Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/12/1996 03:36 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
February 12, 1996
3:36 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman, Chairman
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chairman
Senator Steve Frank
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Rick Halford
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 262
"An Act relating to management of game populations for maximum
sustained yield for human harvest and providing for the replacement
of areas closed to consumptive uses of game; relating to management
of fish and game areas; and amending Rules 79(b) and 82(b)(2),
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
SENATE BILL NO. 230
"An Act providing that state land, water, and land and water may
not be classified so as to preclude or restrict traditional means
of access for traditional recreational uses."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 262 - No previous action to record.
SB 230 - No previous action to consider.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Mike Miller
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 262.
Mr. Lynn Levengood
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association
931 Vide Way
Fairbanks, AK 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 262.
Mr. Wayne Regelin, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 262.
Mary Gore, Legislative Aide
Senator Mike Miller
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 262.
Bill Hagar
432 Gaffney Rd.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 262.
Mick Manns
Paradise Valley
Bettles, AK 99703
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 262.
Pete Shepherd
1012 Galena St.
Fairbanks, AK 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 262.
Tom Scarborough
1676 Taroka Dr.
Fairbanks, AK 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 262.
Mike Tinker
458 Alpha Way
Ester, AK 99725
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 262.
George Yaska
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 1st. Ave.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 262.
Chuck Johnson, President
Era Aviation, Inc.
6101 S. Air Park Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230.
Ron Swanson, Deputy Director
Division of Lands
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Ste 1122
Anchorage, AK 99503-5947
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 230.
Jim Stratton, Director
Division of Parks
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C St., Ste. 1200
Anchorage, AK 99503-5921
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 230.
Noel Woods
Matanuska Valley Sportsmen
P.O. Box 827
Palmer, AK 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230.
Roy Burkhart, Legislative Affairs Officer
Alaska Boaters Association
P.O. Box 204
Willow, AK 99688
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230.
Steve Morgheim, Executive Director
Alaska Marine Dealer's Association
2440 E. Tudor
Anchorage, AK 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230.
Jana Littlewood, Vice President
Anchorage Snowmobile Club
414 E. 23rd
Anchorage, AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230.
Randy Crosby
3300 Wesleyan Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230.
Ken Rivard
Alaska Airman's Association
Mat-Su Airman's Association
P.O. Box 871842
Wasilla, AK 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230.
Leonard Haire
P.O. Box 879030
Wasilla, AK 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230.
George Piaskowski
Alaska Boating Association
1836 Scenic Way #2
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Faxed his comments on SB 230 to the Committee.
Cliff Eames
Alaska Center for the Environment
519 W 8th, #201
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 230.
Ken Baehr
Tope Equipment
6720 Arctic Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99518
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230.
Carl Portman, Director
Resource Development Council
121 W. Fireweed
Anchorage, AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230.
Rod Arno, President
Alaska Outdoor Council
P.O. Box 871410
Wasilla, AK 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 230.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-13, SIDE A
Number 001
SRES 2/12/96
SB 262 MANAGEMENT OF FISH/GAME POPULATION & AREA
CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:36 p.m. and announced SB 262 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR MILLER, sponsor of SB 262, said the intent of the bill is
basically for any acre that comes out of hunting for no good
biological reason at the next Board meeting that five acres of land
not already open to hunting replace it.
Now, if there are good biological reasons for shutting land down,
additional lands do not have to be put back into hunting.
MR. LYNN LEVENGOOD, Fairbanks attorney representing Alaska Wildlife
Conservation Association, said that Alaska consumptive users have
lost nearly the size of the state of Wyoming in one form or
another. The most recent and alarming trend has happened in 1995
when the Board of Game restricted land for harvest without any
biological reason. The most notable was restricting over 200
square miles on the Alaska Peninsula from bear hunting. Recently
the Board of Game closed 90 square miles in the Mat-Su Valley to
hunting by rifles without biological reasons.
Number 134
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked Mr. Levengood for the work he had done on
this legislation.
MR. WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
said that SB 262 would modify several existing statutes related to
hunting and fishing in Alaska. The first section would mandate
that game populations be managed solely for maximum sustained yield
for human harvest and that defines consumptive use as the highest
and best use of game. It would mandate that if the Board of Game
closes an area or restricts hunting in an area in any way, it must
open a similar area at least five times larger than that area which
is closed. This provision has some major implications for the
State subsistence law. If areas are moved into a Tier II or a Tier
I hunt by the Board of Game to protect subsistence uses, other
areas would be required to be opened before such restriction could
be continued. In most cases such areas wouldn't be available, so
the restrictions would probably have to go away or couldn't occur
in the first place.
The Board of Game would have serious difficulty in closing any
season in any area under the provisions in section 1 of this bill.
Each temporary closure due to a biological emergency would be
subject to litigation as provided for by paragraphs (c) and (d) in
this section. It doesn't specify they can be closed for biological
reasons, it just says flat that you can't.
Section 2 of SB 262 would outlaw restrictions on public access to
any refuge, sanctuary, or special management area, and would
provide for civil actions against public officials who allow
restrictions to occur. It would also restrict the use of revenue
from federal aid and licenses to certain programs.
Sections 3 - 7 would modify statutes to guarantee access to
refuges, sanctuaries, and critical habitat areas, for sport
fishing, hunting, and trapping consistent with the maximum
sustained yield. The Department has real concerns with this for a
number of reasons. It would be impossible for them to manage any
of Alaska's wildlife populations consistent with the definition of
harvestable surplus, high levels of human harvest, and maximum
sustained yield as provided in section 1.
The most intensively harvested wildlife populations in the world
can't meet these requirements. The three definitions all tie
together and would require reducing predators to extremely low
levels so that we could have more human harvest. There is no doubt
if we reduce predators we could have human harvest, but in their
judgment they would never be able to supply one third or more of
the harvestable surplus as defined in this bill even where there's
no predation.
MR. REGELIN said even in Sweden they can't reach that level. They
harvest about 30 percent of their moose each year. They have no
predators and almost no winter loss, but 50 percent of the harvest
they take is of calves that are four months old. Twenty-five
percent is cows. He didn't know if we wanted to do that in Alaska,
but he thought we couldn't achieve the same situation in the type
of eco-system that we have.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked for the number of moose harvested in Sweden.
MR. REGELIN replied that they are taking over 100,000 moose per
year in Sweden.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked why Sweden, a tiny country, can harvest
100,000 moose every year. MR. REGELIN said that Sweden has about
400,000 moose and they are about one fifth the size of Alaska.
Their forest management practices have allowed moose populations to
increase to very high levels. They have intensive forestry on 160
acre blocks which they manage for moose. The big difference is
that they don't have winters that kill animals and they don't have
very many predators - one pack of wolves in northern Sweden and
very few bears. The tree species they manage for is lodge pole pine
which moose can eat. Here moose can't eat spruce. So weather and
food resource are the real differences.
Number 240
MR. REGELIN said paragraph 3 (b) is very vague. Most wildlife
populations in Alaska are subject to federal subsistence management
that is not recognized by State law. A strict interpretation of
this paragraph would prohibit expenditure of fish and game funds or
federal aid funds for management of all of these populations.
Further, it would disallow intensive management in an area like the
Nelchina Basin where the Nelchina caribou herd is subject to rural
preference under the federal law. He didn't feel that this law
would be workable.
MR. REGELIN emphasized that the word has been spread that the
harvest of wildlife in Alaska is way down. That's just not true if
you look at the record. For instance, 20 years ago 3,000 moose
were harvested in Alaska; last year 7,300 were harvested. We used
to harvest about 5,000 caribou; last year we harvested over 30,000.
Harvest statistics for Fairbanks are higher today than 20 years
ago, nearly double.
He said a bill like this would do a lot of damage to Alaska in the
long run. Twenty years ago very few people were interested in
wildlife management, basically just hunters. Today lots of people
are interested in how we manage wildlife, are demanding services,
and want a place at the table when decisions are made. It is
happening throughout the nation. Hunters are not the only ones who
own the wildlife. It belongs to all the people of Alaska and we
have to be good stewards of this resource. Saying the only and
best use of wildlife is human consumptive use in the long term will
be really damaging to hunters, because he didn't think we could
hold that position.
MR. REGELIN said over 95 percent of their budget is directly
related to maintaining and enhancing hunting opportunity. We also
have to provide benefits to the other people who like to view
wildlife. If those people are shut out of the equation, they won't
stand for it. And they are the majority.
Number 300
SENATOR TAYLOR said the only portion left of the Department of Fish
and Game budget that comes out of the general fund is the
commercial fisheries budget. The rest are federal pass-through
monies and State monies from license fees paid for by hunters, from
taxes paid by people who purchase guns, fishing poles, lures, etc.
He asked what amount of funding they were receiving from these
"other groups of people who want to sit at the table."
MR. REGELIN replied that right now we are not receiving anything
from them. They are working hard on getting some federal
legislation with matching funds from the State so that non-
consumptive users can pay their own way. He said there is no doubt
that hunters have been paying their own way for years. Because of
the dollars they have contributed there is very good wildlife
management. They spend $620,000 of the ADF&G budget on all of the
non-consumptive use programs, including wildlife education (Project
Wild), work on endangered species, and about $350,000 on wildlife
viewing programs.
He said there is no doubt that the primary use of the fish and game
fund and license fees has to primarily benefit hunting and fishing,
and trapping. The Department does that. He emphasized that the
Department uses four and a half percent of the budget to have a
balanced program, so that when non-hunters see a controversial
program, they don't turn against us. With legislation like this he
was afraid non-hunters, about 60 percent of Alaska, would turn into
anti-hunters.
Number 331
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how many moose the people in Sweden harvested
twenty years ago. He asked if they had significantly enhanced
availability of moose to hunt, wouldn't they be enhancing the
numbers of moose to view as well? He asked what recommendations he
could make to avoid conflicts with subsistence users who should be
the primary benefiters of this legislation.
MR. REGELIN replied that the situation in Sweden is a completely
different eco-system which Alaska will never match. In Alaska
where they were able to manage most intensively there were almost
four moose per square mile, although that level cannot be held for
very long. Prescribed fires are difficult because State, federal,
and private lands are all together in most places and mechanical
manipulation is very costly.
Predation management in Alaska, wolf control, has been very
controversial for years. It's not going to change; it's an issue
that affects not just game management and the Division of Wildlife
Conservation; it affects the entire State of Alaska. Because of
this, decisions on whether or not to implement predator management
programs have been made by the Governor. The last four governors
have been involved in those decisions. The Department tries to
have the information ready to follow the law that says what
information has to be collected, so the Board can make those
decisions. These decisions are going to be made in the political
branch, not the Division of Wildlife.
Number 388
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what amount of money his department has
requested for predator control. MR. REGELIN replied that they have
asked for no funding. They are waiting for a review by the
National Academy of Sciences and then the Governor will make a
decision on whether or not to proceed.
SENATOR HOFFMAN commented regarding page 3, section 3 (b) we would
be inviting the federal government to come in and manage the
resources the State would be prohibited from managing and the
people of Alaska want to go in the other direction.
MR. REGELIN agreed that the way the bill is structured it would
prohibit the Department from spending any money in an area where
the federal government has implemented its system of management.
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned where the funding for his department
comes from. MR. REGELIN explained that the only sources of funding
are from the fish and game fund and license fees. Every one needs
to have a State hunting license, whether they are hunting on State,
private, or federal land.
Number 428
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked which areas of the State and specific
populations were not managed for consumptive uses. MR. REGELIN
replied that Round Island is now open to hunting through a special
agreement with the local Native residents of that area and in the
10 years he has worked for the Board of Game, two areas have been
closed to hunting. One is Pack Creek and the other is the McNeil
River Refuge. In the past they had harvested up to three bears per
year at McNeil River and there is no problem with the population of
bears in that area. The Board of Game heard that issue and as a
Department they made an unprecedented request to the Board to close
an area when there was no biological need. The reason is simply
because this area had become an issue on the international and
national stage. Hunting at McNeil was on TV night after night
across the nation with Dan Rather making it look like people were
harvesting bears at McNeil Falls while people were watching them.
This was totally untrue, but that was the perception. It was
turning non-hunters across the nation into anti-hunters. For three
bears a year it was a tremendous way for anti-hunting groups to
raise money. When he sees something that detrimental to the image
of hunters, he felt it was a fight we couldn't win. He said he
hates to see areas closed to hunting and his Department fights hard
to enhance hunting opportunity.
Number 468
SENATOR LINCOLN stated she would ask just two of her questions in
deference to the many people that wanted to testify on this issue.
She asked MARY GORE, Senator Miller's Legislative Aide, if SB 262
is a replacement for a subsistence bill. MS. GORE said Senator
Miller would have to answer that question.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Regelin if he read this bill as a
subsistence bill or if it has an affect on subsistence or rural
preference.
MR. REGELIN answered that he didn't think this bill had anything to
do with rural preference or the subsistence issue, but it does
affect it because of the way the law is structured. It would
affect how they would continue to spend money on populations that
are only used for subsistence purposes.
Number 518
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that that concern is handled on page 3,
paragraph 3 where it says specifically that if they are going to
use revenue that has been generated from taxes, license fees, and
other fees paid by sportsmen, or funds received from federal aid in
sport fish in wildlife restoration programs, then they shouldn't
use it in an area where no one can hunt or fish. So those
subsistence areas where the general public can't hunt should have
some other funding source.
BILL HAGAR, Fairbanks resident, said the goals of the Department of
Wildlife Conservation have been shifted from biological sciences to
behavioral sciences or social engineering. This bill provides the
guidance the Department needs to manage game according to the
constitution.
MICK MANNS, Bettles resident, supported SB 262, because it would
get us back towards our State Constitution. He said the sheep and
moose populations are being wiped out and we've got to get things
back to where there is a sustained yield. Without that nothing in
the Department of Fish and Game would make much sense.
Number 570
PETE SHEPHERD supported SB 262 because it sends a very pointed
message to ADF&G, the Board of Game, and other State agencies which
are philosophically and not biologically driven. Human consumptive
use is a priority use of fish and game according to the
Constitutional mandate. He credited the senators for recognizing
the need for civil recourse for unjustified bureaucratic stonewalls
and philosophical differences. The bill addresses the problems
inherent in State agencies which appear to be at odds with
consumptive use.
TAPE 96-13, SIDE B
TOM SCARBOROUGH, Fairbanks resident, said SB 262 is a lands bill.
Areas hunters can use are being restricted more and more and he
thought this legislation is absolutely necessary.
MIKE TINKER, said SB 262 sets goals and objectives and gives
direction to the Department to set policy so that they don't have
to manage for such a wide spectrum of interests. Every agency
needs clear goals, he said. Because of the complexities of
managing wildlife let's get the biologists back to using biology,
he said. It is extremely important to have the definitions
included in this bill.
Number 561
GEORGE YASKA, Tanana Chiefs Conference, said they like the use of
the term maximum sustained yield. They do support certain forms of
predator control. He said that the legislature has rarely funded
maximum sustained yield programs beyond the Fairbanks area. He
wanted due consideration given to areas outside of areas generally
considered as non-subsistence areas. They are concerned that
section 15.20.75 as amended would provide an unhealthy level of
competition for subsistence resources within the moose management
areas. He cautioned the legislature about guarantees for sports
hunting within official management areas that are under Tier II
restrictions. Guaranteed access under this amendment for sports
hunters may not be unhealthy for sports hunters, but would be
decidedly unhealthy for rural subsistence hunters that are
generally not able to compete with the quota of hunters that would
be found under the proposed scenario.
Number 542
MR. LEVENGOOD reported that this bill is in no way a subsistence
bill. It would prevent less land from being taken out of
consumptive uses which would benefit all uses and it would provide
a guaranteed access, not limited to sport hunters. In areas where
Tier II preferences are given this bill would have absolutely no
effect.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he thought that predator control was one of the
issues driving this legislation and there was a proposed $0 budget
for predator control this year.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that predator control could be very effective
if done by people outside of the Department in rural Alaska.
Number 504
SENATOR MILLER reiterated that this is not a subsistence bill and
it wouldn't negatively impact subsistence. He said he would work
with the Department on their concerns.
SENATOR HOFFMAN commented that they say it wouldn't impact
subsistence, but according to Senator Taylor's interpretation of
page 3, section 3 that no money could be utilized to manage in
areas in conflict with our State Constitution. That's exactly in
the areas of subsistence. The resources could not be managed for
subsistence hunts which would impact subsistence.
SENATOR MILLER said that other general funds cover the subsistence
budget.
SENATOR LEMAN said they would hold the bill for further work.
SRES 2/12/96
SB 230 LEG APPROVE PERM'NT RECREAT'NL RESTRICT'N
SENATOR LEMAN announced SB 230 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR PEARCE, prime sponsor, said the bill was introduced to
protect Alaskan's rights to access State water and land for
recreational use in a time when the federal government continues to
restrict and prohibit our access to many areas of the State.
Alaskans are presently losing rights to traditional recreational
use on some State land and park lands without appropriate
notification or justification. Citizens believe the public comment
process is not being fairly administered and all user groups are
not being represented. In some instances authority to restrict and
prohibit uses on State land are being transferred from the Division
of Lands to the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.
Nonrestricted areas of our State are being closed without proper
oversight by the legislature. Decisions to deny access for
recreational use, because of its importance, have always been made
by the legislature. The Constitution of the State of Alaska
recognizes the importance of land closures and mandates that all
closures over 640 acres must be legislatively designated. We must
continue to make provisions for dealing with lands under 640 acres.
Language in SB 230 would ensure that all Alaskans have proper
representation by their elected officials.
Number 420
Under legislative options, Option I deals with Title 38 Land
Classifications by the Division of Lands. Option II would be that
the legislature mandate the Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation to obtain legislative approval for restrictions to
traditional recreational use in lands that have come to them
through the transfer process called Interagency Land Management
Agreement (ILMA).
Option III would be to put language into Title 41 under Parks that
would implement legislative oversight on the Division of Parks and
we could also go back and make a change to Title 38.
SENATOR PEARCE explained that a fully integrated concession is
developing in Denali Park and the Division of Parks is trying to
close certain areas around the proposed hotel with new regulations
in an effort to stop parts of the development and to restrict what
may be a future problem. The reasons for the restrictions are that
numerous eco-tourism businesses and conservation organizations
favor the restrictions. In opposition to the proposal are
businesses like ERA helicopters and Princess Tours (to the
helicopter prohibition). Groups like the Alaska Air Carriers
Association and the Alaska Visitors Association also oppose the
aircraft restrictions. She said that when the Division writes
regulations it is biased toward closing areas. The approximately
360 acres south of Blair Lake is territory that is being
transferred through an ILMA.
SENATOR PEARCE said in areas that have been set aside as parks
lately there have been very strict instructions about what they can
do to prohibit access to an area. She commended the Division of
Parks for going ahead and doing a concession so there can be a
hotel, but she thought they were going too far when they closed off
Curry Ridge, which has been traditionally used for access by people
who have lived in the State.
SENATOR PEARCE noted that there hadn't been any restrictions put on
lands during the last Administration, but they do expect a number
of them in this Administration. She thanked everyone who helped on
this bill and said she was willing to work with the Committee and
all interested parties about which title the bill would be in and
which direction to go.
Number 351
CHUCK JOHNSON, President, Era Aviation Inc, said the federal
government continues to restrict public access to our parks which
by definition are large tracts of rural land kept in their rural
state for recreational visitors. Without access visitors cannot
enjoy the activities available within the boundaries of the parks.
There are few road accesses and visitors must be physically fit
enough to hike in or use other forms of transportation such as
boats, airplanes, snow machines, etc.
MR. JOHNSON said that the DNR proposal to prohibit helicopter
landings is mostly because of a perceived noise issue. They have
found that most restrictions to aircraft access have been
implemented without consideration of the scientific study process,
but are based on emotional argument by well-orchestrated special
interest groups. He noted that they had just been allowed to renew
their glacier landing permit and the U.S. Forest Service determined
that noise was a non-problem.
Placing the responsibility for limiting access to public land in
the legislature where the voting public must be answered appears to
be in the public interest.
In addition, MR. JOHNSON said, present commercial regulations
already restrict commercial access to public lands. As a
commercial aircraft operator, they must obtain commercial use
permits prior to landing.
Number 295
RON SWANSON, Deputy Director, Division of Lands, said this
legislation is way too broad. It seems to apply Title 41 concerns
to Title 38. The vast majority of ILMA's have been issued to the
Department of Transportation for a wide variety of things from
materials sites to airports and to the Department of Education for
schools. He thought it was proper for them to report restrictions
they do for any kind of access to the legislature.
He noted that the recreational rivers issue was before the
legislature for two years and no action was taken. Regulations
were adopted and there were some motorized restrictions, most
notable being on the Susitna River. He thought that the
legislature should review restrictions, but taking a shot at Title
38 would open up a can of worms much larger than they would want to
deal with.
SENATOR TAYLOR said it looked like DNR transferred to the Division
of Parks lands that they intend to lock up. He asked if they were
aware of that intent when it was transferred. MR. SWANSON replied
that he was not aware of it, but that the Division of Parks also
goes through a public process.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked now that it has occurred, was he intending to
revoke the ILMA? MR. SWANSON replied that they didn't plan to.
JIM STRATTON, Director, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,
said he had been working with Senate staff to focus the intent of
this legislation on ILMAs where Division of Parks has restricted
traditional recreational access for intrinsic value.
Historically, ILMAs have been used since the park system was
created in 1970 to provide for camp grounds, trail heads, boat
launch facilities, and picnic areas throughout the State. These
are developed recreational sites, primarily on the road system that
provide the economic base for many road system communities. Many
of the original ILMAs came as federal 507 lands, recreational lands
managed by the federal government transferred to the State so long
as recreational use of that land continued. They have received
other ILMAs from general State land through transfers from the
Division of Lands.
Since 1970 the Division of Parks has received 95 ILMA's for a total
of 9,258 acres; these acres were reserved primarily for developed
recreational facilities that require them to restrict vehicular
access other than on road ways or in parking lots as set forth in
11.AAC.12.020. In many areas the closures do not impact any
existing recreational access where the access was determined to be
a public safety hazard for the purpose for which the land was
selected. In all areas access is not denied to adjacent land
owners or inholders that have no other reasonable means of
accessing their property. In the 1989 revision of the Denali State
Park Master Plan, which went through two years of public
involvement, ILMAs were used to address areas on the edge of the
park for management purposes. Division of Parks didn't have any
developed recreational sites for those areas. They chose to close
Blair Lake to aircraft use.
MR. STRATTON said they seldom close lands on ILMAs to traditional
recreational access for intrinsic reasons. When they do, the
legislature should review their decision. He suggested that
Division of Parks provide a written report to the legislature at
the beginning of each session that lists those ILMAs they have
chosen to restrict traditional recreational access to protect
intrinsic values. If the legislature disagrees with their decision
they should have a specific period of time, 60 - 90 days, in which
to disallow their action.
Number 180
SENATOR LEMAN asked which access is allowed when land is received
through an ILMA. MR. STRATTON replied that when land is
transferred to the Division of Parks it is under Title 41 and when
they receive land under Title 41, all vehicular access other than
those on roadways or parking areas is restricted. If there is an
existing access that needs to be addressed and it's compatible with
the uses for which they received the ILMA, then they promulgate
regulations to open those areas for that recreational use.
SENATOR LEMAN asked under his proposal for legislative
disallowance, would some of the restriction take place before the
legislature had a chance to review it or would they delay the
implementation of it until their review. MR. STRATTON replied that
under existing rules in Title 41, it would come in as restricted.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked him what intrinsic values motivated them to
close Blair Lake, Bunch Lake, Curry Ridge, and Kasugi Ridge. MR.
STRATTON replied that one of the unfinished pieces of business that
was handed him when he took his office was to promulgate
regulations that would implement the Denali Master Plan that was
revised in 1989. That master plan called for the closure of Kasugi
and Curry Ridge to aircraft use. This plan was adopted by the
Department after two years of public involvement. The ILMA was put
in for Blair Lake as a result of the master plan. Closing Blair
Lake is consistent with other regulations made for adjacent land.
Number 133
NOEL WOODS, Matanuska Valley Sportsmen, said they have 400 members
and they enthusiastically support the sponsor statement and
recommend that the Committee pass SB 230.
ROY BURKHART, Legislative Affairs Officer, Alaska Boating
Association, supported SB 230 for a lot of reasons. He didn't
think any bureaucrat should have the power to restrict access to
the tourist industry or to the residents of the State. He thought
the only reason to have a restriction is for special interest
groups.
Number 82
STEVE MORGHEIM, Alaska Marine Dealers Association, said their
association is composed of 70 firms and employs about 340
employees, have $7 million in payroll and does about $40 million in
retail sales every year. He said it is more difficult for their
dealers to do business when there are more and more concerns about
river restrictions. He supported the sponsor statement and SB 230.
MR. MORGHEIM suggested adding the words "motorized and non-
motorized" in front of the word "boating." Where it says "The
Commissioner may not classify State lands," he suggested including
"or manage." He also wanted to add "trucks, pickups, and RV's" in
section 2, because these vehicles are prime movers in getting boats
into lands.
TAPE 14, SIDE A
Number 001
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Stratton to explain page 72 of the Denali
Master Plan where it says "protect public access between the park
and the lake." MR. STRATTON said he didn't have a copy of the
Master Plan with him, but would get back to him with that answer.
JANA LITTLEWOOD, Vice President, Anchorage Snowmobile Club, said
they have 700 members. They were originally formed as a social
family-oriented club and now they have a constant battle retaining
access to the lands where they ride. The definition of public
lands is for everyone's enjoyment. They think the park lands under
Title 41 should be included in SB 230. She urged the legislature
to authorize funding for the update and revision of the Chugach
State Park Master Plan which was last updated in 1985. The Plan
requires detailed notice to the public of the time table for
completion as well how the entire program would be managed. She
encouraged the legislature to reserve the final right of approval
on all park master plans to bring some acceptability back into the
public lands management process.
RANDY CROSBY said in Title 41 parks are set aside to basically
eliminate some incompatible user groups such as the timber and
mining industries and things they wouldn't want in areas they want
for viewing and recreation. Title 41 says that parks are to be
managed in the citizens' best interests while protecting the
resources. He thought Blair Lake was a perfect example of this not
happening. The folks who access Blair Lake by aircraft have been
in Alaska a long time, they make their living up here; and in some
cases have been using the land longer than the State has been a
state. He didn't think restricting Blair Lake to aircraft was a
good idea.
Number 165
KEN RIVARD, Alaska Airman's Association, strongly supported SB 230.
He suggested including the commissioner of ADF&G along with the
commissioner of DNR, because there are motorized restrictions in
hunting regulations, too. His concern was specifically with float
plane landing areas, Title 41.23.400, 11.AAC.09.010. The
definition is extremely broad and ambiguous.
Number 177
LEONARD HAIRE, President, Mat-Su Chapter Alaska Boaters
Association, said they supported SB 230 and he would like to
testify when the Committee has more time. His Association has
about 500 members.
GEORGE PIASKOWSKI, President, Alaska Boating Association, said he
has 600 members. He agreed in the interests of time to fax his
statement to the committee.
CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment, opposed SB 230. He
thought the legislature would be getting into a level of detailed
management that just isn't efficient. The existing planning and
classification procedures which involve a great deal of public
participation are adequate. They are also afraid that this bill
would make it more difficult to redress the existing imbalance
between the vast majority of our public domain lands which are open
to virtually unregulated motorized use as opposed to those tiny
areas that have been set aside for quiet purposes.
He said there are many areas for snowmachine use and their goal is
to provide some opportunities for Alaskans and visitors, many who
want to escape urban noise. We are doing a terrible job at the
present time on our State lands at providing those opportunities.
It's ironic, he said, that this bill addresses so-called
traditional motorized uses. Using skis and snow shoes, hiking
boots and canoes is far more traditional than the motorized
recreational uses which are very recent.
MR. EAMES explained that certain types of motorized access that
conflict with other types of access are being restricted in just a
handful of places. It is not a denial of access; there are still
ways to get into these areas.
MR. EAMES said that they disagree with the comment regarding
"perceived" noise issue with helicopters. It may be with certain
resources helicopters are not a problem, but a lot of people on the
ground think that helicopter noise is a conflict. Helicopter
landing proposals have been extremely controversial in southcentral
Alaska.
Number 296
KEN BAEHR, an Anchorage snowmobile dealer, supported SB 230. He
said the snowmobile industry directly contributes about $100
million annually to the Alaskan economy. The snowmachine industry
is changing dramatically; it helps people who are no longer
physically able to hike into public parks. Access includes
increased winter tourism which is one of the goals of the Alaska
legislature in diversifying the economy.
We need to remember there are many villages and towns within the
State where the only access is by snowmachine. He noted that there
is only one area available to snowmachines in the Chugach State
Park.
Number 323
CARL PORTMAN, Communications Director, Resource Development
Council, supported the intent of SB 230. Over 60 percent of the
State is in federal ownership and much of the land is managed with
a wilderness emphasis for those who demand solitude. Our parks can
be a contributor to our future economy, but only if there is access
for the public and visitors. We need to encourage access so Alaska
can continue to compete with other national and international
tourist destinations. They believe these decisions need to be made
at the legislative level.
MR. STRATTON responded to Senator Taylor's question on page 72 of
the Denali Master Plan by stating that the public access that was
being protected was the strip of land between Blair Lake and the
Park so the Division of Land wouldn't go in and put it up for
disposal that would deny access. It doesn't speak to access on the
Lake itself.
ROD ARNO, President, Alaska Outdoor Council, said they represent
over 10,000 Alaskans. They supported SB 230 and Senator Pearce's
sponsor statement. His concerns are in the future when primary
tourism zones are being considered for closures to access, because
they represent a favored economic activity, that instead of
Princess Tours and the AVA deciding which are the primary tourism
zones that the public process be brought into the decision. The
user groups who live in Alaska should have some input before public
access is closed.
SENATOR LEMAN thanked everyone for their participation and
adjourned the meeting at 5:37 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|