03/17/2004 03:42 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 2004
3:42 p.m.
TAPE(S) 04-23, 24
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Scott Ogan, Chair
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Vice Chair
Senator Ralph Seekins
Senator Ben Stevens
Senator Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 247
"An Act amending the definition of 'project' in the Act
establishing the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority; and
providing for an effective date."
MOVED SB 247 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 297
"An Act relating to the taking of black bear, brown bear, and
grizzly bear and to registration of big game guides for certain
guide use areas."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 127
"An Act authorizing priority treatment of certain permit
applications."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 247
SHORT TITLE: AK NATURAL GAS DEV. AUTHORITY INITIATIVE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WAGONER
01/12/04 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/04
01/12/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (S) RES, FIN
01/21/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/21/04 (S) Heard & Held
01/21/04 (S) MINUTE(RES)
01/28/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/28/04 (S) Moved SB 247 Out of Committee
01/28/04 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/15/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/15/04 (S) PRIORITY TREATMENT OF PERMIT
APPLICATIONS
03/17/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 297
SHORT TITLE: BEAR HUNTING/DISPOSAL OF HIDE/SKULL
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) SEEKINS
02/06/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/04 (S) RES, FIN
03/17/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Mary Jackson
Staff to Senator Thomas Wagoner
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 247 for sponsor.
Mr. Harold Heinze, CEO
Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority
Department of Revenue
PO Box 110400
Juneau, AK 99811-0400
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 247.
Mr. Brian Hove
Staff to Senator Ralph Seekins
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 297 for sponsor.
Mr. Matt Robus, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5226
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 297.
Ms. Jamie Purcell
PO Box 33578
Juneau AK 99803
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 297.
Mr. Ken Day
Emerald Air Service
Homer AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 297.
Mr. John Schoen
Audubon Alaska
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 297.
Mr. Henry Tiffany
Fairbanks AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 297
Mr. Neil Webster
Eagle River Guide
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 297.
Mr. Joe Clutch
Alaska Professional Hunters
King Salmon AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 297.
Ms. Chris Day
Emerald Air Service
Homer AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 297.
Mr. Henry Tiffany
Fairbanks AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 297.
Mr. Paul Joslin, Wildlife Director
Alaska Wildlife Alliance
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 297.
Mr. Joel Bennett
Alaska resident and hunter
Juneau AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 297.
Mr. George Siavelis
Master Guide
Aniak AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 297.
Ms. Roberta Highland
Homer AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 297.
Mr. Tom Kirstein
Licensed Master Guide
Fairbanks AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 297
Ms. Karen Deatherage
Defenders of Wildlife
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 297.
Mr. Derek Stonorov
Homer AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 297.
Mr. Myrl Thompson
Wasilla AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Submitted written testimony on SB 297.
Mr. Robert Archibald
Homer AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Submitted written testimony on SB 297.
Ms. Nina Faust
Homer AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 297.
Ms. Bobbie Jo Skibo
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 297.
Ms. Dorothy Keeler
Professional wildlife photographer
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 297.
Mr. Bachrach
Alaska Adventures
Homer AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 297.
Captain Howard Starbard, Commander
Alaska Bear Wolf Wildlife Enforcement
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
PO Box 111200
Juneau, AK 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 297.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-23, SIDE A
SB 247-AK NATURAL GAS DEV. AUTHORITY INITIATIVE
CHAIR SCOTT OGAN called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:42 p.m. Present were Senators Thomas
Wagoner, Ben Stevens, Kim Elton and Chair Scott Ogan. Senator
Ralph Seekins arrived shortly thereafter. The first order of
business to come before the committee was SB 247.
MS. MARY JACKSON, staff to Senator Thomas Wagoner, sponsor of SB
247, said the bill had been before the committee two times and
nothing had changed. The fiscal note is indeterminate.
CHAIR OGAN expressed concern over getting permits to build
something to tide water in Cook Inlet and sending a mixed signal
to the private sector that would invest in such a project.
At some point, we need to quit cutting bait and get
our lines in the water and decide what we're doing
here. I guess I want to get it on the record that at
some point in the very near future, we're going to
have to rally behind the project in this state.
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER said this bill does what the governor
wants it do, which is establish a spur line to Cook Inlet, which
currently has state infrastructure for manufacturing in light of
the fact that Alaska is short on proven gas reserves.
MS. JACKSON informed the committee that she attended an Alaska
Natural Gas Development Authority (ANGDA) meeting in Kenai and
was heartened by comments from members about the need to
recognize the value of the Cook Inlet Basin. She pointed out
that there is no permit yet for the Cook Inlet or the
Southcentral route under the ANGDA. "Anything that can be done
to elevate the Southcentral and Cook Inlet Basin is of value to
the whole state."
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS said he considered different possibilities
for getting a line to Cook Inlet, but after much thought
concluded that the market should determine which route would be
used rather than the government.
In that regard, I'm willing to take a look at
alternative routes to the ones that have already been
suggested, because I think it opens it to market
demand rather than legislative dictate. That's why I
intend to vote for this particular bill.
CHAIR OGAN responded:
I'm not going to object to the bill moving today, but
I do want to put on the record that a number of years
th
ago - this is my 10 year working on commercializing
natural gas; so I've got a little bit of history with
it - a number of years ago, we had representatives
that the governor's office hired, you might recall,
Senator Elton, the consultants in Taiwan and Korea....
who said that Alaska appears dysfunctional to the
market....
I agree with Senator Wagoner that at this point we
don't want to close off our options and we need to
keep all the tools we can in the toolbox. But, if we
have a viable investor, when that happens we need to
get unified and we need to send a positive message to
the people that are going to risk billions of dollars.
With that reservation on the record, I'm not going to
object to the thing moving out today, but I do want to
keep mindful of that.
SENATOR KIM ELTON said the chair had expressed his concerns, as
well.
I do have a concern that we are kind of all over the
dartboard on this and having more tools in the toolbox
isn't necessarily bad as long as we don't feel like we
have to use them all and have a defused effort.... I
also believe, that if in fact, there was an entity
that wanted to advance the possibility of delivering
to tidewater in Cook Inlet and it was a serious
interest, I think at that time, we could do it in two
weeks....
MR. HAROLD HEINZE, CEO, ANGDA, said he wanted to make sure that
the authority would be looking at delivering gas via a spur line
to the Cook Inlet area. His view is that from the 20,000 ft.
level, the different routes cost about the same.
We will definitely be doing this. It is one of the
most important parts of what the authority is about.
It is a mandate in the ballot measure as it was
passed.... In terms of determining the feasibility of
the project, I am not uncomfortable in adding that
part to the mission. If you told me I had to recommend
to you a choice between the two routes, I would be
extremely uncomfortable, but that would require a
great deal of work that we have neither the funding
nor time to do.
CHAIR OGAN said the feds hired a consultant who did a report on
gas in Cook Inlet and asked if the report was out yet.
MR. HEINZE replied that he is one of the reviewers of that
report in draft form and has had a chance to look through it.
The report basically says that there is more gas to be found in
Cook Inlet, but it is not cheap gas and that the price would go
up close to the price of gas in the Lower 48. That price is what
it takes to attract the capital necessary for exploration.
If we do the spur line, what I've roughly calculated
at this point and it seems to be a similar number to
what they have calculated, is that the price in this
area would be around $1 to $1.50 less than the price
in the Lower 48. So, that is some advantage of this in
terms of pricing and it has to do with the fact that
there's a different tariff to the Lower 48 than there
is to here.... A lot of that has to be tested.
I will tell you also I have some other reports in
draft form that don't necessarily reach that same
conclusion. I am unable to tell you at this point how
the jury will come down in terms of the different
viewpoints as they exist.
CHAIR OGAN said he would be interested to see what dollar amount
gas would actually have to get to amortize a spur line. There
were no further questions.
SENATOR WAGONER moved to pass SB 247 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. There were
no objections and it was so ordered.
SB 297-BEAR HUNTING/DISPOSAL OF HIDE/SKULL
CHAIR SCOTT OGAN announced SB 297 to be up for consideration.
MR. BRIAN HOVE, staff to Senator Ralph Seekins, sponsor of SB
297, explained the bill.
There is no shortage of black or brown bears in
Alaska. Here they are not threatened nor endangered.
In some game management units, the bear populations
are many multiples of the established population
objectives. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game
estimates statewide black bear populations as high as
200,000 and brown bear populations as high as 35,000.
In certain game management units, estimates range from
70 to 90 percent of all the moose calves are dead
before they reach two months of age due, in large
part, to bear overpopulation. As a result, all
recruitment is virtually zero and the reproductive
base populations are crashing.
The well-publicized 2003 McGrath relocation experiment
clearly demonstrated that a reduction in bear
populations has a direct positive effect on increasing
calf survivability and thus the long-term health of
the resource. But relocation efforts do not solve the
underlying problem.
SB 297 addressed Alaska's bear overpopulation problem
in those places called intensive management areas
where the Board of Game has one: first - determined
that consumptive use of the big game population is a
preferred use; two - depletion of the big game
population has occurred and may result in a
significant reduction in the allowable human harvest
population; and three - enhancement of abundance or
productivity of the big game prey population is
feasibly achievable utilizing recognized and prudent
active management techniques.
It is important to understand that provisions in SB
297 only come into play if the Board of Game, advised
by the Department of Fish and Game biologists, find
that bears are a cause of the depletion or reduction
of the big game productivity. If the above findings
have been made, SB 297 allows for remediation efforts
on two fronts. First, registered guides would be
allowed to select and add a fourth guide use area
within the intensive management area for black and
brown bears. Then, methods and means would be relaxed
and seasons extended for the taking of bears through
the private sector by Alaska residents and their
family and friends.
A strong point of emphasis is that this program in all
reality is a predator control program. The provisions
of this act do not apply to game management units in
which intensive management is not necessary....
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER asked what the bear relocation program
cost in McGrath.
MR. MATT ROBUS, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
said it was a very expensive experimental effort and he
remembered it being around $50,000. There was a lot of aircraft
time and it was a capture and relocate operation, which is high
intensity and not something that could be done on a large area
basis.
SENATOR SEEKINS expanded that he remembered it as an experiment
to see if the reduction in bears, especially in the spring
calving season, could show a larger recruitment of moose calves,
which it did. However, it irritated a few people around the
Interior who had the bears imported into their area to eat their
moose.
MR. ROBUS urged a bit of caution saying that calf survival in
the experimental area was better when the department flew over
it in the fall than in surrounding areas or in previous years.
So, the tentative conclusion is that removal of the
bears did help calf survival. As with most wildlife
experiments, it's not without some fuzziness around
the results.
SENATOR WAGONER asked if any of the bears had radio collars and
if any of them migrated back to their original area.
MR. ROBUS replied that radio collars were put on a portion of
the bears that were moved.
Collars are expensive enough that we thought that
putting collars on some of the bears was about what we
could afford to do. Looking at those collars, a few of
those bears tried to move back to that area fairly
quickly, but only a few. Most of the bears, as of the
last time I heard, had still not returned to the area.
I need to say that I need to check with staff to get
the latest detailed results, but there did seem to be
some movement of a small number back into the area.
CHAIR OGAN added anecdotally that he had spent thousands of
hours in the field hunting moose and caribou. He quit hunting in
area 13, because he took one of three bulls in a herd of 30 cows
that didn't have a single calf. The cows are becoming very
mature and probably incapable of having calves. He, personally,
has seen a phenomenal increase in bears behind his house that
are jumping bull moose on the trail. He has found a number of
calf kills. There is a huge predation problem with animals other
than just the weak and sick.
SENATOR SEEKINS repeated that he considers SB 297 to be a
predator control program. A year ago, some critics said that the
department wasn't relaxing methods, means, seasons and bag
limits in order to reduce wolf predation in certain parts of the
state. After talking with the department and hunters from all
over the state, he came to the conclusion that some areas have
bear overpopulation problems. He looked at relaxing methods and
means and putting more hunters in the field who wanted to bag a
bear as the approach to solve this very isolated bear problem.
There is no intent for this to be used anywhere except
in those intensive management unit areas where it is
documentable from evidence provided by the Department
of Fish and Game to the Board of Game that intensive
management is necessary and that bears are causing a
significant portion of that problem. In areas like 13,
that you mentioned, for an example, grizzly bear
population estimates are as high as 1,600 grizzly
bears in that area. The population objective is, I
don't know, less than a third of that. So, they're
eating their way out of groceries, themselves.... It's
not prudent management in an area that is so relied
upon by humans to provide protein for their families
to just let that go without managing it. So, I hope as
we go forward through this discussion that it is
viewed as a predator control program and it is not
meant to apply to other areas where that concern is
not manifested.
4:10
MS. JAMIE PERCELL, Juneau resident, strongly opposed SB 297.
The leverage this bill gives guides and hunters to
kill bears when the state Board of Game declares
intensive game management is egregious and
unacceptable. It is unacceptable because it would
sanction a knee-jerk response to the management of
game versus scientific research directly pertaining to
the intensive game management areas.
SB 297 targets and scapegoats black, brown and grizzly
bears for the decreases in ungulate populations. It is
well-known that other significant variables affect
decreased ungulate populations. Those variables
include harsh winters, disease, over-hunting and
destruction and pollution of wildlife habitat. Global
warming is also becoming a factor in its impact on
wildlife populations. An example of this is the Perry
caribou herd of the Arctic. This herd which lives on
an island, Perry Island, off of the Arctic Coast has
incurred a decrease in population due to global
warming. The reason for this is because warming
temperatures have caused snow to melt on top of the
permafrost even during the winter. After the snow
melts, it freezes creating ice. The Perry caribou
cannot put their hooves through the ice to get to
their food sources. This phenomenon has decreased
their population through starvation.
It is clear that management of predator and prey
populations cannot be determined by short-sighted or
politically spurred methods. Management must always be
comprised of scientifically-based information
pertaining to specific management areas. SB 297 would
not facilitate that kind of management. It is not in
the best interest of this state to jeopardize healthy
bear populations with one day land and shoots, black
and brown bear baiting, culling of sows and year-old
cubs and deliberate hunting forays whose sole purpose
is to decrease bear populations.
Yukon Territory, Canada, implemented a predator
control program from 1992 to 1997, which included the
use of the surgical sterilization of wolves to help
bolster caribou and moose populations within the
territory. This sterilization along with temporary
closure of moose and caribou hunting areas, relocation
of wolves, wolf trapping and hunting and the killing
of wolves proved to be effective in bolstering
ungulate populations. I use this as an example to
emphasize the point that there are other viable means
to increase game populations.
In addition to the aforementioned negative aspects of
SB 297, let's not forget the bad public relations that
such archaic methods promote for many and especially
for those people who have plans to vacation in Alaska.
The Alaska Constitution proclaims that the priority
use of game is for human consumption. There will not
be sustainable populations of game unless it is
managed scientifically. SB 297 does not manage
predator and prey populations for sustainability. In
the long run, Senator Seekins' bill will not provide
Alaskans with moose, caribou and deer on their tables.
Thank you.
MR. KEN DAY, Emerald Air Service, Homer, said in 1996 outfitters
and air taxis from McGrath were calling all over the state for
air taxis to haul hunters into the McGrath area, because they
couldn't get enough airplanes to take hunters in. Hunters were
being taken in in DC3s and four-wheelers.
They decimated the moose population over in that area
and then they started screaming that wolves and bears
are the ones that did it. It's just not so. With the
advent of the airplane, four-wheelers and snow
machines and motorboats and high powered rifles and
all the pressure from the hunters, the moose and the
caribou have declined because of that not because of
bears. Sure they take moose calves, but that's the way
they make their living. Now the Board of Game has seen
fit to allow taking of moose calves because the moose
population is too high. So, you know, this is just
flying in the face of this whole bill. It's because of
the bears that the moose population is higher,
according to the Fish and Game. Bears shouldn't be
taken in the first year they are alive; they need to
reach their age of maturity so they can keep the
population going.
MR. DAY pointed out also that counting bears by flying over an
area and estimating isn't a very accurate way of determining
population.
CHAIR OGAN reflected that one of the most interesting days at
work he had was one he spent in the field with a bear biologist
in Fairbanks who personally knew every bear in the area he was
studying and had tagged well over 1,000 bears in his career.
MR. JOHN SCHOEN said he is a senior scientist for Audubon
Alaska. He offered the following comments on SB 297.
Allowing the methods and means in SB 297 will
jeopardize responsible bear conservation, particularly
brown and grizzly bears in significant portions of
Alaska. Some of these methods may in fact
significantly reduce populations in the long-term, far
from what may be desired, because bears have low
reproductive rates and populations are slow to rebound
after significant declines. I might also mention that
monitoring populations, especially in the lower
densities, is very, very costly.
Relative to the comment about GMU [game management
unit] 13 having a very high grizzly population, in
fact, the Department of Fish and Game began a grizzly
density estimate last spring and found it in the early
part of that study to be very, very low and it appears
to be declining. It would be preferable to simply
liberalize seasons and bag limits rather than
legalizing methods and means that are risky and highly
controversial. Not only will these proposals increase
conservation risks, they will also significantly
increase public animosity toward hunting.
Prior to my work with Audubon, I served as a wildlife
biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
for more than 20 years, including many years as a
brown bear researcher. I have also been a hunter most
of my life. The legislation proposed in SB 297
significantly liberalizes the taking of black and
brown bears in intensive management areas of Alaska.
It also allows extraordinary methods and means far
beyond the concept of fair chase. This legislation
applies to sport hunting and will trivialize the value
of bears and big game and may jeopardize bear
conservation in some areas of the state. Taking brown
bears over bait is not done anywhere in North America
and runs counter to all recommendations that
management agencies have provided the public regarding
bear safety.
Taking bears the same day airborne for sport hunting
is far beyond the bounds of fair chase. Few hunters
and none of the big game guides I know would approve
of using aircraft for hunting bears in Alaska. Taking
of female brown bears with yearling cubs is not
responsible management. In most cases, survival of
yearling cubs will be significantly reduced without
the mother's protection. No closed seasons on bears
relegates them to the status of vermin.
CHAIR OGAN noted that telephonic transmission had failed and he
would come back to Anchorage.
MR. NEIL WEBSTER, Eagle River Guide, said he has lived in Alaska
for most of 42 years. He applauded Senator Seekins' bill for
controlling the ungulate population. One concern he had is that
several guides are displaced because of the loss of non-resident
hunting opportunity for moose due to low populations in the
areas with closed seasons. The only thing those guides have left
is bears in units 13 and 16. A fourth guide use area, which is
now under consideration in the Legislature, would further impact
their operations.
MR. WEBSTER said he has testified at the Board of Game to
liberalize the season and increase the bag limit and perhaps
even waive the non-resident tag fee.
MR. JOE CLUTCH, Alaska Professional Hunters, King Salmon,
thanked Senator Seekins for his efforts to ensure that Alaskans
have sufficient ungulate species of game available for human use
on a sustained yield basis.
We've come through a decade with a virtual absence of
any meaningful predator management and it's apparent
without including predators in a management equation,
availability for human harvest can be quickly reduced,
if not eliminated. That being said, representing
Alaska Professional Hunters Association, the members
of our association are reluctant to support this
legislation as it is currently crafted. It's the
consensus of our members and most of the guys we've
talked to around the state in the last month that the
process of setting seasons and bag limits and methods
and means is best left to the Board of Game. Let them
make determinations on a case-by-case basis. It's
going to take a measured approach in dealing with
predators, whether it's wolves or it's bears. I know
Senator Seekins and I believe that is his intent in
this legislation.
MR. CLUTCH agreed with Senator Seekins' point about bag limits
and limiting methods and means not working as well as hoped. The
last meeting of the board illustrated the problems that come
with intensive management and one of them is the threshold of
what triggers it.
Basically, what it comes down to is allowable harvest
level, harvest guidelines that are based on what
current harvest records indicate people are using and
what they say they need. One of the loose components
of that equation has emerged as being that of
unreported harvests. In unit 19A and unit 19B, we've
seen unreported harvest data garnered by whatever
means by the State Subsistence Division, go from 11
percent in 2000 to 34 percent in 2002. At the last day
of the Board of Game meeting, all of a sudden there is
74 percent of unreported harvest. Factoring that into
the harvest guidelines doesn't leave anything for non-
resident or general resident allocation with or
without bears.
CHAIR OGAN asked what was the source of the unreported harvest.
MR. CLUTCH replied that people are just not complying with
harvest reporting.
I'm a member of an advisory committee here in Naknek-
Quijak, have been for 22 years. It's common in the
villages now - they are almost flaunting the fact that
unreported harvest is acceptable behavior. They'll say
it right in front of the public safety people. Then
they go out and get a household survey to boost the
level of animals necessary to eliminate other users to
push you into tier 1 or tier 2. This is a major issue
and one that, as it relates to this bill, I'm not sure
the prescription you've outlined here, Senator
Seekins, will help solve that problem.
Another dimension of the bill that is of considerable
concern to us is our counsel in Washington, D.C., Bill
Horn, advised that by eliminating the guide required
provision even on a provisional basis unit by unit
would undermine the defensibility of that provision in
its entirety and he's prepared to provide a memo and
documents to you to elaborate on that point.
Naturally, that's a major concern for us in the
guiding industry.
Additionally, as it relates to bears, we've got a
brown bear management plan that's been crafted over
many years of really hard work. Kodiak has just
completed one - Southeast Alaska several years ago - a
long-standing brown bear management plan in game
management unit 9 on the Alaska Peninsula. Bear
predation has always been a major factor as [has] wolf
predation. We still somehow manage to get recruitment
of animals. I think personally from my field of
observation, wolves are probably accounting for more
calf predation here than are the bears.... But, this
is unit-specific and should be discussed at the Board
of Game and probably not before your committee.
MR. CLUTCH agreed with Mr. Schoen's comment that inflicting the
provisions in SB 297 could cause increased public
disillusionment and resentment for hunting in general. However,
he thought it was important to continue to look for good
management practices and even suggested considering habitat
enhancement. "To my knowledge, we haven't had any major habitat
enhancement programs in this state for 15 years, whether it's
controlled burns, whether it's creating corridors. [END OF SIDE
A]
TAPE 04-23, SIDE B
4:30
MR. CLUTCH said he is definitely a proponent of ethical and fair
chase hunting and supports wide use of the resource and offered
to work with the committee on developing language on those
lines.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if he would ask Mr. Horn to analyze how
his ability as a resident to take all 20 of his cousins into the
field to hunt for a bear is different than his being able to
take his daughter's father-in-law. "Basically, what I'm doing is
extending the privilege that we give to a resident in the second
degree of kindred to include other family friends."
CHAIR OGAN said that was a good point. He went back to taking
testimony from Mr. Schoen from Anchorage who was cut off
earlier.
MR. SCHOEN said in his 28 years of wildlife work in Alaska, the
state has always enjoyed the respect and confidence of wildlife
professionals, hunters and the general public regarding bear
management. "With this bill, that well-earned respect and
confidence will evaporate over night. Clearly stated, this is
bad wildlife legislation...."
MS. CHRIS DAY, Emerald air Service, Homer, strongly opposed SB
297 for biological reasons. "This whole predator control
incident has been blown way out of proportion. I think we need
to figure the human predator into this equation...."
MS. DAY said that biologists tell her they really don't know if
there are too many bears or too few caribou.
There are simply no good numbers available, especially
for bears. Census numbers are a calculated guess at
best. Bear populations are easily knocked back and
they recover slowly, if we do make mistakes in these
rash proposals that we are talking about here.
I oppose this bill for ethical reasons. The techniques
to hunt in these so-called intensive management areas
fly in the face of ethical hunting technique....
But my biggest opposition is based on economics.
Senator Seekins finds that the bill addresses the
Alaska bear overpopulation problem. Who has determined
that we have a bear overpopulation problem? Also, in
the third paragraph - item 1 - first determine that
consumptive use of bears of the big game population is
a preferred use. The Board of Game doesn't ask the
general population what their preference is. I don't
believe necessarily that consumption is the number one
use.
People come to Alaska to see wildlife and bears are on
the top of their list. These people come and spend
millions of dollars in the state during the quest to
see these animals. I don't deny that hunting moose and
caribou brings revenue into the state, but the money
brought in by hunting pales in the face of tourism. As
our legislators, you have to wake up to reality. This
is the year 2004; don't make huge strides backwards by
passing SB 297. If for only purely monetary reasons,
it makes no sense. Alaska's future depends on tourism
and tourism depends to a great extent on the animals
that exist here in abundance. If all folks want to see
is pretty scenery, they can stop in Montana where,
because of intensive management, that's basically all
there is left - pretty scenery.
MR. HENRY TIFFANY, licensed master guide for 15 years, said he
supported parts of SB 297, but supported letting the Board of
Game handle methods and means. He was specifically concerned
with subsection (2)(h), which allows non-resident hunters to be
guided by residents over 19 years of age.
This would have a very detrimental impact on the
guiding industry and many of the guides within Alaska.
The Legislature found it necessary many, many years
ago to require guides for brown bear and grizzlies,
the reasons being - one, a matter of safety. Bears are
not like hunting squirrels; they can be a dangerous
animal. It takes time and experience to know how to
hunt them properly and judge them and do a
professional and safe job of it.
Allowing a resident hunter with maybe one or two years
in the state to then guide anyone he would like would
not only hurt the economics of the guiding industry,
but also could be a safety issue. There are people who
are simply not qualified to be in the field hunting
for bears.
Section 1 of this could help relieve some of the
problems if an area is found to have a predator
problem. Allowing guides a fourth unit would help
alleviate some of that pressure.... If that situation
were to occur I imagine it would become much more
affordable.... I thank you for your time.
MR. PAUL JOSLIN, Wildlife Director, Alaska Wildlife Alliance,
strongly opposed SB 297.
We regard this as an attack on bears using a variety
of techniques all of which would have a strong public
backlash from unfair chase to unqualified means for
attacking them. Many recognized authorities are
speaking out against such liberalizations. The
response to similar proposals recently considered by
the Board of Game by the International Association for
Bear Research and Management said, 'We believe that
the potential detrimental effects of such regulation
changes have not been adequately addressed and their
implementation could jeopardize sustained yield
management...of Alaska bear populations.'
The National Park Service in its review of brown bear
management in the western Arctic said, 'Both
subsistence and sport hunting opportunities for brown
bears have been and continue to be liberalized in
northwest Alaska without recent and rigorously
reviewed scientific information about the status of
the hunted populations.'
MR. JOSLIN said that bears have a low reproductive rate. It
doesn't take much to over-harvest them. The National Academy of
Sciences in its two-year review of wolf and bear management in
Alaska recommended against the manipulation of bear populations.
Bears are difficult to count and there is no concrete evidence
when over harvesting has occurred. Shaun Farley, the top brown
bear biologist in the state, said counting bears is a tough
order and one of the reasons is that they hibernate and can't be
counted against the snow - like, wolf, caribou and moose.
Bears, finally, are not vermin. While they may
sometimes kill moose and caribou, it doesn't mean that
the net effect is detrimental to the moose and caribou
populations. Just because bears kill calves doesn't
mean that the net effects of the moose population is
bad. I think the evidence is that bears have
successfully co-existed with these species for tens of
thousands of years. That ought to be a pretty good
measure. The fact that we have over one million moose
and caribou in this state ought to indicate that
things can't be too bad with respect to the bears.
MR. JOSLIN strongly urged the committee to reject SB 297.
MR. JOEL BENNETT said he was representing himself as a 36-year
state resident and active hunter for each of those years. For
his allotted time, he wanted to comment on ethics and
sportsmanship.
I think most hunters that I know of, a majority of
hunters pride themselves on adhering to a certain
commonly accepted code of sportsmanship and ethics.
That's been a hallmark of hunting for a long time
going back to Teddy Roosevelt. It's embraced by a
number of organizations who strive to articulate those
principles in their by-laws and formative rules. I
think there is a commonly understood consensus in this
state about where the limits are. That's why we have
certain rules that have not been modified since
statehood. It's interesting that this legislation
seems to take each one of those rules that relates to
bears and change the goalposts. This is unprecedented;
it hasn't been done since statehood. It hasn't been
done in almost every other state in this country; it
hasn't been done in Canadian provinces that have large
populations of brown bears, just like Alaska, like the
Yukon and British Columbia. In fact, some of those
jurisdictions are tightening their rules on bear
management because of their vulnerability - the Yukon
Territory being first and foremost. They define cubs
for instance, as an animal that is three years of age
or less, no motorized vehicles, no baiting, no
trapping, no sale of parts. These are the very aspects
of SB 297 that you see before you.
He used the analogy of a car sales business. Would it have a
commonly accepted code of ethics and business practices?
Probably it would. What if sales were lagging in certain areas?
Would the code of ethics be changed? Would a breach in business
practices be allowed? He didn't think so, but that is what this
bill does to hunting with regard to bears in certain large and
growing areas of the state. "I think [SB 297] is very
unacceptable to the general public, I think it's unacceptable to
a majority of the hunting public. I urge you to reject the
bill."
CHAIR OGAN explained that this is not about sport hunting or
fair chase. "This is obviously an intensive management tool...."
MR. BENNETT responded that predator control is accepted by
Alaskans if it involves state personnel in a very controlled
limited way, whether it's wolves or bears.
This allows the general public, under the general
hunting regulations, to adopt these methods and means.
So, therefore, I think it is a hunting measure in the
guise of a predator control bill.
CHAIR OGAN said that comment led him to ask Mr. Bennett if he
would support the helicopter hunting of wolves or bears by state
personnel.
MR. BENNETT replied, "No! Not unless it was an emergency...."
MR. GEORGE SIAVELIS said he is a master guide in Aniak and
serves on the Board of Directors for the Alaska Professional
Hunters Association and on the Western Interior Federal
Subsistence Regional Advisory Council. He opposed SB 297,
although for different reasons than they have heard today. He
strongly supported Senator Seekins' concern about past
administrations letting predator/prey ratios get completely out
of balance. He generally supported measures to correct that
problem in parts of SB 297. However, he didn't support any
changes to Alaska's guide requirement laws. It was only a matter
of time before some group would sue the State of Alaska,
claiming if you don't need a guide in intensive management
areas, you don't need a guide anywhere. Required guides for
brown bear hunting was enacted originally because of real public
safety concerns. Adding additional guide use areas for intensive
management areas will not help, either. He is in full support of
adjusting bag limits, methods and means to address the specific
unit 13 problems. He felt that the Board of Game could
adequately address the situation.
MS. ROBERTA HIGHLAND, Homer, said:
I'm feeling defeated by my government. I've already
been brought to my knees by the CBM shallow gas lease
fiasco, then they started shooting wolves from the
planes. Now there is this bill that I personally do
not believe should see the light of day. Hunters are
the successful predators. They have been so successful
they have eaten themselves right out of moose close by
their homes. Never mind that they moved into the
moose', wolves', bears' backyard. Now, they must kill
these predators to put food on their tables. I wonder
how long before it is shown that hunters were by far
the strongest predators and the moose just
miraculously appear for the highest and best user, the
hunter.
Here are some ideas: Do away with the politically
appointed Board of Game and let the biologists and
scientists do their jobs. Stop hunting in the over-
hunted areas....
Move the capital to Anchorage where it belongs. There
is a nice empty state-owned $50 million building that
would be a good start for a new capitol site. My
government should not be causing me this much
heartache and stress....
MR. TOM KIRSTEIN, Fairbanks, said he has been a licensed master
guide for 30 years. His real concern is section (2)(h), which
allows resident hunters to guide for bears. "What we're creating
here is something that is not a good healthy thing for the
industry for a lot of the reasons that have been mentioned
already."
MR. KIRSTEIN said he could appreciate the desire to do something
that is very intense in certain small areas of Alaska.
We're not dealing with a normal situation here. If
it's found to be deemed necessary to control
predators, you're going to have to take extraordinary
measures to deal with them. I don't believe that
dealing with it legislatively is necessarily the right
way to do that. The Board of Game is really where this
should be settled.
MS. KAREN DEATHERAGE, Defenders of Wildlife, said it has a
neutral position with respect to hunting and trapping and
strongly opposed SB 297.
There is not one component that is acceptable in any
way to sane or ethical wildlife management. This bill,
once again, takes the liberty to override public
process and the will of Alaskans when it comes to
managing our state's wildlife - as we've done with
aerial wolf killing, which was banned twice by the
Alaska public. Even the Board of Game has rejected the
means and methods outlined in this bill at their
recent meeting in Fairbanks.
The concept of bear control is scientifically unsound.
The 1997 National Academy of Science's Report,
entitled Wolf, Bear and Their Prey in Alaska, states
if given the opportunity, most or all bears would kill
and eat an ungulate calf, but individual bears vary
widely in predation success. Given this variation
among bears, the outcome of bear control programs is
highly unpredictable. It will depend on which bears
are removed and the feeding habits of the removed
bears....
MR. DEREK STONOROV said he is a hunter in game management unit
15C, probably one of the fastest growing areas in Alaska. He
ardently opposed SB 297. His area has good wildlife management
with bears and wolves and still has cow moose hunts. "Things
seem to be in balance without having predator control." He said
that SB 297 goes against fair chase and as a professional
wildlife biologist, he can say it also goes contrary to current
biologically determined practices for keeping sustainable brown
bear populations.
This bill is a giant step backwards in time for
successful wildlife conservation.... Predator control
for bears could...economically impact my livelihood,
which is a professional bear viewing guide....
The last point I'd like to make very quickly, I don't
think the conclusions drawn by the McGrath relocation
are necessarily scientifically valid. There's too many
variables that come into play right here and it's a
very short-term study.... I hope you will withdraw
this bill.
MR. MYRL THOMPSON, Wasilla, and MR. ROBERT ARCHIBALD, Homer,
submitted written testimony.
MS. BOBBIE JO SKIBO, Anchorage, said her family hunts and
fishes, but SB 297 is extremely poor management. "We are
adamantly opposed to this form of management of our resource."
She noted that the Kenai Peninsula has many problems that are
adding to the decline of the population of the brown bear
species, like the increase of defense of life or property kills.
In 1980 there were zero and today there are 18. There has been
no hunting season in over five years on the Kenai Peninsula. SB
297 is bad management, but she also felt that the animals
deserved to be taken respectfully.
MS. NINA FAUST, Homer, stated that she and her family are in
favor of fair chase. She is not a hunter, but is not against
hunting.
I think SB 297 is one of the most backward proposals
for managing brown bear that I've ever seen in recent
times. It recalls to me the years of our early state
history when some people called for the extermination
of bears on Admiralty Island in the name of making it
safe for logging.... Now the bears of Admiralty Island
are one of Alaska's treasures and we are fortunate to
have an incredible wildlife population in Alaska that
still includes the major predators....
The state should be concentrating on balanced
scientific management of all species. We should
remember the example of Yellowstone where all the
large predators were extirpated. Now, with the
introductions of large predators, we're finally
learning how important they are to a healthy natural
system. Let's not make the same mistake in Alaska by
trying to exterminate bears. Please don't pass SB 297.
MS. DOROTHY KEELER, professional wildlife photographer, said in
the early 1900s over-hunting and predator control were big
issues. Denali National Park was created primarily because
hunters were decimating the sheep.
Aerial hunting and poisoning began in the 40s and 50s.
Poisoning ended with statehood in '59, but aerial wolf
control, including land and shoot, continued until
1994. This widespread effort essentially turned parts
of Alaska into moose and caribou feed lots, the
temporary explosion of game packs beyond what the
habitat could handle. Populations of moose and caribou
peaked and crashed. Predators were blamed and cries
for control increased.
When poisoning ended with statehood and the aerial
wolf control was banned in 1994, predator prey
populations began to return to the balance nature
intended. Then the Board of Game in cahoots with ADF&G
took the historic artificially high peak population
numbers created after decades of aerial wolf control
and poisoning and used these estimates to set
population and harvest targets for each game
management unit. Protests to the Board of Game made up
of only hunters and trappers were ignored. Meanwhile,
proof of over-hunting abounds. ADF&G studies show
portions of 19D east have a bull/cow ratio of 6/100. A
2001 trend count conducted along the Kulitna,
Hoholitna Rivers in 19A and B, also verify bull/cow
ratios of 6/100. In unit 21D, bull/cow ratios in
Three-Day Slough were 15/100; at the Nuitna mouth
bull/cow ratios were 12/100 with 2/3 of those bulls
being yearlings. ADF&G's goal is 30 bulls per 100 cows
in a hunted population. Neither wolves nor bears
target adult bull moose, only man. Why haven't hunters
been managed?
The areas eligible for predator control based on
artificially high moose harvest objectives and the
intensive game management law includes more than 40
percent of the State of Alaska and there are cries for
more. To meet hunters' goals, predator control will
continue forever. You want proof? In unit 28, after
decimating predators, the moose population now exceeds
the carrying capacity of the habitat. Does the Game
Board limit the taking of predators so nature can
return balance? No. Now ADF&G and the Board of Game
are actively promoting killing cows and calves in unit
28 and removed the statewide moose hunting prohibition
during the last meeting. Destroying predators, and
bears in particular, will not solve the problem.
Please oppose SB 297.
MS. KEELER offered to fax the committee a map showing the 40
percent of the state that is eligible for predator control.
CHAIR OGAN thanked her for her testimony and stated for the
record that he had personally seen an adult bull moose that had
been ambushed and killed on the trail by a bear.
MR. DAVID BACHRACH, Homer, said he has a wildlife viewing and
photography business. He opposed SB 297; the methods are
controversial and scientifically and ethically unsound. They
also override the public process.
CAPTAIN HOWARD STARBARD, Commander, Alaska Bear Wolf Wildlife
Enforcement, Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), said the department does not oppose the intent of the
bill, but has concerns from an enforcement standpoint relevant
to a lot of issues brought up by previous speakers. One concern
is in an intensive management area there would presumably be
more bear bait stations including brown bear without any kind of
registration requirement. From a public safety and enforcement
standpoint, personnel wouldn't be able to identify the operator
of a bait station that had been abandoned and was littering or
otherwise out of compliance with location restrictions. The
posting of a bear bait station for public notice is so that
whoever sees the sign would know there is potential danger and
that would be non-existent under SB 297.
The department is also concerned with the same day airborne for
two reasons. One is that historically it has been frowned upon
and the public has historically been educated against it from an
ethical standpoint. Another concern is that under the provisions
of SB 297, participants in the bear predator control could not
be differentiated from people participating other types of
activity. He had another concern with allowing the use of a
motorized vehicle to herd and shoot an animal, which is
currently restricted. He has concerns with electronic devices
being allowed and those are currently restricted. It would be
difficult to distinguish who was participating in the program
without a registration process. Relaxing guide requirements to
second-degree kindred is a potential concern because from a
historical standpoint it has been argued that public safety is a
big enough concern to require guides for hunting bears. [END OF
TAPE 04-23, SIDE B]
TAPE 04-24, SIDE A
5:20
CHAIR OGAN thanked everyone for their comments and closed public
testimony, stating that he didn't intend to move the bill today.
SENATOR SEEKINS reiterated that his intent is, after seeing how
the Board of Game addressed some of these concerns in their new
bear control policy, to work with its members to see what the
Legislature needs to do to allow them to have some leeway in
terms of methods and means.
I want to make it very clear that as I went through
the testimony today, it appeared to me that people
thought this was applied everywhere and that's not the
case. This has to be something where the department
and the Board of Game have to be satisfied that bears
are causing the problem....
He said that humans are willing to curtail their hunting
activities when they see a precipitous decline. Alaska's
constitution is clear.
We are to provide sustained yield and that yield is
for human harvest first. There's no way that I would
ever envision that anyone would allow anybody to go in
and thin out the bears at the McNeill River Viewing
Sanctuary.... There are millions of acres in Alaska
where virtually no bear control will ever be allowed
to take place. All we're trying to do is find some of
those areas that are important for human consumption
where we can find a solution to get those bear
populations back into control....
SENATOR SEEKINS said he would work on a CS that would address
some of the concerns. He said the board has to make specific
findings in writing as trigger points to get to where this bill
even starts.
CHAIR OGAN said he wanted to address the issue of whether or not
SB 297 would compromise guiding. There being no further business
to come before the committee, he adjourned the meeting at 5:30
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|