situation.
And former Commissioner Rosier was correct in saying
that we were able to start there with a lowered
predator-wolf population because of the actions ... of
a coalition of trappers who concentrated on the area
before we went in there.
We've talked about all sorts of options in each of the
cases where predator control might be necessary. In
the situation in McGrath, the problem is ... that even
if we were to do what we did in the Fortymile [area]
and end up with only two wolves, a sterilized male and
a sterilized female, in each pack territory, and we do
something with all the rest of the wolves - which is a
difficult thing to do, by the way, if you're going to
do it nonlethally - the moose density in 19D East is
such that even two wolves in a territory, without
reproducing and making more wolves, are enough to
continue to retard or even prevent the rebound of the
moose population.
The premise of the ... management experiment at
McGrath is to take a fairly small area of good moose-
calving habitat and try to reduce predation by wolves
and bears to a very, very low level and hold it there
for a couple of years to allow much greater calf
survival; those are ... recruited as yearlings, at
which ... time they enter the ... huntable population,
so we would start up towards that harvest objective in
only the second year ... after doing this activity.
And then, of course, they enter the breeding
population, those that survive, and hopefully produce
more calves.
Number 0434
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG posed a question he said was asked by
Representative Lynn the previous week: If an agent doing aerial
wolf hunting fails to retrieve a wolf that has been killed and
then someone with a dog team happens upon it, who owns it?
MR. ROBUS answered:
That's a good question. And since this is not typical
hunting, I think that the department has quite a bit
of latitude in deciding the answer to that, and it
would be part of the permit system that we put
together.
What we envision at McGrath, if we get into this type
of program, would be not too many permits issued and a
high degree of control and surveillance by the
department. And we might even end up using
helicopters to go out and retrieve carcasses to make
sure that we got carcasses out of the field for
scientific study, and because we know that that's one
of the criticisms of either airborne or same-day-
airborne types of taking. And I think we'd have the
latitude to either have ... those carcasses belong to
the state or we could allow the hides to be part of
the compensation to the people that were participating
as permittees.
Number 0301
CHAIR FATE asked whether [ADF&G] has records that go back far
enough to show whether private-sector hunting of wolves was as
effective as the department's airborne predator control.
MR. ROBUS said he didn't have any data and wasn't aware of any
that provided much information. He added:
If you talk to our professional managers, I think the
feeling is that professional staff cost more but are
probably more effective in a shorter period of time.
But one factor here is, the area that ... you're
looking at conducting this management activity on, a
... fairly small patch of ground such as we're talking
about in this management ... experiment at McGrath
lends itself to kind of a discrete, one-time, rapid
activity. But if you're looking at a larger area ...
where we're having problems meeting population
objectives, ... it just may not be feasible or
affordable to have department personnel doing predator
control activities over something the size of Unit 13,
for instance. ...
The Board of Game ... this last month, in talking
about the Unit 19D East program, gave us a menu with
different techniques, which included everything from
staff and helicopters all the way down to ground
trapping, with fixed-wing methods in between. And
they also gave us a list of criteria: affordability,
fitness, humaneness, and there's others I'm not
thinking of right now. And they asked us to pick from
that menu of techniques and then match it against
those criteria, and then asked us further to go ahead
and employ whatever methods that would get the job
done ... acceptably within those criteria.
The commissioner has not made the finding requested
there which would allow the public to be involved, for
the technical reason that I discussed here, ... in the
fact that the current statute talks about population
objectives, rather than just objectives. And so we,
at this point, are not going any further, except to
try to help ground-based trappers at McGrath be more
effective in ... their attempts to catch wolves this
year.
Number 0045
CHAIR FATE asked how much the present budget will restrain
predator control, both generally and in the McGrath area.
TAPE 03-22, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. ROBUS answered that this is very expensive, and that [the
present budget] will limit the department's participation in
these activities to only one or two areas at a time. He added:
But there aren't that many areas around the state
where a real active predator control program is
probably necessary. I think what's frustrating to a
lot of people is ... that of the areas that have been
identified, not much is happening. For instance,
we're eight or nine years beyond the beginning of the
McGrath management program, and we're still attempting
to get some sort of management done over and above
existing hunting and trapping.
At McGrath we're spending about $100,000 a year on the
research programs. And each year that that management
experiment gets put off ... we have to decide whether
to invest another similar amount of money so that we
have fresh background information if we ever go and do
something there. The actual control activities out
there would probably add another $50,000, and that
includes our participation in ... any aspect of the
wolf program, as well as translocating a large number
of bears out of that experimental management area in
order to reduce those real high rates of predation by
bears on moose calves during the first few weeks of
life.
Number 0156
CHAIR FATE surmised that in some areas the bear predation is as
severe as that from wolves. He asked about inauguration of a
total predator program in some of these areas where there is
intense game management.
MR. ROBUS said that's a very good point and added:
It's really important to us that we don't just embark
on single-species programs. In most of the cases you
look at, multiple predator species are involved. And
as one of the speakers mentioned, ... if you take out
one predator where you have a complex of predators,
there may be enough compensatory mortality - in other
words, other predators jumping in at the opportunity -
that you may not realize the gains that you otherwise
would.
Number 0253
CHAIR FATE asked if there were further questions; hearing none,
he thanked participants and announced that public testimony was
concluded.
CHAIR FATE mentioned SB 155 and a couple of proposed amendments,
saying he wanted to work on the two bills together and then
arrive at a committee substitute.
Number 0364
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG suggested that Mr. Rosier's proposed
amendments be considered as well.
CHAIR FATE concurred, noting that there'd also been suggestions
from committee members. [HB 208 was held over.]
The committee took an at-ease from 2:45 p.m. to 2:47 p.m.
HCR 11-ALASKA SALMON DAY
CHAIR FATE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 11, Relating to Alaska Salmon
Day.
Number 0498
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to adopt CSHCR 11(FSH) as the working
document. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 0595
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to report CSHCR 11(FSH) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes; she requested unanimous consent. There being no
objection, CSHCR 11(FSH) was reported from the House Resources
Standing Committee.
HB 86-INJUNCTIONS AGAINST PERMITTED PROJECTS
CHAIR FATE announced that the final order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 86, "An Act relating to
permits issued by the state; and amending Rules 65, 79, and 82,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
Number 0727
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to adopt SSHB 86 as the working
document. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIR FATE announced that SSHB 86 would not be taken up further
at this meeting but would be available for consideration at the
next meeting. [SSHB 86 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:52 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|