Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
01/30/2008 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB256 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 30, 2008
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Co-Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Bob Roses
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Guttenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 256
"An Act relating to active game management and to the airborne
or same day airborne taking of certain game animals; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 256
SHORT TITLE: ACTIVE GAME MANAGEMENT/AIRBORNE SHOOTING
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
05/11/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/11/07 (H) RES, JUD
01/30/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information and answered
questions regarding HB 256.
DOUG LARSON, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 256.
TOM BANKS, Alaska Representative
Defenders of Wildlife
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 256.
JOHN TOPPENBERG, Executive Director
Alaska Wildlife Alliance
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 256.
JOEL BENNETT
Alaskans for Wildlife
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 256.
SCOTT OGAN, President
Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that his organization did not have a
hard position on HB 256, but urged that management objectives be
set on the basis of predator-prey relationship.
JIM SAMPSON
Salcha River Property Owners
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 256, objected to
removal of the authority of Fish & Game Advisory Committees to
oppose antlerless moose hunts.
ROBERT FITHIAN, Executive Director
Alaska Professional Hunters Association (APHA)
Lower Tonsina, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 256.
RICK STEINER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 256.
DAVE LYON
Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 256 as currently written.
TIM SCZAWINSKI
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 256.
CHERI MURPHY
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 256.
VAL GLOOSCHENKO
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 256.
MARY VAVRIK
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 256.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03:31 PM. Representatives
Kawasaki, Fairclough, Wilson, Seaton, Roses, Edgmon, Gatto, and
Johnson were present at the call to order.
HB 256-ACTIVE GAME MANAGEMENT/AIRBORNE SHOOTING
1:04:44 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 256, "An Act relating to active game
management and to the airborne or same day airborne taking of
certain game animals; making conforming amendments; and
providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON noted that this is a very contentious issue and
the legislature is under fairly strict guidelines about
interfering with administrative hearings. He said legislators
can be involved, but must notify everyone involved with the
issue. As that relates to this case, there may or may not be an
administrative hearing. He cautioned the committee and members
testifying to strictly stick to the focus of their opinions. As
long as the committee stays away from administrative hearings
that may or may not be happening in the future in its line of
questioning it will not run afoul of that particular ethics
statute and ruling.
1:06:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether this pertains to members
talking about the issues involved or talking about the hearing
itself.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he believes that if the committee stays
with the opinions and positions of the people that are [in the
room], without specifically dealing with issues that may or may
not be before any type of administrative hearing, the committee
will be safe to proceed without running afoul of the ethics law.
1:07:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that Co-Chair Johnson said the
committee members' opinions, and that committee members cannot
discuss issues that could be addressed in a possible hearing.
Must those issues be addressed in relation to each member's own
opinion, he asked.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he is suggesting that everything heard
before the committee is the opinion of the speaker. The issues
which may or may not be involved in any future or present
administrative hearing can be discussed as an opinion of the
person making the statement, but not as part of the may-or-may-
not-be-happening administrative proceedings.
1:08:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON requested Representative Roses to speak on
this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES noted that the request is being made of him
because he sits on the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics.
He explained that the ethics committee discussed that a
legislator cannot act as an individual's legal advocate in an
administrative hearing nor can a legislator help an individual
prepare his or her position for that administrative hearing. He
said a legislator can consult with an individual ahead of time
if the individual asks what he or she should do and advise the
individual on who to talk to or where to go. He said
legislators are free to talk about their own opinions and free
to discuss any issue brought up by an individual speaking on the
issue. He acknowledged that the line is narrow between
discussing an issue versus taking a firm position or legal
opinion.
1:10:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON expressed her concern that there may be
times when not all committee members are aware of possible
proceedings in order to prevent themselves from committing an
infraction.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES assured the committee that if an ethics
complaint was filed against a member as a result of a committee
hearing such as this, it would probably not hold a lot of water
because the point of a committee hearing is to discuss an issue
or bill and committee members are not present to advocate on
behalf of any one individual or party involved in a dispute. He
cautioned that a committee member would not want to have a
discussion in this room and then go out and advocate on behalf
of a particular individual or group in which a hearing is either
currently being held or going to be held.
1:12:03 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON described an example of a legislator calling a
department and talking to the commissioner about an issue that
is under administrative review. In that case, he said, the
legislator would be required to notify everyone involved in the
administrative review. He said he wants to avoid the House
Resources Standing Committee being in a situation where it must
contact everyone involved in a maybe-or-maybe-not administrative
review. He requested committee members to stay on focus with
the issues and opinions of the people speaking and not deal with
any type of administrative review that may or may not be
happening.
1:14:45 PM
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural
Resources Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), said he has been assigned to work with the Board of Game
since 1992.
DOUG LARSON, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), introduced himself.
MR. SAXBY said HB 256 was put together to keep a commitment made
to a number of legislators during the Murkowski Administration.
It was recognized by those legislators that there were a number
of weaknesses in the current intensive management law and in the
same day airborne law and the two of these laws were in many
aspects contradictory to each other. These legislators asked
for a commitment from the Department of Law and the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game to suggest improved language and this
is the result of that request. While the work was begun by the
Murkowski Administration, he said, it was completed and
introduced by the Palin Administration because Governor Palin
agreed that these are changes she would like to see as well. It
is not in response to any litigation. It is the first
comprehensive effort by agencies to make these two contradictory
laws work together.
1:17:37 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO, at the request of Representative Fairclough,
noted that HB 256 was introduced by Governor Palin and read the
title of the act aloud:
An Act relating to active game management and to the
airborne or same day airborne taking of certain game
animals; making conforming amendments; and providing
for an effective date.
MR. SAXBY explained that Sections 1 and 2 are only conforming
language, and Sections 3-5 rewrite and simplify the current
intensive management law. He said that when the current law was
deliberated and adopted, the then-governor prohibited the
Department of Law and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game from
suggesting any improvements for making the law more workable
because he intended to veto it. The bill was vetoed and the
legislature overrode it. Mr. Saxby said the Board of Game
established a procedure to follow because the current law is so
complex, but the procedure is subject to constant challenge
because the law's complexity results in confusion with the
public and with interest groups over what the legislature really
intended.
1:20:04 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked for an example showing how the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game is having frustration.
MR. SAXBY responded that the most obvious example is the
definition of harvestable surplus. As taught in colleges, it
means: the amount of animals or fish that are born in a year,
minus natural mortality, minus the amount that is necessary to
provide recruitment or maintain the population, then what is
left over is the harvestable surplus available for human
harvest. However, he said, the current law creates confusion
because it uses a different definition that moves predation over
to the other side of the equation. Thus, when a biologist
testifies before the Board of Game, the board is never sure
which definition is being used - the definition the biologist
learned in college or the narrow interpretation in the current
law - unless the biologist specifies each time which definition
is being referred to. The definition of sustained yield has
similar problems, he said.
1:21:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked which side of the equation does
natural mortality to predation fall under the current management
regime, and how will HB 256 change that.
MR. SAXBY replied that the definition of harvestable surplus is
being removed so that the ordinary definition will be what
applies in the future. In the ordinary definition, predation
falls on the left side of the equation and the harvestable
surplus is what is left over after all natural mortality
including predation. Under the current law, predation falls on
the right side of the equation and the law contemplates a
constant allocation between predators and humans of the
harvestable surplus.
1:23:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES inquired why sheep, goat, elk, and bison
are not included with moose, caribou, and deer in the new
subsection (e) as being animals that are important for providing
a high level of human harvest.
MR. SAXBY answered that all those species are important for
providing for human harvest. However, the current intensive
management law directed the Board of Game to identify ungulate
populations important for providing high levels of human
harvest. The only populations identified by the board as
important for high levels of human harvest - a much more
elevated level of use in management - are some deer, some moose,
and some caribou populations.
1:24:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES understood that a considerable amount of
revenue is generated by guiding services for sheep, goat, and
other species, and he wanted it on the record as to what the
reason was for leaving these species out. He surmised there is
no connection to guiding services.
MR. SAXBY said correct. Both the current law and HB 256 lay out
the requirements for when intensive management must occur, he
said. They do not prohibit intensive management from occurring
in any other situation. The board could intensively manage
porcupines if it decided it was important to do so for some
state reason.
1:25:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether "high level" is defined.
MR. SAXBY responded that this definition is in Section 5 of HB
256 and that it is the one definition that is being retained
from existing law. He continued his testimony, explaining that
the nub of the intensive management law will be as follows: 1)
the Board of Game must identify these important populations and
set harvest and population objectives for them; 2) the Board of
Game must always manage those identified populations to meet the
board's objectives for abundance; and 3) if the objectives are
not being met, the Board of Game must take affirmative action to
meet those objectives, including active management measures.
MR. SAXBY said the term "active" management, rather than
"intensive" management, is being used now for a number of
reasons. First, under existing law intensive management is
defined as active management. Second, intensive management
equates to just predator control in many people's minds. Third,
active management is viewed by managers and a large percentage
of the public as a broader term that encompasses habitat
manipulation and other innovative techniques that might be
useful for increasing a game population. While predator control
will always be an important and useful tool, he said, the
message being sent is that it is not the only method being
focused on.
1:27:21 PM
MR. SAXBY, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, explained that he is
using the term "managed for abundance" as shorthand for
"managing for high levels of human consumptive use". In further
response to Co-Chair Gatto, Mr. Saxby said that the term
"sustained" is a permanent requirement. Once populations are
identified as important, they must be managed in times when they
may be too abundant and action must be taken to get down to the
goals, and populations must be managed in times when they are
not as abundant as they should be and action must be taken to
bring them up to the objectives. Thus, there must be a long
sustained ability to reach the goals.
1:28:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether populations managed for
human consumptive use means that the target for those
populations must be the carrying capacity of the environment.
Is the objective that everything on the left side of the
equation must be restricted unless the population is at the
carrying capacity of the habitat, he asked.
MR. SAXBY answered no. The Board of Game went through this
exercise under the current intensive management law and set
objectives for all of the important populations. The objective
is never set at carrying capacity, he explained, since at
carrying capacity productivity is very low because the
population is stressed and few young are born each year.
Management must be for earlier on the growth curve, a little bit
below carrying capacity.
1:29:45 PM
MR. LARSON added that carrying capacity can be a moving target
and active management is a way to adjust populations relative to
what habitat can support at any given time. He noted that
ADF&G's experience over the years has shown that there are cases
where habitats can support more prey animals or game species,
but that other factors keep those populations from reaching the
carrying capacity level. There are also examples where carrying
capacity has been reached or exceeded. One such example is
moose in Game Management Unit 20A near Fairbanks, and another is
the colonizing moose in Gustavus where the department has had to
implement female harvest in order to bring the numbers down in
conjunction with habitat availability and carrying capacity.
MR. SAXBY described the way this concept has been illustrated to
the Board of Game. If a population is right at carrying
capacity, which is a theoretical situation that is difficult to
identify, the harvestable surplus is actually zero. This is
because the number of animals born each year is necessary to
maintain the population at that level of carrying capacity.
Thus, by taking the population a little lower than carrying
capacity, there is more productivity and a larger harvestable
surplus.
1:31:30 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether there is any relationship to the
term "what the market will bear" because what is being talked
about is maximizing happiness, maximizing take, and maximizing
the number of satisfied people.
MR. SAXBY said correct. There is some overlap in that economic
concept and the concept of managing for a high level of human
consumptive use.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether "high level of human use"
under HB 256 changes over time as far as the population of
hunters or subsistence users. Or, is it a fixed number set by
the Board of Game even if there must be more restrictions on the
season because more people want to participate in the harvest.
MR. SAXBY responded that current law also requires objectives to
be set, although in a less direct way. The Board of Game adopts
the objectives as regulations, but regulations can be changed.
1:33:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is not concerned with what the
board has done, but rather with the requirement in HB 256 that
the Board of Game "shall" set these high levels. Will the
definition of "high level" change depending upon the expressed
need or desires of the human populations to utilize an ungulate
population, he asked.
MR. SAXBY responded that the Board of Game does not expect the
process to change under this bill for setting objectives, it
will just be clearer to the public as to how this is done and
what the mandate is to do it. So, yes, if the carrying capacity
changes over time, ADF&G will inform the board that another look
must be taken at what the population objective should be. If
demand changes over time, ADF&G will also bring that information
to the board, as will user groups. The department would then
compare the suggested harvest changes to what the land is able
to produce. He said anyone can suggest a regulatory change any
time that it is up for consideration by the board. The board
has developed a regulation that directs how hunter demand,
biological capacity, and historic use are to be considered when
establishing the objectives.
1:35:19 PM
MR. SAXBY continued his presentation. He said Sections 6 and 7
are conforming changes, and Sections 8-10 make substantive
changes to the same day airborne law. Section 8 adds brown bear
for the first time to the general statutory prohibition against
same day airborne hunting. It is a protective measure, he said,
because ADF&G thinks if it is important to protect wolverines
and wolves, it is also important to protect brown bears.
Section 8 does allow same day airborne shooting of the protected
animals when the Board of Game determines that it would be
conducive to meeting its objectives under the active management
requirements in what today is called the intensive management
law. Currently, he said, the intensive management law requires
the board to adopt intensive management, which generally means
predator control, at either the same board meeting in which it
acts to reduce the taking of the species or at the very next
board meeting.
MR. SAXBY noted that the same day airborne law was originally
adopted as the result of the citizens' initiative. This law was
designed to make it rare and difficult to conduct same day
airborne shooting, he said, and airborne shooting is by far the
most commonly used, most efficient, and most humane method to
conduct predator control. So, he said, the laws are at cross
purposes to each other and many of the specific requirements in
the laws create the situation where it is difficult to follow
both laws. So far the courts have agreed with the Board of Game
when challenges have been filed, he related, but the board keeps
facing the challenges because the process is so convoluted. He
advised that HB 256 simplifies the situation by directly linking
the same day airborne law to the intensive management law so
that same day airborne shooting is justified as a means to meet
the objectives of the intensive or active management law.
1:38:28 PM
MR. SAXBY explained that under current law, it is illegal for an
ADF&G employee to fly out to a location and shoot a problem
animal on the same day that the employee flew out. Section 9 of
HB 256 would ensure that this prohibition does not apply when
the department must go out and take wolves, wolverines, or brown
bears for nuisance or public safety reasons, for a museum
specimen, or for any of the other authorities the department has
for taking game. He said Section 10 clarifies that the
prohibition on same day airborne shooting does not include
tranquilizer guns, and that Sections 11-14 are simply repealers,
transition provisions, and effective dates that do not make any
important changes.
1:39:55 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether the deletion of "a disease or
parasite of a predator population" on page 4 [lines 30-31] is
covered by the new language [page 4, lines 19-20], "conducive to
the health of a predator population".
MR. SAXBY said the language is being simplified to bare
essentials. In further response to Co-Chair Gatto, Mr. Saxby
confirmed that the new language would also include such things
as genetic disorders and overpopulation.
1:40:51 PM
TOM BANKS, Alaska Representative, Defenders of Wildlife, spoke
from the following written testimony:
Founded in 1947, Defenders of Wildlife has over
one million members, supporters and subscribers across
the nation, including 5,800 in Alaska, and is
dedicated to the protection and restoration of native
animals and plants in their natural communities. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify today.
By way of introduction, I come from a family of
hunters and fishers and have enjoyed these and many
other outdoor activities. I am a volunteer assistant
Scoutmaster at the Boy Scout troop at St. John United
Methodist Church in Anchorage. I own a home in
Anchorage. Before joining Defenders of Wildlife, I
have been a school teacher, naturalist, backcountry
ranger and enforcement officer on state and federal
lands in Alaska and elsewhere for twenty-five summers.
I have a bachelor's degree in park and recreation
administration and master's degree in ecology.
Defenders of Wildlife strongly opposes House Bill
256 because the proposed legislation would:
ƒThwart the intention of two voter-enacted bans on
same day airborne hunting of wolves;
ƒAdd brown bears to the list of species that can
be shot by private aerial gunners;
ƒEliminate the requirement that the Board of Game
base its predator control programs on scientific
information provided by the professionals at the
Department of Fish and Game; and
ƒLimit public participation on issues that affect
all of Alaska.
House Bill 256 (HB 256) would delete the
requirement that a comprehensive game management plan
be in place prior to invoking aerial predator control.
Aerial predator control should only be considered when
it is part of a carefully thought-out program based on
adequate supporting data, opportunity for public
review, and public support.
HB 256 completely ignores and dismisses the
intention of the voter-enacted bans on same-day
airborne shooting of predators and seeks to move
predator control decisions out of the realm of science
and further toward an ideologically-driven decision-
making process by the Board of Game, a body which is
not representative of the diverse values that Alaskans
place on their wildlife.
The Board of Game and certain hunting
organizations claim that predator control is necessary
to provide subsistence food for those whose survival
depends on it. Unfortunately, this misrepresents the
facts. Annual state harvest records show that the
vast majority of the animals, two-thirds to three-
quarters of the moose and caribou hunted in Alaska,
are harvested by urban and out-of-state residents.
Urban residents also harvest most of the animals in
the majority of the current predator control areas.
Rural people are often portrayed as the chief
beneficiary of the predator control programs.
Clearly, they are not. The desire to maintain the
venerable tradition of hunting is important, but it
does not come with the guarantee that every hunting
outing will yield a catch. Fair chase implies that a
successful hunt is not guaranteed, but depends on the
skill of the hunter and the natural abundance of prey.
More than 56,000 square miles are currently under
airborne predator control by private pilots and
gunners who secure a permit. This is nearly 9.8% of
the state's total land area, or roughly one-third of
the lands under state control. This sizeable portion
of the state is currently subject to aerial shooting
of predators. To increase the portion of Alaska
wildlands subject to this practice, by loosening the
standards in order to add them more hastily, is wrong
and indefensible.
A state initiative sponsored by Alaskans for
Wildlife is scheduled for a vote on August 26, 2008.
HB 256 would re-write and tilt current law in a
direction exactly opposite from the voters' intent as
expressed in 1996 and 2000. Over 56,000 Alaskans
recently signed an initiative petition to vote on this
initiative in 2008. The Legislature should honor
their wishes, not confuse the issue for them, and not
undermine the initiative process by passing this
legislation the way it is written.
Rather than streamlining the predator control
process to make it less accountable to science and the
Alaskan people, this important controversy should be
decided on the basis of (1) the actions that a clear
majority of Alaskans would find balanced and
equitable; (2) the predator control, if any, that
would be necessary in areas where there is true need
to raise more prey for human sustenance or for
protection of a prey population from experiencing a
biological emergency; (3) the actions that are
necessary to maintain the health of the landscape for
the long run. It is well known that an excess of prey
animals like moose or caribou can not be supported for
the long term without damage to the habitat and
impacts on their own health. Crowding an area with
moose or caribou beyond the landscape's carrying
capacity is not wise stewardship.
1:49:45 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO commented that out of state hunters and urban
hunters, which includes Juneau, are being portrayed by Mr. Banks
as the bad guys and that the animals must be protected for rural
residents.
MR. BANKS said the reason he brings up the point that two-thirds
to three-quarters of the moose and caribou statewide are
harvested by urban Alaska residents or out of state hunters is
to correct the widely held misperception that, by not having
predator control, people who are needy for foodstuffs and do not
live on the road system are the prime sufferers. The number of
moose and caribou captured in the state is roughly proportionate
to the number of urban residents and out of state hunters, he
said. In other words, rural residents are not taking more per
capita than urban residents. He acknowledged that residents in
every community in the state have deep cultural and family
connections to hunting and he does not disregard or dismiss that
importance. However, some have more actual need for reasons of
less accessibility to other foodstuffs.
1:52:27 PM
MR. BANKS continued with his written testimony:
"Conservation" or "stewardship" is what all
responsible hunters and non-hunters agree upon, and
this requires a long-term vision - something which is
lacking in this bill.
The proposed law would eliminate the requirement
that the Board of Game determine that "predation is an
important cause for the failure to achieve" prey
numbers and hunter success, and that "a reduction of
predation can reasonably be expected to aid in the
achievement of the objectives." Instead, the Board
would merely need to conclude that aerial or same-day
airborne shooting "would be conducive" to meeting one
of its prey objectives or harvest levels. This is a
significant relaxation in the standard by which
predator control areas are established.
The requirement that the Board of Game decisions
be based on information from the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game would also be eliminated.
Like the existing intensive management statutes,
the proposed bill fails to acknowledge the important
role carnivores play in keeping ecosystems and prey
populations healthy and vigorous. The widespread,
intense culling of predators results in losses to
ecosystem complexity, diversity, and function. This
legislation positions the Board of Game to accelerate
a program for political reasons - but without
attention to whether such a program is fiscally
prudent or biologically sound. The proposed
legislation gives no recognition to the importance of
conserving healthy ecosystems in their natural, wild
condition - an important value that Alaskans and
tourists from around the world recognize and
experience each year in growing numbers. Alaska is
special and unique, and with proper, conservative
management, can remain that way.
We strongly oppose liberalizing the existing,
already one-sided intensive management statutes.
Alaska needs wildlife management laws that promote
science-based, effective, fiscally prudent wildlife
management that addresses the legitimate needs and
viewpoints of all user groups. While it is valid to
allocate wildlife to satisfy legitimate need for
traditional foods, we need to accept that it is
impossible to satisfy a desire for an unlimited
quantity of moose or caribou for a growing number of
hunters, particularly from out-of-state, while keeping
Alaska's wild character. Unfortunately, HB 256 is
aimed toward continuing to elevate numbers of prey
animals beyond the landscape's ability to support
them, and thus the legislation is grossly unbalanced.
Alaska needs sound wildlife management laws that
ensure sustainable predator and game populations for
generations to come on a landscape that can produce
"only so much" while maintaining its full complement
of predators and prey in a wild, untamed setting.
In conclusion, wildlife management should include
a "best available science" standard that the Board is
required to apply in its decision-making. And
Alaskans should not be shortchanged. It is clear that
new legislation is needed to address the deficiencies
in the intensive management statutes, but this bill in
no way addresses the problems and provides the balance
that's needed. I strongly urge you to oppose this
bill.
1:56:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she was unaware that the intense
culling of predators was widespread.
MR. BANKS responded that approximately 9.8 percent of Alaska's
land area, absent acreage in the territorial waters, is
currently under aerial predator control. He said this is a
large area in his point of view, as it is the size of New York
State. Alaska has a great wildlife resource that ought not to
be intensely managed to the extent that its wild lands are
treated like a game farm and the wilderness and general wildness
of the state are lost.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked how the Alaska membership of
Defenders of Wildlife is quantified.
MR. BANKS said he would research that information, but generally
it is the number of people who have signed up for the
organization's magazine by giving a sum of $15, or by giving any
other amount of money, or by logging on to the organization's
website and requesting regular e-mail updates.
1:59:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH requested a follow-up from Mr. Banks
as to what the Defenders of Wildlife membership looks like in
the state of Alaska, not who logs on to the website. She also
asked Mr. Banks to provide what he believes the sufficient
population is for a particular species in the nearly 10 percent
area of Alaska being referred to.
MR. BANKS replied that there is no one correct answer to how
many wild animals should be on a landscape. It is ultimately a
values-based decision regarding the number of people versus the
number of wild animals living in an area, as well as how much
wildness is left in an area and demand versus supply. Hunter
demand for a certain number of prey animals drives the numbers
within the intensive management statute, he said, and that
demand is translated into a goal as to how many animals must
live there to meet that harvest and this results in the carrying
capacity being exceeded. There are numerous examples of
populations that later crashed after being propped up to high
levels.
2:02:22 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether people who signed up for a
[Defenders of Wildlife] e-mail account are counted as part of
the 5,800 [Alaskan members].
MR. BANKS said that could be possible, in which case perhaps
some of staff and committee members are supporters without
knowing it. The number of actual monetary supporters within
Alaska is perhaps a smaller number, he said. He offered to get
back to the committee with that number.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON commented that he must be included in the 5,800
because he signs up for a lot of things to get information.
MR. BANKS recollected that, for the state of Alaska, about half
of the people receiving e-mails from Defenders of Wildlife are
actual contributors.
2:03:38 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he does not want to have his name taken
off the list because it is good to know what is out there even
if he does not agree with it, but it means the number is 5,799.
MR. BANKS said he would amend his statement to say 5,800
supporters and others.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH related that the nonprofit
organizations she represents when not in a legislative session
consider members to be only those people who have donated to the
organizations within a time period of one year. She recognized
that a majority of Alaskans in two different elections supported
one particular point addressed by Mr. Banks.
2:05:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES assumed that Defenders of Wildlife would
not be opposed to any kind of predator control as long as it is
done wisely.
MR. BANKS responded that his organization is not completely
opposed to predator control where it can be done in consort with
the best available scientific information and where it has broad
public support. He said it comes down to means and methods, and
the actual numbers of wolves that are taken. It is common
knowledge that 10 times more wolves are trapped and hunted in
Alaska than are shot from the air. In the last four years an
average of 147 wolves per year were shot from planes in the
aerial control program compared to nearly 1,500 wolves legally
trapped or hunted. He said his organization believes aerial
gunning injures many animals that do not die a death that is
okay. In cases where it is determined that predator control is
necessary to prevent a biological emergency, Defenders of
Wildlife would support the use of helicopters by state or
federal officials.
2:07:54 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO surmised that Defenders of Wildlife does not have
an intractable stand opposing predator control.
MR. BANKS said correct.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether Defenders of Wildlife would be
opposed to reinstituting a bounty on wolves as a method of
control.
MR. BANKS replied that the bounty is not a scientifically
targeted method of reducing wolves that are causing a specific
problem in a specific area. He said for that reason his answer
would be no.
2:08:53 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether predator control by trapping
is a scientific method in a specific area.
MR. BANKS answered that trapping is an accepted practice in
Alaska as a method of gathering game, furs, and other products.
Thus, he said he cannot give a statement that Defenders of
Wildlife would oppose trapping. As far as predator control is
concerned, he said his organization would support reduction that
is scientifically based and targets individual packs that are
living in an area where the prey population is small and unable
to recover. Management versus hunting and trapping are
different things; hunting and trapping are not a scientific
means of predator control. He offered to get back to the
committee with further details in this regard.
CO-CHAIR GATTO noted that he has asked Mr. Banks to come back on
Friday and have a roundtable with various other parties.
2:12:23 PM
JOHN TOPPENBERG, Executive Director, Alaska Wildlife Alliance,
stated that his 30-year-old organization is not anti-hunting and
supports responsible hunting based on accepted biological
standards and ethical principles of fair chase. He said he was
a major crimes detective in Colorado before moving to Alaska 12
years ago, and that he has done nature and wildlife photography
for 20 years and was an active hunter and fisherman prior to
that. He said HB 256 will promote yet more attempts to
artificially inflate moose and caribou populations beyond
accepted standards associated with sustained yield. It is known
that manipulating naturally occurring wildlife populations often
has undesirable, unintended consequences. Predator control in
Alaska has led to over browsed range, increased incidents of
disease, and boom-and-bust prey populations. He noted that the
conservation community has seriously different interpretations
of the proposed legislation. He acknowledged his great respect
for the Board of Game and the service it offers the state. He
related that biological concerns about Alaska's extreme predator
control programs are summarized in the National Research
Council's 1997 review. Additionally, concern has been expressed
by the American Society of Mammalogists in a recent letter to
the governor signed by 172 scientists, including Alaskans. "We
want our wildlife to be responsibly managed in accordance with
accepted scientific principals, and for the benefit of all
Alaskans - consumptive and non-consumptive users alike," he
stated. "Subsistence needs are important to Alaskans and best
met when ecosystems are managed for long term, sustainable prey
populations. The Board of Game must be required to consider the
best science available, and consider evidence that predator
control is sometimes ineffective, expensive, and unnecessary."
MR. TOPPENBERG reported that the courts agreed with
conservationists and ruled that the bounty program briefly put
in place was not within Alaska statutes. Additionally, he said,
there was an earlier extreme predator control program that did
not meet the Board of Game's own standards for procedures and
implementation and the courts agreed with conservationists in
that regard as well. He said HB 256 puts America's last great
wildlife Eden at risk and is a risk not worth taking.
2:16:39 PM
JOEL BENNETT, Alaskans for Wildlife, stated that he served on
the Board of Game for over 12 years and that he has been an
active licensed hunter for each of his 39 years in Alaska. He
noted that he is one of the main cosponsors of the [2008
Airborne Wolf Ballot] Initiative and that he was also the
organizer and sponsor of the 1996 and 2000 initiatives. Thus,
he has been involved with this issue, both on and off the Board
of Game, for over 30 years.
MR. BENNETT said he is not opposed to predator control, that he
supports it and believes a majority of Alaskans support it.
However, the critical issue is under what conditions people
support it and with what rules and what methods. "That is where
the whole dispute comes to rest," he said, "and that is really
the focus of HB 256 because each of the initiatives dealt
primarily with that exact statute, Section 8 that Kevin Saxby
outlined to you which is the Airborne Hunting Act." He pointed
out that language in the two previous initiatives and the third
initiative slated for August 2008 states that predator control
is permitted when there is a demonstrated biological emergency
and when carried out by Alaska Department of Fish and Game
personnel. All three initiatives also state that the programs
must be based on adequate scientific data and remove only the
minimum number of animals necessary to correct the specified
problem.
MR. BENNETT noted that the existing airborne hunting statute, AS
16.05.783, is already far more permissive than was the 1996
initiative. He said HB 256 would reduce that standard almost to
nothing in terms of when airborne predator control can occur.
Under today's law, a biological emergency does not need to be
found in order to conduct predator control, he said, but a
biological basis for a predator control program does need to be
found. If the problem cannot be identified - that it is wolves
or bears or something else - then how can the problem be solved,
he asked. A causal connection that predators are a problem must
be demonstrated; do not just do predator control because it is
conducive to raising harvest objectives.
2:22:29 PM
MR. BENNETT stated that HB 256 would remove the whole
underpinning of the Airborne Hunting Act statute, thus it is not
just a matter of making things simpler or eliminating confusion.
He said this is in the face of a National Academy of Sciences
report that found Alaska should include more data and scientific
support for its programs, not less. At the 2006 Wildlife
Society meeting in Anchorage, he related, scientists involved
with Alaska issues raised concerns over the scientific basis of
the state's control programs. He urged the committee to keep in
mind that wolves, brown bears, and black bears are big game
animals, not just predators to be eliminated.
MR. BENNETT charged that the obvious purpose of HB 256 is to
make it as easy as possible to authorize predator control
programs, it is not clarification or housekeeping. Why is it
even necessary, he asked, since the board has not had any
problem conducting predator control in the 60,000 square miles
of central Alaska that are currently specified for predator
control. He said Alaskans for Wildlife urges no legislative
action be taken to remove this most minimal requirement that
exists today in law. If predators are not the problem, they
should not be removed. By repealing the two statewide
initiatives the legislature has gone against the will of the
people repeatedly, and HB 256 further erodes public confidence.
2:26:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON cited his concern that using the word
"shall" in Sections 3 and 4 of the bill takes away the Board of
Game's authority for establishing a balance and dictates that
management be carried out in a particular way. He requested Mr.
Bennett's opinion as a former member of the Board of Game.
MR. BENNETT responded that Section 3 is absolutely appropriate
enabling legislation. The question of what is a high level of
human harvest is debatable. Alaskans for Wildlife does not
believe, for instance, that it should be based on a historical
population high, it should be a lesser level than that.
Regarding Section 4, he remembered that most enabling statutes
were written with "may" instead of "shall" because the board
must factor in numerous things to make a decision and "shall"
ties the board's hands. However, this is not the main crux of
what Alaskans for Wildlife is opposed to, he said. Rather, it
is the method, it is the airborne hunting statute that has
really formed the basis of the organization's position.
2:29:17 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether Mr. Bennett would be opposed to
using helicopters for hunting wolves.
MR. BENNETT said he would not be opposed as long as the
standards he outlined were met: if it is a biological
emergency, if it is done by ADF&G personnel, if it is based on
adequate data, and if it removes only the minimum number of
animals in the minimum size area. That would be a far more
humane way to do it than what is being done now from fixed wing,
he advised.
2:30:03 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether maintaining wolves below their
historical highs would be okay, given Mr. Bennett's statement
about maintaining game animals below historical highs.
MR. BENNETT replied that the key is historic populations of prey
animals because that is what the target goal is that is trying
to be achieved. He pointed out that there are no reliable
numbers as far as how many wolves are in the state. When he was
on the Board of Game, the number was always 4,000-7,000 wolves.
Now the number is said to be 7,000-11,000, a range of 4,000-
5,000. There are no up-to-date population surveys.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said it seems to him that the balance of an
ecosystem is not being considered, but rather that Alaskans for
Wildlife wants to balance it on the side of the predator.
2:32:22 PM
SCOTT OGAN, President, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW),
disclosed that he is a natural resource manager for the
Department of Natural Resources, but that he is testifying on
his own time under a leave slip and his testimony is strictly
his own. He noted that the country of Sweden harvests 100,000
moose a year through the management of habitat. Sweden does not
have a predator problem because it does not have any predators.
Alaska's habitat is vast and could support far more moose, he
said. Currently, about 7,000 moose are harvested annually in
Alaska.
MR. OGAN explained that Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife was
formed in Utah after that state announced it was going into
watchable wildlife because its wildlife populations were in
serious decline like they are in Alaska. The organization
succeeded in getting Utah's constitution amended to require a
two-thirds vote in order for any wildlife initiatives to pass.
Thus, he said, Utah's Division of Wildlife Resources is not
whipsawed back and forth every two to four years as is happening
in Alaska. He said it takes time to write the regulations after
an initiative and implement the policy. Then the legislature
comes back and changes the direction, resulting in another
period of implementation. Therefore, the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game spends its time implementing policy rather than
managing game in the field.
2:34:29 PM
MR. OGAN said he quit hunting in Game Management Unit 13 about
13 years ago because there was not a single calf in the moose
herd due to predation by wolves and bears. Coyotes are also a
serious problem, he opined, as one pair of coyotes will take 80
percent of the lambs of Dall sheep. If the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game was free to manage game instead of people, it would
be able to specifically focus on the calving and lambing areas
and target the individual problem predators that have learned to
exploit the young.
MR. OGAN disagreed with the previous speaker's statement that
raising harvest levels is no standard at all. He said people in
western Alaska are so concerned and desperate to feed their
families that they are talking about denning, [a killing method]
that is extreme both politically and in technique. He said his
organization does not have a hard position on the bill, but he
would like it known that there are other successful models. He
encouraged the committee to look at the Utah model and learn
about the phenomenal turn around of the species in that state.
In some cases populations were increased 150-500 percent by the
setting of management objectives for predator-prey relationship.
2:38:52 PM
JIM SAMPSON, Salcha River Property Owners, stated that his
organization is a group of Interior hunters who reside,
recreate, and hunt in the Salcha River drainage in Game
Management Unit 20B. He said he is limiting his remarks to how
HB 256 might affect the concerns of his group, although most
people in his group believe in a strong predator control
program. The Salcha River Property Owners are part of a growing
number of Interior hunters who are opposed to the liberal taking
of hundreds of moose cows and calves, specifically in Game
Management Units 20A and 20B. The Alaska Department of Fish &
Game is seeing a push back against its policy of overharvesting
these cows and calves. He related that hunters are split on
whether there should be an antlerless hunt. Cow hunts were
implemented in the Interior in 1975 and, as a result, AS
16.05.780 was passed to give Fish & Game Advisory Committees the
authority to weigh in on these hunts. He said he was told that
HB 256 will rescind this legislated authority of advisory
committees throughout the state and, if this is true, it is
troublesome. He said his organization is concerned about
transparency because members were initially told there was no
legislation planned to take this authority away and now they are
being told that HB 256 was introduced nine months ago and would
do just this. He asked the committee to find out whether HB 256
does in fact rescind the authorities of advisory committees to
oppose antlerless hunts, and if it does then that should be
stated more clearly in the legislation.
2:42:51 PM
ROBERT FITHIAN, Executive Director, Alaska Professional Hunters
Association (APHA), said he is a master guide who has hunted in
Western Alaska, the upper Kuskokwim country, and the Wrangell
Mountains. He said his organization supports HB 256 because it
represents a much needed change to the state's existing
intensive management law. Historically, ballot initiatives have
stripped the Alaska Department of Fish & Game of much of its
authority to effectively manage Alaska's wildlife for the best
interests of the whole and the state's constitutional mandates.
The loss sustained by the state by these initiatives is huge, he
said. They are the basis of significant problems: lack of
traditional food sources for Alaska residents, the substantial
rural/urban divide, the loss and lack of economic opportunity
for rural Alaska, the deterioration of the guide and transporter
industries, and the pitting of Alaskan against Alaskan for
declining wildlife resources. This situation is well
documented, he said, by comparing the decline in economic growth
and population in remote communities that are dependent on moose
and caribou populations with the timing of the initiatives.
MR. FITHIAN stated that Alaska currently has substantial regions
of low density equilibriums for moose, caribou, and sheep
populations where over 80 percent of the annual mortality is
from predation, 10 percent is from natural mortality such as old
age, starvation, and disease, and 4 percent is from human
harvest. This equation is unhealthy and trends opposite of
Alaska's constitutional mandates for sustained yield and maximum
benefit. He said the current intensive management law has
inherent failures that retard the effective ability of the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game to do its job and provide for
the best interests of the wildlife and people of the state. He
related that his organization's legal counsel, Bill Horn, has
reviewed HB 256 and supports the bill's content and its ability
to give the department the needed management authority without
the continued window of challenge. Since the existing intensive
management law has been in effect, he said, the nonresident
sportsman has lost opportunity to hunt on over 60 million acres
in Alaska that was there 20 years ago.
2:46:00 PM
[Co-Chair Gatto turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Johnson.]
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES requested the answer to Mr. Sampson's
question regarding whether HB 256 would remove the authority of
Fish and Game Advisory Committees to oppose antlerless hunts.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON replied that he wrote the question down and
would like to move through the public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said as long as the committee gets it on
the record.
2:47:53 PM
RICK STEINER disclosed that he is a professor at the University
of Alaska, but that his comments are his own. He endorsed the
testimony of the Defenders of Wildlife, the Alaska Wildlife
Alliance, and Joel Bennett [Alaskans for Wildlife]. He strongly
opposed HB 256 and urged that it die in committee because it is
a waste of time until the voters have their say on the
initiative in August 2008. The legislature could then choose to
revisit the issue next year. Giving the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game and the Board of Game specific mandates to conduct
aerial predator control is not the right thing to do. Alaska's
credibility regarding science and policy decisions for wildlife
management is seriously in question right now due to the state's
opposition to listing of the polar bear [as an endangered
species] as well as predator control. He said he does not find
transparency in how decisions are made by the state or the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
2:49:34 PM
DAVE LYON, Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, testified
that during the past 20 years he has been a commercial
fisherman, a sport fishing guide, and a big game guide, and that
he currently runs a water taxi business in Homer. My
organization's co-chair has been discussing HB 256 with the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game and the Department of Law since
last summer, he related. Numerous details are poorly conceived
and Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers opposes the bill as
currently written. It is important to make predator management
legally defensible, but the changes to existing intensive
management law in this bill have the potential to make the cure
worse that the disease. This bill would eliminate what the
Department of Law calls constrictive definitions, and includes
removal of biological definitions currently in statute such as
harvestable surplus, a defined term currently used to determine
when some predator control programs can take place. This is a
"catch 22", he opined, because constrictive definitions must be
removed in order to make predator control legally defensible,
but by doing so the floodgates are opened to a wide array of
possible scenarios that could be detrimental to sound wildlife
management and which could not be challenged in court by anyone.
MR. LYON maintained that HB 256 would remove mandates that the
Board of Game receive and fully consider input from ADF&G
biologists and managers regarding prudent wildlife management.
It would legalize aerial shooting of bears in intensive
management areas solely at the discretion of the Board of Game
and essentially give all authority on future predator management
decisions to the Board of Game. He said his organization
strongly supports science-based wildlife management that
operates on Alaska's constitutionally mandated sustained yield
principles. This bill fails to address important intensive
management concepts and definitions that would be left to the
discretion of the Board of Game, an appointed political body, to
define. The goal of Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is
to safeguard the future of hunting and fishing in the state by
insisting on strong, unbiased science to create management
strategies and definitions, he said. As written, HB 256 gives
too much authority to a political body that may or may not heed
the recommendations of trained wildlife management.
2:52:23 PM
TIM SCZAWINSKI spoke on his own behalf in opposition to HB 256.
He informed the committee that there is pending federal
legislation regarding aerial wolf hunting. Registered hunters
comprise 14 percent of Alaska's population, he said, thus he is
speaking on behalf of the overwhelming majority of the
population who has twice voted against aerial wolf hunting.
These resources belong to all Alaskans, and in some cases they
belong to all Americans. "Our voices are not really being
addressed when it comes to this harvesting issue," he said.
CHERI MURPHY testified on behalf of herself that she is
vehemently opposed to any aerial hunting of wolves and now HB
256 and SB 176 are adding bears and wolverines. These animals
are resources, not predators. She endorsed Mr. Banks and noted
that she twice voted against aerial wolf hunting. The voice of
the people is being ignored, she said.
2:55:28 PM
VAL GLOOSCHENKO stated that she has a master's degree in ecology
and has worked as a biologist for her entire career. She said
she currently works for a federal agency but that she has a
leave slip and is testifying on her own time. She supported the
stand of the majority of speakers and said they represent the
majority of Alaskans on this contentious issue. This bill would
open the door to greatly increase the killing of wolves, bears,
and wolverines statewide without the necessity or requirement to
consider scientific rational. She said she attended the 2006
Wildlife Society Meeting in Anchorage where there was vehement
discussion and criticism of the Alaska predator control program,
including testimony from former Alaska Department of Fish & Game
biologists.
MS. GLOOSCHENKO agreed with Mr. Bennett that HB 256 would reduce
the state's scientific standards to nothing. This is a sweeping
change, not housekeeping, she contended. It is a move away from
basic science and sound wildlife management to nothing - to
conducive. What is conducive, she asked. For the past several
years she has heard the same theme over and over again while
attending Board of Game meetings - there is not enough moose for
game in every pot. There is a limit, the state cannot have
excessively high standards. The guides themselves said there
has to be a limit, she related. A decision must be made on how
to keep Alaska free from the allegation that it is becoming a
game feedlot.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH requested witnesses to state whether
they oppose or support the bill.
MS. GLOOSCHENKO said she strongly opposes HB 256.
2:59:26 PM
MARY VAVRIK stated her high opposition to HB 256 as an Alaska
resident, voter, and citizen of the United States. The bill
would prevent any scientific oversight over the Board of Game
predator control program, she said. The system of checks and
balances in government should also apply to the Board of Game.
She understood the Board of Game's original mission to be
wildlife management for diversified users and to represent all
Alaskans. However, the Board of Game consistently favors
hunting and trapping above all other uses and values of wildlife
regardless of scientific evidence or public opinion to the
contrary. Alaska voters have twice voted against aerial killing
of wolves, she said, and adding brown bears and wolverines to
the slaughter is completely unacceptable. She said she did not
appreciate her hard earned tax dollars going toward the heinous,
unnecessary, expensive, and brutal massacre of innocent
wildlife. She urged the committee not to pass HB 256.
3:01:03 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON, in response to Representative Roses, said he
would not close public testimony and encouraged people to
testify at the next committee meeting.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON, in response to Representative Seaton, said the
intention is to bring back HB 256 on Friday [February 1, 2008]
for those wishing to testify.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH reminded the committee that a
roundtable had been scheduled for Friday.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON responded that the roundtable is important but
no more so than public testimony. He said public testimony may
be limited to those people signed up for today.
[HB 256 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|