02/08/2008 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB336 | |
| HB256 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 336 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 8, 2008
1:05 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 David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 336
"An Act directing the Alaska Energy Authority to conduct a study
of and to prepare a proposal for an appropriately sized Susitna
River hydroelectric power project; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 336(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
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."
- MOVED CSHB 256(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 336
SHORT TITLE: SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JOHNSON
01/22/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/08 (H) RES, FIN
01/28/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
01/28/08 (H) Heard & Held
01/28/08 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/06/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/06/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/06/08 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/08/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
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
01/30/08 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/08 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/04/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/04/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/04/08 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/08/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
BOYD BROWNFIELD, PE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 336, provided
information regarding the proposed Susitna Hydropower Project on
which he worked as an engineer during the 1970s and 1980s.
GREG ROCZICKA, Director
Natural Resource Program
Orutsaramiut Native Council
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 256.
VIC VANBALLENBERGHE, PhD
Biologist
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 256.
WADE WILLIS
Biologist
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 256.
ANDREA VEACH
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 256.
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 256.
KEN TAYLOR, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 256.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05:08 PM. Representatives
Wilson, Seaton, Roses, Guttenberg, Edgmon, Kawasaki, Gatto, and
Johnson were present at the call to order. Representative
Fairclough arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 336-SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
1:05:21 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 336, "An Act directing the Alaska Energy
Authority to conduct a study of and to prepare a proposal for an
appropriately sized Susitna River hydroelectric power project;
and providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON noted that the committee had expressed a desire
to talk to someone who had been involved with the 1984 Susitna
Hydropower Project and Mr. Boyd Brownfield is one such person.
1:06:48 PM
BOYD BROWNFIELD stated he was involved with the proposed Susitna
Hydropower Project ("Susitna Project"), along with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) process, from 1972-1976 when
he was the Deputy District Engineer for Alaska in the U.S. Army
Civil Works Program under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
When the project was transferred to the state of Alaska's
jurisdiction, he retired from the federal government to oversee
the project for the Alaska Power Authority from 1980-1985 or
1986.
MR. BROWNFIELD said he thinks the Susitna Project is as viable
today as it was before. It would be the economic engine to
provide power at a reasonable price not only for the Railbelt
area but other areas that rely on fossil fuel. He said he
believes the project would be in place now if the state had not
taken it over from the federal government. It faltered due to
cost issues, not environmental issues. It was a $5.2 billion
project in 1982 funds and the state decided it was too much to
start at that time. He recalled that the project could have
been built in steps and generating power incrementally to help
pay the costs as it was completed so that the whole $5.2 billion
would not have had to be spent all at one time. Hydropower is a
clean, renewable resource, he said, and Susitna is one of the
cleanest projects he has ever seen. Due to a natural blockage,
anadromous fish go up the river only as far as Portage Creek
which is before the site where the Devil's Canyon dam would be
built. He urged that the state get on with this project.
1:13:42 PM
MR. BROWNFIELD, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, explained that
Portage Creek is more the size of a river than a creek and is
about a mile before Devils Canyon. The gradient at Devils
Canyon is so steep and has so many blocks that the salmon cannot
go beyond that spot and instead go up Portage Creek to spawn in
the creek and in small lakes, depending on the salmon species.
In response to further questions from Co-Chair Gatto, Mr.
Brownfield said the Susitna River makes a sharp bend to the east
near Talkeetna and Devils Canyon is located about 4-5 miles
after that bend. Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated (CIRI) used to
own the land around Devil's Canyon and probably still does, he
related. Mr. Brownfield said the Susitna Project would take 10-
15 years to build and further study is still needed for some
features.
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether the Susitna Project would power
a different population area than would a gas line coming into
Southcentral Alaska.
MR. BROWNFIELD replied it would be the Railbelt area primarily.
1:17:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for Mr. Brownfield's opinion
regarding an appropriate size for the project.
MR. BROWNFIELD couched his response because it is based from 28
years ago. He said the project was sized at about 1600
megawatts, but more could have been squeezed out of it. Under
the federal project there was a four-dam system that included
the Devil's Canyon and Watona Dams along with two others, he
said. The state reduced the project to a two-dam system that
included Devils Canyon and Watona. Devil's Canyon does not have
the ability to hold enough water during the low water seasons
so, at the least, two dams are needed. He said the two-dam
system could produce 1600 megawatts and he recommends starting
the project with no less than that. The studies need to be
updated, but they are still valid, he added.
1:20:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether Mr. Brownfield had seen
the paper with the side-by-side comparison of the Susitna and
Chakachamna hydropower projects.
MR. BROWNFIELD answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON estimated that the 1985 construction cost
of $5.4 billion for the Susitna Project would probably be about
$60 billion today.
MR. BROWNFIELD said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON observed that the side-by-side comparison
states $1 billion is needed for new transmission lines to bring
power to load centers, but only 42 miles of transmission lines
would be required for the Chakachamna Project. She asked how
many miles of transmission lines would be needed for the Susitna
Project.
MR. BROWNFIELD responded that transmission lines are already in
place for the Susitna Project. That is one the project's
advantages because transmission lines stretching from Anchorage
to Fairbanks are already in use. In further response to
Representative Wilson, he said he believes the $1 billion is for
upgrading of the current lines. He noted that he was involved
in Chakachamna when it was a federal project and in Bradley Lake
which has been built. He said he was also involved in the
Rampart Dam, but even from the federal standpoint Rampart was
considered too large of a project for Alaska. He said there is
no question of the Susitna Project's viability as far as the
long range benefits for the Railbelt area and transmission lines
to villages that are paying a premium for fossil fuels.
1:23:04 PM
MR. BROWNFIELD, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, said he did not
know what the cost for the Susitna Project would be in today's
dollars.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON pointed out that the $1 million in HB 336 will
determine what the project will cost on an energy basis.
1:24:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked what appropriately sized means to
Mr. Brownfield in terms of the Railbelt grid and the river and
to take advantage of the most power.
MR. BROWNFIELD replied all those factors are important. Of huge
importance is how much can be gotten from that particular
topography and how many dams are needed behind it. The Railbelt
would be an area to be served because the transmission lines are
already there, along with outlying areas that are close enough
where transmission lines would not be too expensive. He said he
would start at 1600 megawatts and see where that leads.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether Mr. Brownfield is
considering this to be current needs or in 15 years when the
power is online.
MR. BROWNFIELD said any study must look at the future.
CO-CHAIR GATTO, in response to Representative Kawasaki, stated
that the side-by-side comparison of the Susitna and Chakachamna
Projects came from Jim Sykes [a member of the Working Advisory
Group to the legislatively-funded Alaska Energy Authority].
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether the side-by-side
comparison was correct in stating that the Susitna Project would
produce 6.5 billion kilowatts from two world class dams versus
1.6 billion kilowatts from one small diversion dam for the
Chakachamna Project.
MR. BROWNFIELD recalled that the two-dam system for the Susitna
Project was 1600 megawatts.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether it would be technically
possible to build one dam at a time for the Susitna Project.
MR. BROWNFIELD said yes, that was what was considered before so
that the project could be paid for incrementally by using income
from the power as it came online. A three-dam system could be
used if impoundment was found to be a problem, he added.
1:29:22 PM
MR. BROWNFIELD, in response to Representative Guttenberg, stated
that he worked on the Susitna Hydropower Project from about
1973-1976 when it was a federal project under the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and again when it was a state project from
about 1980-1985. In further response to Representative
Guttenberg, Mr. Brownfield said he did not stay intimately
involved in the project after 1985, although he has had many
conversations about it in general terms.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired about FERC's involvement
during the time of Mr. Brownfield's tenure with the project.
MR. BROWNFIELD responded that FERC was involved during both the
federal and state studies for the project. The FERC process was
well along, there was no outstanding showstopper, and the
project was viable, he recalled.
1:32:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI stated he has heard three different
reasons for why the Susitna Project failed: the price of gas,
not enough money in the state's budget at the time for a $5.4
billion project, and environmental concerns. He asked for Mr.
Brownfield's opinion on why the project did not go forward.
MR. BROWNFIELD replied that environmentally the Susitna Project
cannot be challenged. It is a clean project because there are
no issues with anadromous fish. Although there is the issue of
impoundment from behind the dam, every environmental issue is
solvable. He acknowledged there is a [geologic] fault, but that
"engineeringly" it can be solved. He noted that he was there
during the midst of the studies, but is unsure of the results.
He understood the project was stopped because the state did not
have enough money. He said he believes that was misleading,
however, because it could have been done in increments and paid
for itself as it was being built.
1:34:54 PM
MR. BROWNFIELD, in response to Representative Wilson, explained
that when Susitna was a federal project the plan was to have
three dams with a fourth dam to be built later. When the
project was transferred to the state, the plan was reduced to
two dams. With only two dams, the second impoundment - which
does not produce electricity - must be bigger because there must
always be enough water behind the turbines to produce power all
the time. For instance, Cook Inlet tidal power is viable, but
it is on-again/off-again because electricity cannot be produced
during certain times of the tide; resolving that loses some of
the top-end power that can be produced. He said future studies
can determine whether two or four dams are needed and those
studies can be based, to a large extent, on the studies that
have already been done.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether there is a danger in not
having enough water to fill the dam due to climate change if the
Susitna River is glacier fed.
MR. BROWNFIELD speculated the answer is no. While the river is
glacier fed and the glaciers are receding, he said he did not
think they would diminish to that point during the project's
lifetime. However, he allowed, this is a question that should
be looked at.
1:38:38 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked what the life of a dam would be given the
amount of silt in the Susitna River.
MR. BROWNFIELD said the life of a dam is related to where and
how it is built, and guessed it would probably be 40-50 years or
more for the Susitna Project.
CO-CHAIR GATTO expressed his concern that silt would cause
problems with the impellors. He surmised the first dam would
take out the silt and the second would produce the electricity.
MR. BROWNFIELD agreed with that assessment and that silt does
come down the Susitna River. He said silt was considered in the
studies he was involved in, but he does not remember the
results.
1:41:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated his hope that the $1 million study
under HB 336 will be able to determine a return on value
calculation with a time value of money analysis for the
generation of 1600 megawatts.
CO-CHAIR GATTO agreed.
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that public testimony was previously
closed; therefore he is disallowed from permitting public
testimony today because there was no notice. However, public
testimony will be taken in the next committee of referral, he
advised.
1:43:24 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to report HB 336, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected for discussion purposes. He
said he has made a lot of phone calls regarding numerous
proposed energy projects, such as Susitna, coal-to-gas, and
biomass. One concept that was discussed is that Alaska's oil
and gas are worth more to the state selling it to others when
alternate resources are more reasonable to Alaskans. Part of
that concept was that the Susitna Project not be too big,
resulting in Alaska having all its eggs in one basket. He noted
that there are other things going on in the state, one of which
is a Railbelt energy assessment. The Susitna Project needs to
be an option, he said, and should be re-examined. The people of
Alaska need to be given energy options so all of the state's
energy options are not in one basket.
CO-CHAIR GATTO agreed with the point that Alaska cannot sell its
hydropower out of state, but it can sell its oil.
1:47:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON urged that sight not be lost regarding the
balancing of cost, size, and usefulness, and that a 200-300
megawatt project be investigated as well as a 1600 megawatt
project. He noted that the side-by-side comparison says the
Chakachamna Project was shelved by the Alaska Power Authority in
1983 because it competed for the Susitna market. He expressed
his concern with projects not going forward because of
competition. He also expressed his concern with projects being
considered only on the basis of cheap power. There are other
considerations which could prevent something from moving
forward, such as mercury from coal. He supported HB 336.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG withdrew his objection.
There being no further objection, CSHB 336(RES) was reported
from the House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 256-ACTIVE GAME MANAGEMENT/AIRBORNE SHOOTING
1:50:09 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the next 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."
1:50:47 PM
GREG ROCZICKA, Director, Natural Resource Program, Orutsaramiut
Native Council, noted that he has 20 years of direct resource
management experience and served two terms on the Board of Game
starting in 1996. He was on the board that helped develop the
intensive management law. He said the board spent two years
addressing each moose population one-by-one throughout the state
to determine if it met the criteria. The board looked at all
the habitat issues and carrying capacity. The historical highs
were pared down so that the biological K-Factor was not
exceeded, he said. Out of the approximately 69 game management
units and subunits, there are 65 separately managed moose
populations and, of those, the board found 32 that met the
intensive management criteria. In 2000 and again in 2002, 18 of
those 32 populations were either declining, or in a state of
decline, or depressed.
MR. ROCZICKA said it seems that if the science agrees with a
certain organization's point of view it is good science, and if
it does not then it is bad science - what it boils down to is
political science. He has been to national and international
conferences and Alaska's professionals are highly regarded, he
related. He attended the Wildlife Society conference referenced
by previous speakers and agreed that [aerial predator control]
was a matter of great debate at the conference, but that it was
split down the middle. The Wildlife Society also has a paper
that says predator management is not appropriate for ballot
initiatives, he said.
MR. ROCZICKA submitted that HB 256 would return the balance that
was in place before the first initiative passed. Within five
years of the first initiative, he said, the averages dropped 60-
80 percent or more. Should Alaska's fisheries be managed the
same as the state's moose populations have been for the past 10
years, he asked. Right now, the state is getting nothing
equivalent to escapement. Only 6-10 calves are surviving from
birth to one year old, so there is no recruitment despite mild
weather and good habitat. Survival of 15-20 calves per year is
needed just to maintain a stable population. He urged that
Alaska's professionals be allowed to do their jobs.
1:56:57 PM
VIC VANBALLENBERGHE, PhD, said he started his career as a
biologist studying moose and wolves in 1967 and has continued
doing so for the last 34 years in Alaska. He served three terms
on the Board of Game - one term in the late 1980s, again in the
mid-1990s, and in the early 2000s. He said his comments will
pertain specifically to HB 256 and the problems he sees in the
bill. He was on the Board of Game before and after the
intensive management statute was passed. He was around during
the deliberations on that bill and in 1998 when there were
amendments and additions. He also recalls the deliberations
that went into the same-day airborne hunting law.
MR. VANBALLENBERGHE noted that the intensive management statute
contains very specific terms and conditions for when the Board
of Game can adopt intensive management programs and when it
cannot. The board must consider that a prey population has been
depleted or its productivity has been reduced, and the predator
control or intensive management programs must be feasibly
achievable using techniques that are recognized and prudent.
Those terms are all included specifically in the act, but those
standards would be deleted if HB 256 passes and that is a matter
of concern. One professional biologist organization has sent
three different letters of concern to Alaska's governors about
the state's predator control programs and the standards used by
the state to adopt, implement, and evaluate those programs.
2:01:34 PM
MR. VANBALLENBERGHE cautioned against deleting the things he has
enumerated by passing HB 256. Passing HB 256 would give the
Board of Game the authority to not consider whether a prey
population or its productivity is reduced, to conduct programs
that are not feasibly achievable, and to use techniques that are
not part of a game management program. The board would not have
to determine that predation is causing the problem and that
reducing predation would solve the problem. Those are serious
things to delete from the existing regulations, he said. The
board is given free rein. These regulations are replaced with
the statement that the board can adopt intensive management
predator control programs only if the board considers them to be
"conducive" to solving the problems and that is a very open-
ended statement. The most controversial programs in the state -
predator control programs - would be operating standard free.
2:03:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES surmised that Mr. Vanballenberghe opposes
HB 256 because it takes the science out of game management and
gives control to the Board of Game instead of the biologists
working in the field.
MR. VANBALLENBERGHE responded that HB 256 abolishes the process
that has been in place since the first intensive management
statute was passed in 1994. The bill abolishes the whole
framework of constraints on the board that require management to
be conducted in a reasonable and biologically acceptable manner.
He said the ability to adopt programs that the board deems
conducive to meeting the objectives is a standardless way to
operate. While biologists may have disagreements, they are in
agreement that it is necessary to have standards in place.
CO-CHAIR GATTO said he has a graduate degree in biology and he
disagrees with Mr. Vanballenberghe on several points.
2:05:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether it is possible that using
scientifically-based methods can take too long to determine the
problem and result in season closures that must last for many
years. She surmised that whoever wrote the bill thinks a
scientifically-based method takes too long.
MR. VANBALLENBERGHE replied that two different things are being
talked about here. He said he is talking about constraints on
the Board of Game for adopting predator control programs as part
of intensive or active management. For example, Section 8, page
4, deletes the following constraints: the requirement that
predator control be conducted as part of a game management plan,
the requirement that decisions be based on information provided
by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, the requirement that it
be determined that predation is preventing a moose or caribou
population from increasing, and the requirement that there is
reasonable expectation that predator control will work. He said
the point he is raising is that this process of requirements is
being deleted and replaced with the broad statement that the
board can do predator control simply if the board thinks it is
conducive. In regard to the different point being raised by
Representative Wilson, he said there are some areas where there
is adequate biological information to proceed and other areas
where there is not, and in those areas it will take time to
gather the data to determine whether predation is the problem.
CO-CHAIR GATTO stated that, typically, field biologists collect
the data and present their findings and conclusions to their
supervisor or the Board of Game. The board then makes a
decision based on what several biologists say. The board is the
one empowered to make the decision. He said he trusts that the
board will make its decisions based on the information received
from the field.
2:09:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said "conducive to achieving" is a
standard with no sideboards. He asked whether parameters would
be given by replacement language that states, "can reasonably be
expected to aid in the achievement of".
MR. VANBALLENBERGHE answered that, at a minimum, he would
recommend retention of the clause being deleted under Section 8
[beginning on page 4, line 21].
2:11:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired what Mr. Vanballenberghe
thought the Board of Game will do if the science is taken out.
MR. VANBALLENBERGHE responded that if the bill passes as
written, the board has free rein. He recently attended a Board
of Game meeting in which the board members agreed that local
input can in some cases supersede everything else, he said. To
him that means local fish and game advisory committees can ask
for predator control programs and intensive management actions
and the board will proceed.
2:12:49 PM
WADE WILLIS, a former state wildlife biologist, rebutted
statements made by Co-Chair Gatto, Mr. Rod Arno, and the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game that regulations requiring science-
based predator control are unnecessary. However, nobody says
why the science-based parameters should be removed from the
regulatory process and replaced by nonbinding promises. "When
57,000 Alaska residents sign a petition to put aerial predator
control back on the ballot for the third time, the legislature
should have an overwhelming respect for the citizens' intent,"
he said. Rather than bringing the people of Alaska to the
table, HB 256 overrides the will of the majority by the will of
a few. This committee should do the right thing and send a
clear message to the Board of Game, the ADF&G, the legislature,
and the governor that the time has come when all Alaskan's will
be allowed to participate in the management of our state's
wildlife resources. The state constitution requires the Board
of Game and ADF&G to manage predators and prey for all user
groups. The largest user group is wildlife watchers, and nobody
talks about their rights and needs. In the last initiative,
this user group voted that it could deal with predator control
if it is run by ADF&G, especially if it is science based.
Hunters' rights cannot be protected if nonhunters are excluded
from the process, Mr. Willis said. State-run predator control
programs would provide the transparency the citizens require for
such a drastic wildlife management technique. Why would the
legislature prefer HB 256 to such a win-win proposition, he
asked.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES commented that signing an initiative does
not equate to all of those people voting for or against the
bill. He said he has signed ballot initiatives simply because
he felt state residents should have the opportunity to vote on
it, and that signing the initiative did not mean he necessarily
supported the stance taken by the initiative.
2:17:35 PM
ANDREA VEACH disclosed that she is a secretary for the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, but that her
testimony is unrelated to her employment and is her personal
opinion. She stated:
As you know, Alaskans have twice voted - in 1996 and
2000 - against the airborne shooting of wolves by the
public. Both times, putting this issue on the ballot
required the labor intensive gathering of thousands of
signatures. Despite the clarity of the voters on this
issue, the state legislature and the Board of Game
have disregarded the ... Alaskan voters, as did the
trophy hunter, Governor Murkowski, and now Governor
Palin. Governor Palin's position on this subject does
not give much credence to her frequently stated wish
to represent the will of Alaskans and respect their
input. Native subsistence hunters did not
traditionally depend on airborne elimination of their
competition to gain an advantage. Why is that
necessary now? I suggest that if something has
changed it is ... that there are more hunters
expecting a bounty a cold harsh land cannot naturally
provide. Historically, the predator most dangerous to
the environment and the balance of nature is not
wolves and bears, it is man. Management is needed,
but it is man that needs to be managed, not the wolves
and bears. The human population is now 6.5 billion
and is projected to be 9.3 billion by 2050. Wolves
and bears around the world can be counted in the
thousands. These numbers alone should tell the story
of what species needs to have its population
controlled. ... As their name suggests, the Board of
Game views animals as solely something to be killed
for human consumption. Many Alaskans, and certainly
many people from Outside and other countries, do not
view animals as something just to kill and consume.
We need a broader view, such as a Board of Wildlife to
mitigate this single narrow view of the use of other
species. ... Please stop the cruel airborne shooting
of wolves and bears and any other animals.
2:21:21 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO surmised that Ms. Veach's point of view is that
wildlife viewing has been given the short end of the stick and
has not been sufficiently considered.
MS. VEACH responded, "Absolutely."
CO-CHAIR GATTO related that he no longer sees the same number of
moose that he used to see in prior years and wants this to
change. [Predator] control is aimed at restoring the more
natural number of moose, he said. There are no statistics
showing that hunters are responsible for the greatest decline in
moose, he said. The bill is attempting to set up some standards
to deal with predation when it is believed that is the problem.
In those cases where this assumption is subsequently found to be
wrong, wolves have a high reproductive rate and moose do not.
When no moose calves are being seen, should this not be
addressed, he asked.
MS. VEACH replied that the larger picture should be looked at.
These animals need habitat so they can balance themselves and
let nature take its course. Humans are overwhelming in numbers
and in the need to hunt and in taking over the habitat. She is
not opposed to subsistence hunting, but this should be done
without the aid of shooting the competition from airplanes.
Rural Native subsistence hunters should have priority over urban
[hunters], she said.
CO-CHAIR GATTO closed public testimony after ascertaining that
no one else wished to speak.
2:25:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment
1, labeled 25-GH1076\A.1, Kane, 2/5/08, written as follows:
Page 4, line 17:
Delete "would be conducive to achieving"
Insert "can reasonably be expected to aid in the
achievement of"
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the purpose of Amendment 1 is to
prevent the unintended consequence of moving from a standard to
a standard without much definition. He does not think anyone
would be able to say what "conducive to achieving" is, so the
amendment reinstates a portion of the language deleted from page
4, line 28.
2:28:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI stated he, too, does not know what to
think of the word conducive, but he thinks the amendment is
unclear also. Additionally, there are other places in the bill
where the word conducive is found. He requested the Department
of Law to comment on the word conducive.
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether there could be a situation where
conducive would be inadequate and Amendment 1 would be superior.
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural
Resources Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), answered that since conducive is not defined in statute,
the ordinary dictionary definition of conducive would apply when
interpreting this law. He noted that the word conducive is used
on both line 17 and line 19 [page 4]. Eliminating the word in
one place and not the other will beg the question of whether the
words are to be viewed as different standards and whether there
is intention to have a different standard on line 19. He said
he thinks the words being deleted are a more simplified way of
saying the words that would be inserted. In further response to
Co-Chair Gatto, Mr. Saxby confirmed that he does not think the
difference in language is relevant.
2:31:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she does not have a problem with what
the bill wants to do, except she is leery about removing the
language regarding scientific data. What would happen if
science was taken out of fish management, she asked. She
suggested that scientific-based management be retained and that
the other parts of the bill remain the same. She said she did
not think the amendment quite reaches this.
CO-CHAIR GATTO responded that what is being asked for is a
second subject and an amendment can be taken in that regard
after Representative Seaton's first three amendments are
considered.
2:33:42 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON agreed there is not much difference between the
current and proposed language. He asked whether the language in
Amendment 1 would apply to all the places in the bill where the
word conducive appears.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied yes.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON maintained his objection to Amendment 1 for
purposes of discussion.
2:34:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said it appears to him that Amendment 1 is
softer language and adds more words when one of the purposes of
the bill is to make the language simpler.
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether Mr. Ken Taylor, as an ADF&G
employee charged with enforcing the laws, believes the amendment
substantively changes the content of the original language.
KEN TAYLOR, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), answered no.
2:36:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES agreed Amendment 1 would not substantively
change what is trying to be accomplished, but said he thinks
conducive has a higher standard of proof than does reasonable
expectation. He therefore opposed the amendment because it
would lower the standard of expectation.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON added that he shares this same concern because
reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. He inquired whether
the type of change in Amendment 1 would affect any action that
may or may not be before the courts.
MR. SAXBY responded that he cannot predict what a court would
do, but he can say that if HB 256 is adopted, the language of
the bill would definitely be relevant to the court on some of
the issues that it is considering. The state would be obligated
to inform the court as quickly as possible of whatever new
language applied.
2:39:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he thinks there is a different
standard between conducive and reasonable expectation, and that
conducive is no standard at all. Although conducive could be
defined in statute to mean that it is reasonably expected to
accomplish the goal, it seems it is better to change the words
[in the bill] to what is currently in the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON agreed. Reasonable means it would be
something that someone else with the same facts would do.
Conducive does not have to have the facts, it only needs to
maybe point in that direction.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said it is reasonable that the
committee discuss aerial wolf hunting and conducive to let the
House Judiciary Standing Committee decide on the appropriate
language.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wilson, Seaton,
Guttenberg, and Kawasaki voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representatives Roses, Edgmon, Fairclough, Johnson, and Gatto
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed adoption by a
vote of 4-5.
2:43:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment
2, labeled 25-GH1076\A.2, Kane, 2/5/08, written as follows:
Page 2, line 23, following "programs.":
Insert "However, nothing in (e) of this section
or this subsection requires the board to establish
that human harvest is the only beneficial use of
moose, caribou, and deer populations or precludes the
board from establishing specific areas exclusively for
other beneficial uses of moose, caribou, and deer
populations."
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected for the purpose of providing time to
read the amendment.
2:43:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the purpose of Amendment 2
is to ensure the Board of Game knows that management of an
area's ungulate population does not have to be the sole
consideration. This would preclude the unintended consequence
of the board interpreting that an area must be used for
intensive management. For example, the board could establish a
bear viewing area.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON maintained his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH requested an interpretation of
Amendment 2 from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
MR. TAYLOR replied, "The intensive management bill has never
precluded the board from establishing viewing areas, and I'm not
certain that the amendment would be necessary." He deferred to
Mr. Saxby for a legal interpretation.
MR. SAXBY agreed the language is superfluous, but that it could
be adopted. The way current law reads and the way it would read
under the bill, "there is no requirement that the board must
establish human harvest as the only beneficial use and ... there
is nothing that precludes the board from establishing specific
areas exclusively for other beneficial uses, ... and the board
has done so in a number of places."
2:48:26 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether Mr. Saxby objected to Amendment
2 or thought it would hurt anything by being in the bill.
MR. SAXBY said the amendment does not hurt anything, but the
charge was to simplify this law and a good legislative drafter
provides the minimum amount of language necessary. However, it
will not matter one way or the other in the long run.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked what findings are necessary to
establish beneficial uses other than predator control.
MR. TAYLOR responded the findings might be that a given area
should be set aside for, say, viewing waterfowl. For instance,
the [Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge] is divided into
different areas and hunting is disallowed in Potter Marsh where
viewing is the highest priority. Another example is the Cooper
Landing area where there is sheep viewing and no hunting.
2:51:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON supported Amendment 2 because she
interprets the bill, as written, to require the board to manage
for human harvest.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON agreed with the intent of Amendment 2, but
said he interprets the bill, as written, as already providing
the amendment's intent. In response to Co-Chair Gatto, he
confirmed he is saying that the process of identifying areas
also means identifying areas for not doing something.
2:53:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON argued that the problem is nowhere in the
bill does it say that the Board of Game can balance, it says the
board shall. If someone comes to the Board of Game and says an
area is important for moose, deer, or caribou, then under HB 256
the statute would say that the board shall do this and shall
establish the objectives for human harvest and shall adopt the
regulations to achieve that. The purpose of Amendment 2 is to
ensure that by statute there is no unintended consequence of
taking flexibility away from the Board of Game - that the board
is not mandated to follow the aforementioned procedure and can
choose not to take that action.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he objects to Amendment 2 because it does
not do much and simplicity in law is important. However,
because the amendment adds to the comfort level of some
committee members, he withdrew his objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
2:54:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment
3, labeled 25-GH1076\A.3, Kane, 2/8/08, written as follows:
Page 4, line 16, following "that":
Insert "objectives set by the board for the
moose, caribou, or deer population identified under
16.05.255(e) have not been achieved, that predation is
an important cause for the failure to achieve the
objectives, and that"
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that Amendment 3 returns the
standard of having to determine that predation is an important
cause of the failure to achieve the objectives. Instead of a
general idea that a predator should be eliminated, it gets back
to a reasonable standard.
2:56:10 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON requested a definition of the word important
and asked whether using the word important would open the door
to legal challenges because of different interpretations as to
what is important.
MR. SAXBY related that in those areas where the state is
currently engaged in predator control, it is being argued as to
whether it is an important enough cause or it is a cause. Co-
Chair Johnson is correct in that the more adjectives the more
room for argument.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kawasaki, Seaton,
and Guttenberg voted in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives
Fairclough, Wilson, Roses, Edgmon, Gatto, and Johnson voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed adoption by a vote of
3-6.
2:58:40 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO moved that the committee adopt Amendment 4 as
follows:
Page 5, line 9:
Delete "an employee"
Insert "a person"
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH objected. She asked what the change
would do from a legal perspective in terms of workmen's
compensation and other issues that surround employment versus a
person that is not employed by the department.
MR. SAXBY specified:
It will be a person who is authorized under powers and
duties in AS 16.05.050 to take wolves, wolverine, or
brown bears other than just an employee who is
authorized under those duties. There are certain
instances where the [Alaska Department of Fish & Game]
issues permits to private individuals to control
nuisance animals for example. In fact, the
legislature passed a bill on that just within the last
two or three years setting up that program. So, [the
department] would have some private individuals who
would be authorized under that statute that is
referenced there [AS 16.05.050] to go out and take
game and they would be able to do so on the same-day
airborne, they would not have to necessarily be an
employee of the department.
3:00:35 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO understood that "a person" would include an
employee of the department.
MR. SAXBY replied yes, or someone that the department hires to
do its work for it.
MR. SAXBY, in response to Representative Kawasaki, stated that
"a person" would include a contracted individual. "An employee"
would be a much narrower category.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI understood that a person deputized under
AS 16.05.050 would not be considered an employee.
MR. SAXBY stated correct.
3:01:30 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said the definition of "a person" in Alaska
statute is everything but a government entity. He asked whether
it is needed to identify this as an individual or could it be a
corporation. He also inquired whether the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game supports Amendment 4.
MR. TAYLOR responded there are different statutes here that are
dealing with different parts of intensive management. He said
AS 16.05.783 is the statute that addresses same-day airborne
hunting and, in many respects, this statute parallels the
federal airborne hunting act. Because the bill was carefully
drafted, he said he is reluctant to support an amendment without
careful review of what changing "an employee" to "a person"
actually does. He requested Mr. Saxby's opinion.
3:02:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES inquired whether the term "an employee or
an agent" would accomplish the same objective. "Does it have to
be authorized to do it," he asked.
CO-CHAIR GATTO said he prefers an appointment. He asked Mr.
Saxby to address the difference between "an employee" and "a
person" because an employee would be included in a person.
MR. SAXBY stated "a person" is the broader term of the
categories that have been discussed. "An employee or agent"
would be a subset of that and "an employee" would be the
smallest subset. He said he thinks "a person" would be
interpreted exactly the same way that it is interpreted under
Section 9(b)(1) on page 5, line 7. A hunting or trapping
license is required for taking game in Alaska and a corporation
cannot obtain a hunting or trapping license. Therefore, he does
not think there is a risk of opening this up too much by using
"a person" in this instance. In further response to Co-Chair
Gatto, Mr. Saxby agreed that "a person" keeps things more
simple. However, in his opinion, it opens up the exception in
Section 9(b)(2) to a slightly broader category of people, many
of whom probably should be authorized to take game on the same-
day airborne, and this may be something that was overlooked.
For example, there are people who are not ADF&G employees, such
as public safety officers, who are authorized to go out to
remote villages and take nuisance animals or to shoot animals
for public safety reasons.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH noted she is more comfortable with "an
agent" than "a person" because of the breadth of the
implication. However, to be conciliatory, she withdrew her
objection to Amendment 4.
There being no further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
3:05:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG moved that the committee adopt
Conceptual Amendment 5 as follows:
Delete the eliminated language on page 4, line 21,
through page 5, line 4, and reinsert the language.
CO-CHAIR GATTO objected.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said he just wanted it on the record
that someone tried. He withdrew his amendment.
3:06:50 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to report HB 256, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related that he submitted several
questions to the Alaska Department of Fish & Game and one of
those questions dealt with the inclusion of bears in HB 256.
Currently bears are "not on the exception" and the Board of Game
could have a same-day airborne hunt for bears outside of a
predator control program. By including them in HB 256, the
Board of Game can only have a same-day hunt for brown bears
under a predator control program. Since brown bears are a big
game species in Alaska and the basis of a highly valued
industry, he said he hopes the board will not be looking at
engaging in a predator control program for brown bears versus
loosening some of the tag limits.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said he objects to HB 256 because it
is anything but a cleanup measure - unless the result of not
requiring scientific evaluation is a cleanup measure. Also,
ongoing legal issues have been skirted and the public has twice
spoken loudly about predator control. Overturning ballot
initiatives concerns him, he said. The bill takes the ability
of groups to stop the state from doing predator control and the
validation for that is that HB 256 takes the science out. He
said he does not think the courts will accept the position that
science is not required for justification of the predator
control program.
3:10:58 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO stated that sometimes the public votes and does
not get its way, the capital move being an example.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wilson, Fairclough,
Roses, Seaton, Edgmon, Kawasaki, Johnson, and Gatto voted in
favor of HB 256, as amended. Representative Guttenberg voted
against it. Therefore, CSHB 256(RES) was reported out of the
House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 8-1.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|