Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/30/2003 03:33 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 30, 2003
3:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Ralph Seekins
Senator Ben Stevens
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Scott Ogan, Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 56
"An Act relating to sport fishing license fees and anadromous
king salmon tag fees for residents of Yukon, Canada."
MOVED SB 56 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to hunting on the same day airborne; and
providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 155(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
SB 56 - No previous action to record.
SB 155 - See Judiciary minutes dated 3/31/03, 4/4/03 and
4/16/03.
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Ben Brown
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
217 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 56
Mr. Gordy Williams
Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5226
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 56
Honorable Dennis Fentie
Premier
Yukon Legislative Assembly
Box 2703
Whitehorse, Yukon
Canada Y1A 2C6
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 56
Mr. Rob Bentz
Division of Sport Fish
Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5226
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about SB 56
Mr. Brian Hove
Staff to Senator Seekins
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for the sponsor of SB 155
Ms. Gina White
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to airborne hunting of predators
Mr. Paul Joslin
Alaska Wildlife Alliance
PO Box 202
Anchorage, AK 99520
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 155
Ms. Dorothy Keeler
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 155
Mr. Robert Fithian
Alaska Professional Hunters Association
PO Box 3225
Palmer, AK 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Strongly supports SB 155
Mr. Wayne Kubitt
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 155
Mr. Jessie VanderZanden
Alaska Outdoor Council
PO Box 73902
Fairbanks, AK 99707-3902
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 155
Mr. Lynn Levengood
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 155
Mr. Tom Scarborough
Fairbanks, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 155
Mr. Matt Robus
Director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5226
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with the committee
substitute to SB 155
Ms. Donnie Fleagle
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 155
Ms. Ruthann Warden
Ahtna Incorporated
PO BOX 649
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 155
Mr. Ron Somerville
Alaska Board of Game
Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5226
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 155
Mr. Joel Bennett
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 155 because it does not
exclude public involvement in predator control
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-36, SIDE A
VICE-CHAIR TOM WAGONER called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. Senators Stevens, Dyson,
Seekins, Elton and Wagoner were present. Senator Lincoln arrived
momentarily. The first order to come before the committee was SB
56. Chair Ogan was excused.
SB 56-SPORT FISHING FEES FOR YUKON RESIDENTS
SENATOR FRED DYSON, sponsor of SB 56, gave the following
explanation of the measure.
A couple of times former Senator Randy Phillips worked
on getting reciprocity of resident fishing licenses
for our neighbors in the Yukon. In anticipation of
that happening, the Yukon Parliament passed a bill to
extend the same courtesy to Alaskans. The Yukon
Territory has a population of slightly less than
30,000, and unless one of the glaciers continues to
recede, it has no saltwater frontage on the Pacific.
Yukoners are indeed the closest neighbors to most of
Alaska and a few hundred of them, maybe even more than
a thousand of them, come down to fish our waters. This
measure is just one of several activities being taken
to build a relationship with our Yukon neighbors. They
are, I believe, very appreciative of those efforts.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has
estimated a negative financial impact from this
legislation. However, there will probably be a net
financial gain for the people of Alaska. The Yukoners
will spend time and money in our coastal cities.
The State of Alaska is working very closely with the
Yukon Government to build a natural gas pipeline and
to tie together their railroad systems. Both
governments engage in some game co-management,
particularly for caribou, and work together on a
number of cooperative tourism efforts. The Premier may
be visiting Juneau in the next three weeks. Alaska has
a bilateral agreement with the Yukon government to
continue to work on issues of common interest. SB 56
is a small gesture on Alaska's part to be good
neighbors. The Government of Yukon is more than
willing to reciprocate and has, in fact, done that.
He asked that the committee interrupt its proceeding to hear
from Premier Fentie as soon as he is available via
teleconference.
VICE-CHAIR WAGONER announced that Senator Lincoln was present.
He then said Premier Fentie was not on-line yet so he would take
public testimony.
MR. BENJAMIN BROWN, representing the Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce, stated strong support for SB 56 and Senator Dyson's
efforts to extend a hand of friendship to our Canadian neighbors
to the east. The Yukon Territory and Alaska share a lot of
similarities in personality and geography. One similarity they
do not share is the saltwater coastline. The Yukon Territorial
Assembly has already passed legislation enabling Alaskans to
obtain resident fishing licenses in the Yukon Territory. SB 56
may seem like a small gesture but it fits into a larger
framework of developing friendly relations with the Yukoners.
MR. GORDY WILLIAMS, legislative liaison for the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), introduced Rob Bentz,
deputy director of the Division of Sport Fisheries. He said
ADF&G has had several spirited discussions with the sponsor of
SB 56 over the last few days. He appreciates and supports the
sponsor's desire to be a good neighbor, however ADF&G has some
concerns to point out to committee members. The first is the
fiscal note, which represents a decrease in revenue in the
amount of about $46,000 from the fish and game fund. He admitted
it is a bit difficult to quantify the numbers and would answer
any questions about the fiscal note but pointed out the figure
provided is ADF&G's best estimate. The second issue is the
public policy call of granting this privilege to Yukon residents
and the precedent that may set for the residents of British
Columbia.
VICE-CHAIR WAGONER asked Mr. Williams to postpone the remainder
of his testimony as Premier Fendie was on-line.
PREMIER DENNIS FENDIE, Government of Yukon, said his recent
discussions with Senator Dyson renewed an issue for Yukoners
that has been around for awhile, that being reciprocal licensing
fees between Alaska and the Yukon. He said the Yukon Assembly
has already made regulatory changes to allow Alaska residents to
purchase a fishing license at a predetermined rate, which he
believes is $15. SB 56 would provide Yukoners that same
reciprocal arrangement when purchasing fishing licenses in
Alaska. He indicated that the Yukon has no intention of creating
problems for the state; the agreement will be between two
jurisdictions and would not set a precedent because the Yukon
does not have similar arrangements with other Canadian
jurisdictions. SB 56 will do a lot for relationship building.
The Government of Yukon and the State of Alaska work on many
issues collectively with a common purpose and interest, for
example, SHAKWAK, the railway, and the gas pipeline. This
gesture is one small component of what is growing into a very
productive relationship between the two jurisdictions. He said
the Government of Yukon is ready to enter into the reciprocal
agreement but, despite the outcome of SB 56, it desires to
continue to work together with the State of Alaska.
SENATOR DYSON said his sense is that reducing the cost of the
fees will not make a huge economic difference to the Yukoners
who come to the coast to fish, but it will send a friendly
signal. He asked Premier Fendie if he believes SB 56 will
increase the number of Yukoners that come to the coast to fish.
PREMIER FENDIE said it is highly unlikely because the number of
Yukoners who travel to the coast today is not driven by the cost
of the license but rather by the close proximity. He repeated
this is more about furthering relationships; he does not believe
SB 56 will create a mad rush of Yukoners to Alaska. He pointed
out the Yukon Territory's population has decreased by about
3,000 people over the last six years. He said that Yukoners hope
this will also entice more Alaskans to come fish in the Yukon
Territory. He then informed members he will be traveling to
Juneau soon to visit with Governor Murkowski.
There being no further questions, VICE-CHAIR WAGONER asked Mr.
Williams to resume his testimony.
MR. WILLIAMS continued by telling members it is important to
remember that British Columbia shares a significant border with
Alaska and a significant portion of its population does not have
access to saltwater. He also pointed out that Alaska and the
Yukon have significant differences in their sport fishing
limits. In the Yukon, the limit is an amalgamation of two salmon
per day; in Alaska, non-residents are allowed an amalgamation of
26 salmon per day and access to halibut and other saltwater
species. Much of the Yukoners' saltwater fishing efforts are
concentrated in the Southeast area of Juneau, Haines and
Skagway. He deferred to Mr. Bentz to recount discussions about
those areas at Board of Fisheries meetings. He concluded by
saying ADF&G supports the commitment to maintain a good
relationship with the Government of Yukon, but it wants the
committee to be informed of the issues that surround this kind
of approach.
SENATOR ELTON said the least of his concerns is the decrease of
$46,000 in the fish and game fund because ADF&G has dollars
warehoused in a lot of different components. He said the issue
of concern to him is that the Premier said he does not
anticipate any further effort on the part of Yukoners in
Southeast waters. However, right now non-residents catch two out
of three king salmon and there is a cap on the take of king
salmon each year by the sport component. He asked for
reassurance that the enactment of SB 56 will not create cap
problems that make it more difficult for Southeast residents to
catch salmon.
MR. ROB BENTZ, deputy director of the Sport Fish Division,
ADF&G, said there are limits on the sport fishery. The Board of
Fisheries has delineated the limits and restrictions for
residents and non-residents. The board met in Ketchikan last
February and amended the king salmon management plan to make the
restrictions on non-residents a little more stringent. The daily
limit for king salmon will be one per day and three fish
annually, regardless of the abundance. In contrast, the resident
daily limit will remain at two king salmon with no annual limit.
If the number of fishermen from the Yukon Territory remains
static, he does not anticipate any impacts to resident anglers.
SENATOR ELTON asked if ADF&G and the Board of Fisheries define
resident anglers by where they live, not by whether they have a
resident fishing license. He asked if under SB 56, a Yukoner
would be considered a non-resident yet hold a resident fishing
license.
SENATOR DYSON clarified that resident status will only apply to
the fee so that Yukoners will pay a resident fee for a non-
resident license.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the amount in the fiscal note was
calculated by changing the amount charged for the number of
licenses sold to Yukoners in the past.
MR. WILLIAMS referred to a chart distributed to members and
indicated that the first column total reports the number of
licenses sold, which was 2,741. Currently, the non-resident
annual fee is $100 per year. In addition, non-residents who want
to make multiple trips can buy a one or three-day license for
less than the cost of an annual permit. Therefore, of the total
2,741 purchases, some people may have purchased multiple-day
permits while other people may have purchased annual permits.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if ADF&G anticipates an increase in the
number of Yukoners who would come to Alaska if the license fee
is reduced.
MR. WILLIAMS said the resident rate is for an annual license so
it may not entice more people to come but it is likely to entice
those with licenses to come more often.
MR. BENTZ added that when the legislature raised non-resident
license fees in the mid-1990s, ADF&G was concerned that it might
see a decline in the number of non-resident anglers. The
increased fee did not have that effect. He does not believe the
license fee is a deterrent. Those who want to fish will do so.
He said in the past, in a group of six, two may have fished. If
SB 56 is enacted, perhaps four of the group will purchase
licenses.
SENATOR DYSON asked if the purchase of one annual license as
opposed to several day licenses will reduce ADF&G's
administrative cost.
MR. BENTZ said sales will be easier for the license vendors.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked what effect the currency exchange will
have.
VICE-CHAIR WAGONER said it should have no effect on Alaska but
it will be cheaper for Alaskans buying licenses in the Yukon.
SENATOR ELTON asked that someone get back to him with an answer
on whether Yukoners will have to register the boats they trailer
to Alaska.
MR. WILLIAMS said he did not think so and believes that is only
a requirement for boats being registered in Alaska.
VICE-CHAIR WAGONER asked if Mr. Williams said the bag limit in
Alaska is 26 salmon per day.
MR. WILLIAMS said the non-resident limit is an amalgamated total
of 26 salmon per day including pinks, chums and cohos.
MR. BENTZ said the bag limits, except for king salmon, are the
same for residents and non-residents. In most saltwater areas,
the limits are 6 per day for each species of coho, chum, sockeye
and pink. The king salmon limit is one per day for a non-
resident or 2 for a resident. Therefore, a non-resident or
resident could keep 25 fish per day.
VICE-CHAIR WAGONER said he has done a lot of saltwater fishing
and has never caught close to that number.
MR. WILLIAMS said he made that point to show what the
availability will be if a Yukoner buys an Alaska license.
VICE-CHAIR WAGONER noted there were no further questions and
asked the will of the committee.
SENATOR STEVENS moved SB 56 from committee with individual
recommendations and its attached fiscal note.
There being no objection, VICE-CHAIR WAGONER announced the
motion carried.
SB 155-PREDATOR CONTROL/AIRBORNE SHOOTING
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS, sponsor of SB 155, moved to adopt a
proposed committee substitute, labeled Version V, as the working
document of the committee.
SENATOR ELTON objected for the purpose of an explanation.
SENATOR SEEKINS told members there has been a title change to
clarify the intent of the legislation. He said the original
title read, "An Act relating to hunting and predators and
providing for an effective date." The new title reads, "An Act
relating to predator control programs and providing for an
effective date," which pertains to predator control programs and
has nothing to do with hunting.
MR. BRIAN HOVE, staff to Senator Seekins, gave the following
explanation of the measure.
SB 155 revises language with Section 16.05.783 of the
Alaska statutes relating to the regulation of fish and
game. These revisions provide the fish and game board
and commissioner with necessary tools in the
management of game populations throughout the state.
The first revision clarifies legislative intent with
respect to airborne predator control programs. The
second revision provides for game population
objectives to be taken into consideration in
determining whether or not a predator control program
should be implemented. It allows the board to use both
prey and game population objectives for making the
determination with respect to the use of a predator
control program.
SB 155 makes changes that will allow the fish and game
board, as well as the Department of Fish and Game, to
better manage wildlife by balancing predator and game
populations based on the best science available.
VICE-CHAIR WAGONER announced with no further questions from
members, the committee would take public testimony.
MS. JENNA WHITE stated opposition to the essence and practice of
SB 155, which will allow same day airborne hunting by the
public. She said she is well aware of the importance of
harvesting moose as a necessary food for the table. She has
lived many years in remote locations where hunting, gathering,
and gardening were her only means of food. However, she has many
concerns about implementing this practice. She made the
following points.
· Moose population numbers are unknown in much of Alaska,
even in many areas where intensive predator control
management is utilized. For example, two times as many
moose are now known to inhabit Unit 19D East and Unit 13 as
were previously estimated. The area is very large with vast
topographical variations. Although harvest levels are
estimated, true population numbers are not known. Intensive
management practices should not be utilized when population
numbers and trends are simply "guestimates."
· Removal of the commissioner's authority to act on findings
of the Board of Game to decide whether this intensive
management procedure should be utilized overrides the
existing system of checks and balances.
· Aerial shooting by members of the public creates a threat
to public safety and property rights. Many areas of Alaska
have minimal wildlife law enforcement. The probability that
non-targeted wildlife and people could be shot is high.
· Alaskans have voted down this method of hunting twice.
· It is likely that moose numbers are decreasing statewide
from the elevated populations of the 1980s. However,
keeping population numbers at high levels for extended
periods of time is inevitably unsustainable and will lead
to population crashes.
MS. WHITE said there are more moderate and acceptable ways to
manage wildlife and to represent the needs and desires of
Alaskans.
MR. PAUL JOSLIN, conservation biologist for the Alaska Wildlife
Alliance, said the Alliance is opposed to SB 155 and its
companion bill, HB 208. The Alliance sees this legislation as
highly divisive and unnecessary. Same day airborne hunting of
wolves has not reduced the overall killing of wolves in Alaska
in the past. He noted he provided members with copies of data,
the harvest records from 1978 to 2002 to support that statement.
Over the last 25 years, the number of wolves killed each year
has increased from 600 to 1500 per year. It is obvious why this
jump occurred even though airborne hunting of wolves occurred:
during that time, the population of Alaska has increased over 50
percent, meaning the wolves are more at risk because of human
presence. Newer hunting tools have exploded onto the scene, such
as M-16s. The number of snowmobiles has increased substantially.
He said the Board of Game has already liberalized, for purposes
of control, the ability to pursue wolves actively on snow
machines. He questioned why anyone would want to add this extra
method to the toolbox.
MR. JOSLIN said the legislature needs to be concerned about the
current number of wolves being killed in the state. He believes
voters have become more aware that the take has jumped 150
percent in the past 25 years and they question whether things
have changed that much. They will look to legislators for a more
reasonable alignment if the Board of Game does not do it. The
legislature has already heard from Alaskan voters on this
question twice. Instead of looking for predator control
expansion, Mr. Joslin asked members to look at other ways to
solve this problem. For example, in McGrath, there is a need to
add another 30 moose to the harvestable take. He said this bill
moves in the wrong direction.
MR. JOSLIN said, regarding the recent change to remove the
commissioner from the process, he agrees with the previous
speaker that a check and balance is necessary. He recalled that
Mr. Robus pointed out at the last meeting that biology is not
the only consideration.
SENATOR LINCOLN thanked Mr. Joslin for his testimony but pointed
out the Dittman survey he referred to asked the question: Do you
feel the State of Alaska should or should not sponsor an
experiment to see if killing all wolves and removing as many
black bear ... would result in significantly more moose? She
said the general public was not responding to reducing the
predator population but was responding to a question of killing
all wolves. She said there is a vast difference between the
eradication of wolves and merely reducing the numbers.
TAPE 03-36, SIDE B
[Part of Mr. Joslin's response was lost due to the tape change.]
MR. JOSLIN responded that more than one question was asked. One
addressed the McGrath area, and asked about removing all of the
wolves and as many bears as possible. Another question was
broader and asked how people felt about predator control in
general. Negative responses to both of those questions were in
the high 70th percentile.
MS. DOROTHY KEELER, representing herself, told members the
threat that an aerial predator control program will create a
tourism boycott is being taken seriously. The new version of SB
155 is a vain attempt to hide who would be responsible for such
a boycott. If this bill passes, Governor Murkowski will have
created a state-sanctioned predator control program for which he
can't be blamed directly. If this bill passes, the legislature
has removed ADF&G's final decision-making capacity. The six
Alaska Outdoor Council members, now sitting on the Board of
Game, who were not elected by the people and answer to no one,
may have the power to bring the State of Alaska to its financial
knees with a tourism boycott. The Board of Game has a vested
interest in prolonging that boycott. Initiating predator control
to meet harvest objectives set by the Board of Game is
initiating a never-ending predator control program. The
objectives were set using historically high harvest levels
established after years of poisoning and aerial hunting
predators. If SB 155 passes, the legislature has, "asked the
bullies of the playground to bankrupt the parents of all of the
other kids that want to use it." This assumes the bullies have
the legal authority to do so.
MS. KEELER said the goal of the extremist [hunters] is to use
the Governor, and now the legislature, to drive out those pesty
non-consumptive users who dare try to share in the use of
Alaska's wildlife resources. She cautioned that if this bill
passes, a tourism boycott, more referenda and initiatives are
certain, as well as lawsuits. She stated, "Pass this bill, and
you deserve the shame of knowing you trashed Alaska's tourism
industry to benefit a handful of extremist hunters whose dream
is to monopolize the use of Alaska's wildlife and return to the
good old days of massive statewide predator control."
MS. KEELER then read the following testimony from Mr. Leo
Keeler, who was unable to attend. She informed members that Mr.
Keeler was a member of the Unit 19D East adaptive management
team and was intimately involved in this issue.
The 19 East McGrath adaptive management team, of which
I was a member, developed a draft predator control
plan. Before it was finished, scientific reports
showed the moose population was growing but the bull-
cow ratio in popular hunting areas was the true
problem. Because of the [indisc.] science, the team
never sent a team-approved plan to the governor. Mike
Fleagle, now Board of Game chairman, as a member of
the McGrath team, agreed with the subsistence science
that justified using the moose population objectives
from 6,000 to 3,000 to 3,500 moose. Now that it is
known that hunters keep the bull-cow ratio to as low
as 6 bulls per 100 cows, he wants to reestablish the
old 6,000 objective. This old 6,000 figure is a guess
made from [indisc.] during extreme predator control
days, not from science. Some legislators hope to
return to those extreme predator control days and are
introducing legislation to benefit a single wildlife
interest group - hunters.
SB 155 will authorize the Board of Game to continue to
ignore public concerns with predator control as they
have done for years. If passed, the legislature will
again be ignoring their responsibility to protect all
citizens' interest in Alaska's resources just like
they are ignoring Alaskans' interests in the
subsistence issue. If passed, it will lead to
lawsuits, initiatives, and ultimately the collapse of
the Board of Game system. Hopefully, the wildlife
board that will replace the Board of Game will
represent all citizens and all users. I hope it will
remove the legislature from the decision process and
place control of Alaska's wildlife resources in the
hands of all citizens, not just extremist hunters. If
an initiative is needed to get a wildlife board, let's
start one now.
MS. KEELER said obviously Mr. Keeler is opposed to SB 155.
MR. ROBERT FITHIAN, Alaska Professional Hunters' Association
(APHA) executive director, informed members he is an eco-tour
operator and master guide. APHA strongly supports SB 155. APHA
represents Alaska's oldest tourism related industry, an industry
that contributes in excess of $120 million to Alaska's economy
every year. During the past 10 years, the non-resident hunters
to Alaska have lost over 50 million acres of opportunity as a
direct result of the state subsistence law and low ungulate
populations, despite the fact that they contribute a minimum of
75 percent of ADF&G's wildlife conservation budget. In his
travels throughout rural Alaska, he has found user groups to be
extremely distressed with current management policies. Many
moose populations have lost 55 percent and the calf survival
rate has dropped to lower than 7 percent in many parts of the
state. Only 3.5 percent of surviving moose are female. He
provided the following statistics on the statewide moose
harvest:
· 86 percent are being harvested by predators
· 10 percent are dying by natural mortality of old age,
starvation or disease
· 4 percent are being harvested by humans
He pointed out these two equations tell us if all hunting stops
today, next year there will still be fewer moose. Article VIII,
Sec. 3 of the Alaska Constitution states that wherever occurring
in their natural state, fish, wildlife and waters are reserved
to the people for common use. Sec. 4 of Art. VIII mandates that
fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands and all other replenishable
resources belonging to the state shall be utilized, developed
and maintained on the sustained yield principle subject to
preferences among beneficial users.
MR. FITHIAN said Alaska's wolf populations have never been
threatened or endangered. He asked members to pass SB 155.
MR. WAYNE KUBAT, representing himself, commented that a previous
speaker testified against predator management because accurate
surveys haven't been done. He said surveys have been used as a
tool for years and are extremely expensive. He said there are a
lot fewer moose because predators are taking 85 to 90 percent of
them. He stated support for SB 155.
MR. JESSIE VANDERZANDEN, executive director of the Alaska
Outdoor Council (AOC), said that SB 155 is one of AOC's top
priorities. He maintained this bill is not about fair chase or
ethics; it is not about providing trophy hunters with bigger
moose racks; it is not about eliminating wolves or allowing
every SuperCub to shoot wolves. Most important, this bill is not
anti-predator. These myths are being created by animal rights
groups who put wolves on a pedestal and, by doing so, create
public sympathy for them at the expense of other wildlife
species. This undermines the integrity of scientific wildlife
management and every Alaskan who wishes to utilize wild food for
sustenance. These myths should be refuted.
MR. VANDERZANDEN said SB 155 is about asserting the state's
right to manage wildlife in a scientific manner for the benefit
of its citizenry. SB 155 is about helping the state meet its
statutory and constitutional obligations to manage wildlife for
sustained yield. It is about putting wildlife management back in
the hands of professional managers who know it best. He
indicated this bill is narrow in focus. It would limit airborne
or same day airborne predation management to only those areas
where big game populations are depressed and where predation has
conclusively been determined to be a factor in that decline.
This management tool can only be activated on 10 to 20 percent
of Alaska's lands once federal lands, closed areas, and
topography are accounted for. Airborne or same day airborne
predation management is not a widespread practice, but it is
available in almost every other state in the nation. Given
Alaska's challenging topography, it should be available here. He
said tying predation management to improving population
objectives to determine how many moose and predators can co-
exist in a long term sustainable manner in a certain area will
allow predators to be part of the management equation. It is not
a question of how wolves are managed, but how wildlife is
managed.
MR. LYNN LEVENGOOD, executive board member of the Alaska
Wildlife Conservation Association (AWCA), stated support for the
committee substitute for SB 155 and urged its passage. AWCA
believes this bill will provide one tool for the Board of Game
to use to restore an abundance of wildlife in Alaska to benefit
all Alaskans and user groups. ADF&G data shows a decline of up
to 75 percent of the sustainable population base of moose and
caribou in some game management units. In the last decade, the
Board of Game has traded intensive management areas and has not
implemented predation control programs. This year, the acting
commissioner has refused to certify to the Board of Game
precisely what ADF&G biologists testified to the board. Most
recently, ADF&G has done nothing while it watched and counted
the sustained base of ungulate populations decline by up to 75
percent. ADF&G is currently at risk of being perceived as
rendering itself irrelevant by advocating its responsibilities.
SB 155 allows the Board of Game one tool to help restore an
abundance of wildlife in concert with ADF&G scientific data. He
urged members to pass CSSB 155(RES).
MR. TOM SCARBOROUGH, representing himself, stated support for SB
155. He said that although Governor Murkowski keeps saying he
wants to develop Alaska's resources, he doesn't understand that
wildlife is renewable and worth billions of dollars. The moose
population has declined up to 75 percent in some places and up
to 50 percent in others. That equates to hundreds of millions of
dollars' worth of wildlife both for the tourism industry and for
use as food for Alaskans. SB 155 will provide tools to allow the
Board of Game to manage this renewable resource.
MR. MATT ROBUS, Director of the Division of Wildlife
Conservation, ADF&G, told members that ADF&G has several
concerns with Version V. He explained that AS 16.05.783 pertains
to same day airborne hunting. The first sentence of that
statute, and of the bill as it remains, prohibits the taking of
certain species through same day airborne hunting or airborne
hunting. However, the rest of the bill deals with various forms
of predation control programs using two pathways. The second
pathway that this bill does not deal with allows ADF&G staff to
use aerial methods to take predators as part of a game
management program. SB 155 deals with the first pathway and the
current statute deals with the first pathway, which evolved from
the original initiative language. According to the Department of
Law, [the first pathway] allows the public to participate in
airborne or same day airborne predator control activities, but
not hunting. That is what is being discussed here.
MR. ROBUS said, regarding Version V, ADF&G appreciates that
wolverine have been retained as a species prohibited from same
day airborne hunting because of the vulnerability of that
species to those methods. The remainder of Section 2 has the
effect of taking the commissioner of ADF&G out of a fairly
complicated process in existing statute. The Board of Game can
authorize a predation control program including these types of
methods, but it must be run through the commissioner for a
finding based on three criteria. This process would remove the
commissioner from that process. It will allow the Board of Game,
after considering wildlife management objectives established for
the area and using two of the three criteria available to the
commissioner in his finding process, to authorize a predation
control program that could allow the public to use airborne or
same day airborne methods to take predators. He said while this
changes the commissioner's role in the whole process, it does
not change ADF&G's authority to either implement or not
implement a predation control program.
MR. ROBUS told members that ADF&G's next concern is on page 2,
line 16. The language deleted is the third criterion the
commissioner is held to that would not be required of the board
when authorizing a predation control program. The board would
have to find that predation is preventing the achievement of
management objectives for an ungulate population and that
reduction of that predation is likely to recover the ungulate
population. The third criterion the commissioner must find, that
is not included in the bill, is that same day airborne methods
are required or necessary to make the reduction in predation.
MR. ROBUS said his next point about the bill is in regard to
Section 2, which would be a new section of statute. It lists
what the board must do when authorizing a predation control
program: establish predator reduction objectives and limits;
determine the methods and means to be employed in the program;
and determine who is authorized to participate and the
conditions under which they can participate. This is an area of
concern because ADF&G understands from the Department of Law
that the board has the authority to do all of these things at
its option. ADF&G is concerned that if the board is mandated to
do all of those things every time a program is authorized, it
could lead to a very narrowly defined program that would be
unacceptable to the executive branch. ADF&G would prefer more
flexibility and asked the committee to reconsider using the word
"shall" on line 22.
MR. ROBUS concluded by telling members the Federal Airborne
Hunting Act bears on this whole situation and affects ADF&G's
role in any predation control programs put forth by the state.
That act prohibits anyone from taking an animal from the air or
with the use of an aircraft in any way that harasses animals.
Several exceptions are contained in the Act. One exception
pertains to this legislation as it exempts a person with a
state-issued permit that certifies that person is participating
in a program to protect wildlife and is following reporting
procedures. Therefore, the airborne hunting act will keep ADF&G
involved to prevent the risk of violating the federal act if the
public is allowed to participate.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked Mr. Robus if he anticipates that ADF&G
will not cooperate to ensure that the provisions of the federal
act are met if this legislation is enacted and the board
implements an airborne predator control.
MR. ROBUS said it is likely ADF&G would issue those permits.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if, in so doing, ADF&G would coordinate
with its legal experts to make sure the participants are not
violating any federal law.
MR. ROBUS said it would.
SENATOR SEEKINS said his intent, regarding the words added on
line 20, page 2, was to retain a certain amount of control on
the Board of Game by requiring it to determine the number of
predators to be eradicated, to clearly define methods and means
to be employed, and to specify who can participate and the
conditions. He said he knows that is within the board's
prerogative now. He did not intend to reestablish the board's
prerogatives, but rather to say that when the board implements a
predator control program, it shall be careful to define the
terms and conditions of the program. He explained:
...I wanted the board to be responsible stewards of
the resource and not say, well, if you can go find 900
wolves somewhere, go kill those 900 wolves and they
only needed to have 200 of them taken out of there
based on the testimony that came from the department
to meet those kinds of objectives. I think it was
meant - rather than to try to constrain or to
intervene in the department's authority - the
department's part of the equation, but to kind of
remind the Board of Game that when they authorized a
predator control program they had to exercise a
certain amount of responsibility. That was my intent.
MR. ROBUS said he had his documents scrambled and can see those
words were added to Section 2.
SENATOR ELTON asked what the administration's position is on
constraining the commissioner's ability to make written findings
to determine that airborne or same day airborne shooting is
necessary.
MR. ROBUS said it is important to remember that it removes the
commissioner from a Board of Game process. Currently, when the
Board of Game is going through the process of implementing a
predator control program, there is a loop where it goes through
the commissioner. The administration's position is that in the
final analysis, the commissioner and administration's ability to
conduct or not conduct the program that is handed to ADF&G still
remains in the executive branch. That authority is not affected
by taking the commissioner out of the board process.
SENATOR ELTON asked if Mr. Robus is saying that removing that
language will not constrain ADF&G at all.
MR. ROBUS said that is correct. It will significantly streamline
a fairly complicated process but the result will be the same.
SENATOR SEEKINS remarked that first of all, the need for an
intensive management program must be established that entails an
extensive process requiring cooperation between the Board of
Game and ADF&G. ADF&G must present a lot of scientific data to
the board before any determination is made. This legislation
will only apply to a population that has met the terms of an
intensive management program and that conclusion will be
determined through input from ADF&G. It is not his intent to
allow the board to go around ADF&G. This bill only eliminates
the commissioner's second bite at the apple to certify what
ADF&G technical staff has already told the board.
5:00 p.m.
MS. DONNY FLEAGLE, representing MT&T Limited, a for-profit
village corporation consolidated in 1976, told members that MT&T
has five communities in the McGrath region. It has participated
in the Board of Game process for almost 10 years in an attempt
to get some relief. It has seen intensive management plans
adopted and extended and emergency petitions heard, but all
action stopped at the commissioner level. Therefore, regardless
of the scientific data or broad public support, implementation
of any intensive management plan gets narrowed down to the
philosophy of the governor's office. She said McGrath residents
have taken steps to try to sustain the crippled moose population
and will continue to do so. However, SB 155 provides a small
glimmer of hope that the McGrath area might get some relief. She
stated support for giving the board the authority to implement
an airborne predator control program.
MS. RUTHANN WARDEN, representing the Ahtna Corporation, read the
following letter submitted to committee members by Gloria
Stickwan.
The Ahtna people support land and shoot same day
airborne hunting in Unit 11 and Unit 13. The caribou
herds in Unit 11 and Unit 13 are at a low population.
The wolves and bears prey upon the calves in these two
units. The ungulate population will continue to
decline if nothing is done to protect their calves.
Brown bears and black bears should be added to the
list of predators for Unit 11 and Unit 13. The black
and brown bears are numerous and are killing the
calves of caribou and moose. Unit 13 is a popular and
impacted place during the hunting seasons for caribou
and moose. This will help to reduce the ungulate
population even more so. Please read and take into
consideration, when you vote on this, my statement.
The Copper Basin is and will become more impacted. The
moose and caribou calves need to be protected from
predators in Unit 11 and Unit 13.
SENATOR ELTON asked Mr. Robus why fox and lynx are being removed
from lines 4 and 5 but wolverine remain.
SENATOR SEEKINS informed members that fox and lynx were in the
original statute but will be removed because biologists were not
concerned that anyone would get a concerted airborne effort
against foxes and lynx; it is next to impossible to land and
shoot them as they are too fast. He said their removal was a
matter of streamlining the statute. ADF&G did ask that wolverine
remain in the statute because a wolverine is a slower animal.
The wolverine population could be impacted by concentrated
airborne efforts.
MR. RON SOMERVILLE, newly appointed member of the Board of Game,
stated strong support of SB 155. He indicated the major focus of
the discussion about SB 155 has been Unit 19D East. SB 155
attempts to establish a mechanism in statute that recognizes the
roles of the various boards, departments and governor's office.
It uses a scientifically defensible process that the National
Academy of Sciences would say can occur when predators are
keeping an ungulate population way below its desirable level to
meet the needs of the local residents as well as other
residents, if at all possible. He said Unit 19D East is an
example of a whole system going array. Three different boards
have identified a biological emergency in that area.
TAPE 03-37, SIDE A
MR. SOMERVILLE said the board, at its last meeting, again made
an exhaustive review of the scientific information and heard a
lot of public testimony about how something needed to be done.
Had SB 155 been in effect, the board could have initiated, in
this selective area, some aerial hunting or land and shoot
options that the Governor said were available. As it stands
right now, residents are very discouraged that anything will
ever be done. He said in a practical sense, this legislation
does not really deviate in any substantive way from the two
initiatives that passed. It retains very stringent requirements
on the board and the department. It retains many hoops requiring
scientific justification. It says in areas with extremely
suppressed ungulate populations, where the needs of the local
people have been demonstrated and are extreme, some action
should be taken to alleviate that condition. He said this is not
a massive hunting effort. SB 155 will go a long way to provide
another tool for the board to use without sacrificing the good
nature and survival of wolves in Alaska. He pointed out he is a
biologist himself and believes wolves are economically important
to a lot of rural Alaskans and to the tourism industry.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Somerville if he was testifying on his
own behalf.
MR. SOMERVILLE said he is representing the Board of Game.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked why Mr. Somerville is puzzled by the
Governor's rejection of the approach he first came on board with
regarding land and shoot. She asked if the Board of Game
discussed that issue with the administration and was involved in
making that decision.
MR. SOMERVILLE said Mike Fleagle, the board chair, did discuss
the predator control issue with the Governor's Office. He
indicated the Governor's Office said the board could not require
state personnel to take wolves with helicopters. When the board
did its findings and recommendations, it felt the most effective
method should be used for a variety of reasons: efficiency and
cost. With that in mind, the board was prepared to approve the
option of using local residents. However, the board bumped up
against the narrow interpretation of the existing law that says
the objectives in place prohibit the board from doing that.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Somerville if SB 155 will allow the
board to implement such a program.
MR. SOMERVILLE said SB 155 will allow the board and the
department to implement exactly what the Governor said he would
support.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if SB 155 passes, the Governor could still
stop the program or whether it will take it out of the hands of
the Governor.
MR. SOMERVILLE said the Governor holds the purse strings of any
program. SB 155 removes the conflict between the commissioner
and the board regarding the commissioner's findings. He said
something this important will not be done with the board and the
Governor or the board and the legislature at loggerheads. He
said the board would have preferred the use of helicopters for a
variety of reasons but the Governor wanted to use aircraft,
trapping, and local residents as much as possible. SB 155 will
allow the board to do that.
SENATOR LINCOLN commented:
In talking with the Governor, perhaps - I could have
misunderstood him because by use of local residents
for trapping - we're beyond that this year.... I'm
from a village. I live in a village. I've been out
there for the hunting. I don't see how the Governor
can say use local people to control the wolves because
that is impossible in some of the areas where they
have expanded so greatly and they are a very smart
animal. So, I don't see how we can use traps to assist
on predator control and that's why I've always
supported aircraft to do that because I feel that's
the safest, most humane way of reducing the predators
- or the wolves in the area that we're primarily
talking about - the McGrath area. So I may have
misunderstood his intent there.
MR. SOMERVILLE said he personally agrees that trapping is not an
adequate means of dealing with the number of animals that need
to be removed. Most staff say a good predator control program
will require 75 to 80 percent be removed. However, in some
areas, trappers have been able to take a significant number of
animals, which is an inexpensive way to go if the remaining
animals can be taken by aircraft. It's a win-win situation
because locals get to sell the [pelts] or use them.
MR. JOEL BENNETT, testifying on his own behalf, told committee
members he coordinated and organized the initiative in 1996 and
the referendum in 2000. He asked to respond to Mr. Somerville's
statement that SB 155 does not do any violence to those public
votes. He said one way it does is that both public votes had to
do with whether or not the public should be involved in predator
control efforts. Clearly, both measures excluded the public, and
any agents in the case of the second vote. He said that
fundamentally, he believes people still support using
professional ADF&G personnel only when necessary to conduct
predator control. History has demonstrated that when the public
does get involved, there is a marked lack of accountability,
increased wounding, and inefficiency in general in the program.
Some local people have participated in the past and have been
effective, but by and large, the most effective aerial shooters
have been from urban areas and there have been some real
problems associated with that. That's why both public measures
clearly sought to exclude the public from this business. He said
he believes the public would vote the same way again on that
point.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she hopes Mr. Bennett can understand her
viewpoint. The people in her villages do not have meat on their
table because wolves, in particular, have been taking a huge
number of moose.
MR. BENNETT said his position has clearly been that when
necessary, predator control should be done using professional
means and in the most efficient way, by helicopter. He cannot
answer why that is not happening in this case.
There being no further testimony, SENATOR DYSON moved CSSB 155
(RES), Version V, from committee with its attached fiscal note
and individual recommendations.
SENATOR ELTON objected.
The motion carried with Senators Seekins, Lincoln, Stevens,
Wagoner, and Dyson in favor and Senator Elton opposed.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
VICE-CHAIR WAGONER adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|