Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/17/1998 04:17 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
April 17, 1998
4:17 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chairman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Bert Sharp
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator John Torgerson
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 392(L&C) am
"An Act relating to access by the Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Department of Fish and Game to confidential
records for fisheries businesses and resources prepared or kept by
the Department of Revenue under AS 43.75.015; relating to certain
salmon products reports; and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED SCSHB 392(RES) FROM COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 168(RLS)(efd fld)
"An Act relating to use of traditional means of access to assist in
taking game or fish and to traditional means of access for
traditional outdoor activities on land and water set aside for fish
and game purposes."
- PASSED CSHB 168(RLS)(efd fld) FROM COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 392 - See Resource Committee minutes dated 4/6/98.
HB 168 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Beverly Masek
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 168.
Mr. Ed Grasser, Staff
Representative Beverly Masek
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 168.
Mr. Wayne Regelin, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168.
Ms. Maureen Moore
P.O. Box 223
Gustavus, AK 99826
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 168.
Mr. Dick Bishop, Vice President
Alaska Outdoor Council
P.O. Box 73902
Fairbanks, AK 99826
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 168.
Mr. Anthony Crupi
Alaska Wildlife Alliance
P.O. Box 11006
Haines, Ak 99827
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168.
Mr. Cliff Eames
Alaska Center for the Environment
519 W 8th, #201
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168.
Mr. John Schoen, Director
Alaska Audubon Society
308 G St., #217
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168.
Ms. Sarah Callahan
Northern Alaskan Environmental Center
218 Driveway St.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168.
Mr. Andy Reynolds
P.O. Box 191
Ester, AK 99725
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168.
Mr. Richard Chapell
5801 Haystack Rd.
Fairbanks, AK 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168.
Ms. Celia Hunter
1819 Musk Ox Trail
Fairbanks, AK 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168.
Mr. Douglas Yates
P.O. Box 221
Ester, AK 99725
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168.
Mr. Michael Eastham
P.O. Box 475
Homer, AK 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 168.
Mr. Herman Morgan
Aniak, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-29, SIDE A
Number 001
HB 392 - REPORTS: FISH TAX & SALMON PRODUCTS
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 4:17 p.m. and announced HB 392 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved to adopt amendment number one. He explained
that he had a problem with the part of the bill that requires the
release of confidential information to the Department of
Environmental Conservation. He would delete the language saying
copies of documents filed under AS 47.15 and copies of revenue
determinations and work papers and insert, "All names and addresses
of business that are required to file confidential reports under AS
75.015 and the Department of Environmental Conservation and
Department of Fish and Game shall maintain the confidentiality that
the Department of Revenue is required to extend to maintain the
addresses furnished under this subsection."
There were no objections and the amendment was adopted.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SCSHB 392(RES) from Committee with
individual recommendations and it was so ordered.
HB 168 - TRADITIONAL ACCESS FOR TRADITIONAL ACTIVITIES
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced HB 168 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK testified that HB 168 was introduced
as a companion measure to the access bills previously passed last
year, HB 23 and SB 35. Public access to the resources they own has
been one of her primary areas of concern and this bill completes
the effort she began three years ago.
Since the passage of ANILCA in 1980, the land tied up in
conservation units in Alaska, both on federal and State land, makes
up a large percentage of all the public lands in Alaska. Many of
these lands are either restricted by law or by geological features.
Furthermore, there are millions of acres of private land where
access has been restricted and if they were going to consider
further restrictions, they should take into account the amount of
land that is already set aside for restricted use and whether the
restriction is for truly necessary reasons or at the request of a
special interest group. Previous hearings on this bill brought up
concerns that appear to be generated by misconceptions and she
wanted to clear them up.
HB 168 grandfathers in all the existing controlled use areas and
establishments of refuges or critical habitat areas which have
always been by legislative action. Secondly, HB 168 specifically
allows the Board to act without legislative intervention if the
biological concern is evident. Last, and most importantly, HB 168
does not prevent the Boards from creating controlled use areas with
access restrictions unless it lasts for more than two and a half
months out of the year or is larger than 640 acres.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said one of the issues that was brought up was
Unit 13 and motorized access. If the prohibition doesn't apply to
eight months in three years, essentially the motorized access could
apply for the entire fall caribou and moose season continuously in
Unit 13 without this bill having any effect.
MR. ED GRASSER, Staff to Representative Masek, said that was
correct.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said by the correspondence he was getting, this is
a very violent bill, but it doesn't seem to do that with the
amendments that were adopted in the final version.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked why they limited it to one square mile.
MR. GRASSER said the actual exceptions were derived from similar
language that was crafted in previous years for HB 23 and HB 447.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they made their restricted area in one mile
and an eighth on one side, their law doesn't apply.
MR. GRASSER answered if it was greater than a mile and an eighth on
each side, they would have to come to the legislature for approval
to restrict access in that area. Part of the experience on this
bill came from when he was a Board of Game member. They wanted to
allow the Board flexibility in managing access in cases where a
certain level of use arose, so they wouldn't have to come to the
legislature for approval.
Number 181
MR. WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
said this bill would limit the ability of the Board to a certain
degree to establish control use areas that restrict the means of
transportation that hunters use to access lands. Control use areas
are a tool that the Board of Game has long used to provide a
diverse hunting experience to protect wildlife habitat or to reduce
hunter conflicts. Some control use areas are used to segregate
hunters by time periods so that hunters walking into an area don't
have to compete with hunters who go in using off-road vehicles or
so that hunters using off-road vehicles don't have to compete with
hunters using aircraft for access. There are currently 26 control
use areas in Alaska. The first was established in 1971 and over
half of them were established prior to 1979. Nine have been
established since 1990. Eight were established to provide for walk-
in trophy hunting at the request of hunters. He realizes that this
bill is not going to affect the existing control use areas, but he
wanted to explain how the controlled use areas had been used by the
Board of Game in the past. They have been an effective method to
maximize hunting opportunity and provide for a variety of hunter
experiences while reducing hunter conflicts.
The Board of Game is responsible for allocation of the public
wildlife resources amongst beneficial uses. They are charged by
the legislature for making many difficult allocation decisions and
these control use areas are one tool that allows them to do their
job in a good way. The Board of Game has a very open process for
making decisions and the public has many opportunities to influence
these decisions both through the form of advisory committees and at
the Board of Game meeting, itself, through public comment periods.
The Board of Game makes good decisions that are supported by the
majority of hunters and other outdoor users. If they make
decisions that are unpopular or that don't work as intended, the
Board can change them or the legislature can overrule that
individual decision.
MR. REGELIN said he thought the system they had in place was
working and it's not necessary to have a further restriction.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked what's so horrendous about the bill passing,
since his concerns over the existing control use areas have been
addressed in the amended version.
MR. REGELIN said the bill is much improved with grandfathering in
areas and giving the Board some flexibility, but the concern is
that it's just not necessary and is trying to fix a problem that
doesn't really exist.
Number 225
SENATOR LINCOLN asked him what people are concerned about, if he
didn't think there was a problem.
MR. REGELIN answered that two control use areas have been passed in
the last four years that have been controversial. One of them was
restrictions on air boats in the Fairbanks area which the Board of
Game addressed at their last meeting and made some modifications to
that control use area to allow expanded use of them within the
control use area along the main channels of the river. He thought
a lot of letters were generated from the air boat users who felt
they didn't have a place to go anymore. The other one was the
Noatak control use area which is a five-mile corridor on each side
of the river that's closed to landing of aircraft. That's
controversial, because there are a lot of animals, the Western
Arctic caribou herd, in that area. The Board did that primarily to
reduce the conflicts between local hunters who are hunting right on
the river and the aircraft hunters who are flying in. The Board
felt they could fly up the side channels and still have a lot of
access to caribou. Those are the two that have been very
controversial. The Noatak control use area has not been changed,
although it was reviewed at the Fall Board meeting.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he was glad that they took it up, but it's an
attempt to make an allocation between groups of people. It doesn't
have anything to do with management of the resource. He asked who
put them in charge of social engineering.
MR. REGELIN said it isn't his place to do that and he doesn't. The
Department doesn't have anything to do with establishing controlled
use areas. That is done by the Board of Game under authority that
the legislature has delegated to them. The purpose of the Board of
Game is to make allocation decisions among the different beneficial
uses.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked why he was against this legislation that is
the legislature's attempt to establish policy.
MR. REGELIN said he didn't think it was necessary, but it was their
prerogative.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he would carry it out, if they do pass it.
MR. REGELIN replied that they were setting a policy for the Board
of Game, not the Department.
Number 290
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said they still have all the authority to
designate areas for shotgun, rifle, primitive weapon, etc. This
bill just deals with method of access.
Number 326
MR. REGELIN said that control use areas are primarily access. They
use management areas for bow-only areas. That's why they are
called special management areas.
SENATOR SHARP said he thought if they laid years end to end on a
temporary nature, they could effectively shut down caribou season
forever.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD added unless there is so much harvestable game
that the season can be longer than two and a half months within the
confines of this bill which substantially limits any negative
effect this bill may have.
MS. MAUREEN MOORE, Gustavus resident, said that local control and
local input into decisions about local resources, regardless of
whether or not they belong to the whole State, comes from people
who are more knowledgeable about what happens in that area. She
asked them to be sure that they leave lots of room for local input
in those issues. She asked them to not take away the opportunity
for people to voice their opinions to the Board of Game by way of
any amendments or bills.
She said this past year in Gustavus, they went through a lengthy
process of meetings and communications about this exact issue in
the Sand Hill crane critical habitat area during moose hunting
season and the use of ATVs. That use of ATVs would happen just
during moose hunting season, but its effect was more long lasting
than just the time that those people would be out there on the
machines.
She questioned "traditional use" being defined as a "popular
pattern" feeling it was a bit broad.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said they could use customary and traditional
which are familiar words.
MS. MOORE responded that those words had been argued over, too.
SENATOR LINCOLN noted on page 3, line 29 the bill talked about the
types of transportation for the popular pattern. She asked if
there was a definition on the books now for "popular pattern."
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what was the resolution of their debate.
MS. MOORE answered that they decided for two years there wouldn't
be any use of off road vehicles to harvest game from that area.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how that was arrived at.
MS. MOORE replied that Board of Game members came over, after the
community, itself, had been through 10 meetings to discuss the
issue, for a public meeting and took input and made their decision.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if anyone voted on it.
MS. MOORE answered that there was a vote at the meeting of the
Board of Game. She said the Board needed to have the flexibility
to be at the local level and make the decisions on a case by case
basis.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the change had anything to do with biology.
MS. MOORE answered, "Yes." She explained that it was basically on
wetlands and when an ATV runs over a wetland surface, especially
when it does it repeatedly, it depresses the land which fills with
water and starts running when it's raining. They essentially
create a small web of surface streams which disrupt the natural
processes of the wetland. It was also in conflict with the timing
of the moose hunt and the migration of the Sand Hill cranes and
their being a touchy bird. The sound was also an issue.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they can be hunted.
MS. MOORE said they could be. She noted that they could drive out
there now when it's not moose season.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained that the Board of Game has the authority
to limit access with regard to harvest. If you want to limit
access at other times, you have to go to DNR.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if this applies to the harvesting period to
other areas or just this one patch of wetlands.
MS. MOORE answered that it applied to the one patch of wetlands,
but the scars from ATVs last a long time in Gustavus.
Number 456
MR. DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council, said they
strongly supported HB 168. They feel it is important as a matter
of State policy to insure that areas for fishing and hunting and
access to them are maintained which is the essence of this bill.
He stated that 60 percent of the State is subject to land use
restrictions over which the State has basically no control - the
federal lands. Whether or not the feds may be managing fish and
game, they still have the authority to manage land uses on those
areas regardless of what the State regulations may be. This really
raises the profile of the importance of access and opportunities
for uses of fish and game and other resources on State and private
lands. There are a number of restrictions that already exist on
many of those federal areas. Recently, he found that ATVs were not
allowed in a substantial part of the White Mountains recreation
area. You could use snow machines for a certain period of the
year, but not four-wheelers. This is even though one of the
purposes of the White Mountain area is to provide access for
recreational uses. So you can see the trend of what happens on the
federal areas. He thought this emphasized the importance of
maintaining appropriate access on State lands and waters.
Interestingly too, is the contrast between the State and federal
lands in that traditional access for subsistence uses is guaranteed
in ANILCA on the federal lands. Yet, there's nothing for the
traditional uses of hunting, fishing, and trapping so far that is
protected or guaranteed in State statute. That makes this an
important issue.
The bill is good from the standpoint that although it does protect
traditional access, and that's an appropriate term, it provides the
Boards with the flexibility to deal with biological problems, with
unforseen incidents that may create a situation where a temporary
closure is necessary. An example is, if it's appropriate for some
reason to restrict access during a critical period of the year if
there's a concentration of animals due to an unusual phenomenon
that might really be a problem, it can be dealt with and it's
temporary in nature. It does provide that kind of latitude and it
is important to sound management to not only manage the biological
elements of a situation, but to be able to manage the activities of
people.
Local input is also important, but it is also important to have an
overview. However, it's important to remember that one of the
things that led to the dilemma called ANILCA is the Western Arctic
caribou herd back in the 1970's crashed, and it was pretty apparent
if you are trying to survey the numbers of caribou in the herd,
that it had tumbled from a couple hundred thousand down to 75,000
or so. It was evident to people in ADF&G that that had occurred,
but it was not evident to local people, because people in local
areas were seeing just a piece of the puzzle and unless they could
put the pieces of the puzzle together with an overview, they were
not convinced there was a real problem. They did not become
convinced until they became involved at the request of the ADF&G to
go look at the big picture and accompany the Department on a wide
scale survey. It's important to have both perspectives when you're
faced with fish and game management and access issues.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if in some of the backup material it said that
some actual biological harm would have to occur to a resource
before, under this act, the Board would be able to act.
MR. BISHOP responded that as this bill is written, he didn't see
that as the case. If harm is anticipated, access could be
restricted.
SENATOR TAYLOR said it would have to be biologically based, not
aesthetically based.
MR. BISHOP said that was his understanding of the bill.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said, "biologically essential for the protection
of fish or game resources or game habitat." He asked why it didn't
say "fish habitat" also. He also asked if the piece of ground an
ATV runs over and creates a trail not habitat?
MR. BISHOP answered that it is certainly habitat.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the vehicle is going to destroy the
habitat in exactly its tracks, is that not allowed to be protected.
He said the habitat side is much harder to quantify than the game
resource side. If all of the valley is moose habitat, and if the
actual area of the trail is to be created, isn't that a microscopic
habitat loss? He wanted to know if it is as tight as his opponents
advocate.
MR. BISHOP responded that if this bill were law, they couldn't make
the argument on basis of its content that a track, or even a well
used track of vehicles through a valley created a biological
concern or significant biological detriment to the habitat in that
area. He based that on past experience and observation that there
are lots of areas with lots of trails that are still excellent
habitat and their capacity to support wildlife is not significantly
diminished. On the other hand, it's a relative thing. If the
level of use eliminates the most important parts of that habitat,
then it may be a serious concern for the well-being of the game
population.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he agreed with his interpretation. He
believed there could be an amazing elasticity with words.
MR. ANTHONY CRUPI, Alaska Wildlife Alliance, said they have serious
concerns with this bill and its effects on Alaska's wildlife and
wilderness values and urged them not to move it out of committee.
It would restrict the ability of our resource managers to
successfully manage and regulate the lands that they would be
responsible for maintaining. Regulating access to state lands has
always been an important tool that managers have utilized to
sustain the health of productive ecosystems. Allowing motorized
access to certain regions and eliminating the ability to regulate
access would severely impact Alaska's wildlife and wild habitat.
HB 168 does allow motorized access to be regulated if it can be
proven to be biologically harmful. However, biological impact to
fish and game are not usually measured. It takes years of research
and analysis to determine the status of wildlife populations. Even
the effects of motorized access might not be realized for other
species that have not been thoroughly studied. Motorized access to
state lands would directly impact species by limiting the plant and
prey upon which they depend. Effective management plans require
the ability to regulate the access of motorized vehicles and he
urged them to allow Alaska's resource managers this fundamental
management tool.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that it's essential to protect some species
from motorized intrusion. He asked which species he was talking
about.
MR. CRUPI replied, if you look at biological data, bear habitat is
substantially reduced within one mile of the road.
TAPE 98-29, SIDE B
SENATOR TAYLOR asked him what kind of bears he was talking about.
MR. CRUPI said that impacts are studied year in and year out and we
have no idea what the impacts are. One example is the Kenai
Peninsula where there is an isolated brown bear population and an
interagency report came out one year ago that described the
effectiveness of the habitat and the effectiveness of the Kenai
brown bear was 70 percent declined within one mile of the road.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thought he was probably correct and he
thought it was probably the reverse for the black bear.
MR. CRUPI said it's necessary to have the management tool to
restrict an area to motorized access and the public needs to have
input on what biological data is there.
Number 516
MR. CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment, emphasized the
fact that they are dealing with state owned lands and there may be
different rules on federal lands. It is more important that state-
owned lands provide something for everything because the state-
owned lands are those that are likely to be accessible to our major
population centers. That often is not as true of federal lands.
These are the ones that people are going to use for an evening or
an afternoon or a weekend. He thought there was enough of them
that they could provide for everyone. They opposed HB 168 that
restricts the ability of State land, fish and wildlife managers to
manage for quiet recreationists and homeowners who are losing the
quiet enjoyment of their properties. It effectively forces
managers to manage only for motorized recreationists. DNR
periodically does a survey of Alaska in conjunction with their
statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. More than 50
percent have responded and say that motorized noise adversely
affects their outdoor recreational experiences. More than 70
percent of those respondents said they believe the State should
provide more motorized trails. HB 168 would not only exacerbate
user conflicts, but it prevents managers from establishing a
balance on our public lands. It also adversely affects fish and
wildlife and their habitat and Alaskans certainly don't want that
result. It's far too stringent a standard to allow our fish and
wildlife managers to exercise their professional judgement to
protect fish and wildlife and their habitat from unreasonable risk.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said it would apply to all land - to federal,
state, or private land on which hunting is authorized.
MR. EAMES said from their perspective that makes it even worse, but
there is also a section in the bill that would restrict the ability
of the Department of Fish and Game to regulate motorized access on
refuges, critical habitat areas, and similarly protected areas.
Number 492
SENATOR TAYLOR asked who was to pay for the development of quiet
trails.
MR. EAMES said we don't have to develop quiet trails and that there
are a lot of them throughout the State. The survey respondents are
asking for more of the trails to be managed for quiet recreation,
so that there is a balance between trails that are available for
motorized and nonmotorized recreation.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked when he was talking about motorized access to,
if he was only talking about from the trail head in.
MR. EAMES said that's true and that's the way most Alaskans look at
it. Once they get on to public lands, they want a balance and not
just favor motorized recreationists.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that right now there is 55 million acres of
wilderness land where we can't use a motorized vehicle and he asked
how much more he needed.
MR. EAMES responded that that's not the way wilderness is managed
in Alaska and those are federal lands. Our state owned lands are
likely to be more accessible to most Alaskans. This isn't as true
in Southeast, but it is true in Southcentral and the Interior. He
said that in most of Alaska's wilderness, motorized vehicles are
not necessarily prohibited.
MR. DON SCHOEN, Director, Alaska Audubon Society, opposed HB 168.
This bill will make it nearly impossible to regulate public access
of off-road vehicles on State refuges, sanctuaries, and special
areas, as well as controlled use areas within Alaska. This kind of
statutory restriction will reduce the flexibility of the Board of
Game and the Department of Fish and Game in managing and conserving
wildlife for the benefit of all Alaskans. They believe the current
system is working and doesn't need to be changed legislatively.
They are especially concerned about the inability of the Board to
manage and safeguard Alaska's special areas if this legislation is
passed. These areas provide important benefits that all Alaskans
enjoy including hunters, fishers, wildlife watchers, and many
others. The restrictions imposed by this bill will in some
instances make it very difficult to maintain the quality and
habitat values of these areas. Alaska's wildlife areas and
sanctuaries have management plans that were developed through a
public process. In addition, the Board of Game provides a public
process for addressing wildlife management issues in a timely
manner, so that the agency and the Board aren't forced to resort to
reactive management after a serious problem has developed. The
ability to be proactive rather than reactive concerns them most.
This is not an issue pitting sportsmen on one side against wildlife
viewers on the other side. It is a common sense issue of balancing
different uses and protecting wildlife and their habitats for
everyone's use. Hunters do not support this legislation.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what they should do on behalf of the
physically challenged individual who might want to bird or hunt or
fish.
MR. SCHOEN said they need to provide opportunities for them, but
they need to be balanced. He thought the Board of Game could
handle these issues on a case by case basis in a timely manner.
MS. SARAH CALLAHAN, Northern Alaskan Environmental Center, opposed
HB 168 because it discriminates against quiet recreationists by
eliminating opportunities that Alaskans have for a nonmotorized
experience. There are many Alaskans who enjoy the traditional
means of hunting and fishing, whether it's by dog sled, skis, or
whatever. Nonmotorized access should have the same rights as
motorized. With over 100 million acres of land, the State has room
for both. HB 168 restricts the Boards of Fisheries and Game from
limited motorized access unless the limitation is biologically
essential. The biologists who manage fish and game are the experts
and should be trusted to set their own standards.
MR. ANDY REYNOLDS, Fairbanks recreationist and sport hunter,
opposed HB 168. He thought this was a reactionary piece of
legislation that is in response to a perceived threat to one
interest group. It is divisive and unnecessary. It is a power
grab by the legislature and a form of micro management that is
taking legitimate responsibility away from the Boards of Fisheries
and Game and ADF&G.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he watched the fight over the air boat
situation in Fairbanks.
MR. REYNOLDS said he watched from the sidelines and that he might
get cut by a propeller if he got too close.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he would have favored the restrictions
placed by the Department on air boats.
MR. REYNOLDS answered that he does favor that.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what he thought about the people who were too
young or too old or be physically challenged and may not have the
ability to paddle upstream.
MR. REYNOLDS said he thought there were quite a few opportunities
for those people. He was sitting across the table from one who a
lot of people might think is too old to do some of the things he
mentioned, and she gets around fine on her own two feet or in a
canoe or kayak. Wilderness lands in Alaska are not managed the
same way they are in much of the country. It is not restricted in
most of the wilderness lands. Motorized use for hunting or
recreational purposes is already allowed in just about every acre
of Alaska. He didn't see how allowing the Board of Game and
Fisheries and ADF&G a very limited ability to change that status
was a threat to those who prefer their recreation hunting and
fishing from motorized assisted vehicles.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that motorized access is significantly
restricted on huge acreages in Alaska by the federal government -
McKinley and Katmai, for instance.
MR. REYNOLDS said on 99 percent of our lands there are no
restrictions on any of those people whether they are handicapped or
not to use whatever means of transportation to get to and from
those areas under current law.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that he must not be aware of a lot of current
law that restricts access to over 55 million acres of this State
today.
MR. RICHARD CHAPELL, hunter and fisherman, opposed HB 168. He
asked them to please leave it to the Boards of Fisheries and Game
to make decisions on how to manage our wildlife resources without
removing any tools they have at their disposal. Our system already
works in making decisions on hunting and fishing access. It
already allows all the interested local parties to explain their
concerns about how and when the taking of fish and game is allowed.
MS. CELIA HUNTER said she is one of many people in Alaska who are
prolonging their activities in the out of doors without needing to
ride on a snowmachine, an ORV, or an air boat in order to get
places. There are a whole lot of people who are getting out and
enjoying it. A few people need assistance in getting on the top of
mountains and so on, but he might, too. The system we have now
does not need micro management by the legislature. The present
regulations are flexible and are capable of making adjustments in
specific areas wherever it's necessary. She said we have an
excellent Board of Game and we have a lot of very capable managers
in the ADF&G.
MR. DOUGLAS YATES said he is a private citizen and a user of
Alaska's wildlands. Vehicle access is always going to be a
controversial issue among Alaskans. However, there is a growing
recognition that care must be exercised in the management of
Alaska's lands. When it comes to off road vehicles, their power
and range, and the marketing emphasis of vehicle access, the
growing number of these vehicle owners can easily overwhelm the
carrying capacity of the wildlife habitat. He favors a greater
balance in managing Alaska's resources and HB 168 does not provide
that balance. The Board of Game ought to be able to make specific
decisions based on actual circumstances on a year to year basis.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what he does when he is not a private citizen.
MR. YATES answered that he was a photographer and a tour guide and
he works for himself.
MR. MICHAEL EASTHAM, Homer resident, said he supports HB 168. He
said the legislature is not micro managing, but ADF&G is. He said
if you take away ORV users, you are leaving access to those who are
in excellent physical condition and like to hike. Right now the
Board has absolute power over who gets to hunt and he thought that
was like giving the fox the right to guard the chicken house.
MR. HERMAN MORGAN, Chairman of the Aniak Advisory Committee,
opposed HB 168 because the Board of Game restricts aircraft along
the river corridors where local people hunt moose. You could have
hunters from Sweden who just hunt for horns competing with the
local people who hunt to feed their families for the winter. HB
168 would be circumventing the public process. He informed them
that a number of people are going to meet and formulate a plan to
secede from the State of Alaska, because they are tired of all this
anti-subsistence and anti-rural legislation being passed.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked what types of transportation he has seen in
the Aniak area that have changed over the years and that have been
detrimental for fishing and hunting.
MR. MORGAN answered that there are a lot of airplanes traveling
over the spawning grounds.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she was in Aniak the last fall during the
moose hunt and the concern people have in the area is that now
there are airplanes going into the hills and hunters being dropped
off and taking moose last year. The concern was that the moose
were not able to go down to the river where the local people have
traditionally hunted for moose.
TAPE 98-30, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thought that the bill didn't do as much
harm as its opponents said it would and didn't help as much as the
proponents thought it would.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she still wanted a definition for "popular
pattern" on page 3, line 29 and asked what the intent was.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK explained that in different areas of the State
to go fishing people use boats, at the Nalchina herd area people
use four-wheelers and if there are any places a plane can land,
they fly in. It's a consistent use of pattern.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she is stuck on that because wherever it says
"traditional means of access," you have to read what traditional
means and it's defined as a popular pattern.
SENATOR LINCOLN moved to change "popular" to "historical."
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said one of the things that's happened over the
last 30 years is that the entire development of the three and four
wheel vehicles has happened in the last 15 years and snow machines
in the last 30. There has been significant debate and argument
with park service people on the protection of traditional
subsistence access in a lot of areas trying to say that new
technology is not included. He was not sure they wanted to do
that, based on the history of what's happened there. They have
basically said because in some cases, personal land vehicles for
summer use did not exist at the time they used for their window,
they will never allow them. That wasn't the intent of the
legislation.
SENATOR LINCOLN said that here use of the term "historical" did not
mean "generational" necessarily. She has a problem with the term
"popular."
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she would object to the amendment.
MR. GRASSER added that the term "popular pattern" is in DNR statute
already dealing with access which is where the drafter took it
from.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked what it meant.
MR. GRASSER answered that it didn't have a definition there,
either.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he didn't think popular is anything more than
an adjective pattern and that it didn't add much to it. It may
exclude those methods or means of transportation that are not a
popular pattern either because of technological changes or because
it hasn't developed yet as a popular pattern.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he agreed, but he didn't know if it was worth
changing a bill that would require a concurrence in the House.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she would object to any changes.
SENATOR LINCOLN reiterated her amendment again. There were
objections and the amendment failed. SENATOR LINCOLN voted yes;
SENATORS HALFORD, TORGERSON, SHARP, LEMAN, and GREEN voted no.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass HB 168 with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal notes.
SENATOR LINCOLN objected, saying that it needed more work because
of all the testimony. SENATORS HALFORD, LEMAN, TAYLOR, TORGERSON,
and GREEN voted yes. The bill moved from Committee.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|