Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/10/1993 03:45 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
February 10, 1993
3:45 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Mike Miller, Chairman
Senator Steve Frank
Senator Drue Pearce
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chairman
Senator Al Adams
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Fred Zharoff
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 77
"An Act relating to the powers of the Board of Game and to
intensive game management to achieve higher sustained yield
for human harvest."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 77 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Bert Sharp
Capitol Building
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 77.
Carl Rosier, Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77.
Meryl Wolford
P.O. Box 813
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77.
Nancy Hillstrand
P.O. Box 674
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77.
James Frey, Sr.
P.O. Box 930
Slana, Alaska 99586
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77.
Al Keech
P.O. Box 362
Tok, Alaska 99780
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77.
Henry Springer
P.O. Box 232144
Anchorage, Alaska 99523
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77.
Wayne Hall
P.O. Box 190455
Anchorage, Alaska 99523
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77.
Nicole Evans
P.O. Box 202022
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77.
Gordon Haber
P.O. Box 64
Denali Park, Alaska 99755
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77.
Jill Wittenbrader
P.O. Box 101418
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77.
Steve Wells
P.O. Box 202219
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77.
Lynn Levengood
931 Vide Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported draft substitute for SB 77.
Tom Scarborough
1676 Taroka Dr.
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported draft substitute for SB 77.
Bill Hagar
431 Gaffney Rd.
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported draft substitute for SB 77.
Greg Machachek
P.O. Box 82023
North Pole, Alaska 99705
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported draft substitute for SB 77.
Jim Tomsich
P.O. Box 82023
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported draft substitute for SB 77.
Oliver (Bud) Burris
2801 Talkeetna
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported concept of SB 77.
Ralph Seekins
1625 Old Steese Hwy
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported draft substitute for SB 77.
Robert Fox
P.O. Box 82249
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77 and draft substitute.
David Van Den Berg
218 Driveway
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77.
Lyne Zellwiger
P.O. Box 211623
Auke Bay, Alaska 99821
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77.
Bill Burk
6590 Glacier Hwy, #67
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77.
Irene Morris
P.O. Box 22837
Juneau, Alaska 99837
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77.
Alicia Porter
Alaska Environmental Lobby
1834 Stanford
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93 - 8, SIDE A
Number 001
SENATOR MILLER called the Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:45 p.m. and announced SB 77 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT
OF GAME RESOURCES to be up for consideration.
SENATOR SHARP, sponsor, said SB 77 gives clear legislative
direction to the Board of Game regarding priority management
goals particularly in the management of large species of
game. He said there has never been a legislative mandate
specifically defining intensive management or sustained
yield.
He said that Alaska's current game management policies
manage people, not game resources. Every reduction in
hunting seasons without corresponding reductions in
predators has been, in fact, a reallocation of the resource
from people to predators. This type of passive management
has created the current situation where the Alaskan people
harvest 4% - 5% of the game while predators harvest 70% -
80%. Surveys of game populations have revealed that during
the first 30 days after calving season up to 90% of the new
born are gone.
SENATOR SHARP said that adequate game stock is the common
sense answer to solving current personal use, subsistence,
and sport hunting needs.
Number 197
COMMISSIONER CARL ROSIER, Department of Fish and Game, said
he supports the concept of applying intensive management
where appropriate to meet their constitutional and statutory
mandates to develop and maintain the resources of Alaska on
a sustained yield basis.
Intensive management is successful in increasing habitat
quality, allowing game populations to increase to the
benefit of Alaskans.
Conceptually they support SB 77, now they have a neutral
position pending significant amendments which will help the
Board maintain flexibility in the application of intensive
management and to focus it on big game populations for which
it is most feasible and effective.
They feel the name of the big game animals should be
included in the bill and suggest the emphasis be on
maintaining or restoring high levels of use rather than on
attaining high levels of population abundance.
Number 154
Their suggestions for amendments in Section 2 (e) reflect
their concern that the direction applied in Section 1 (a) 11
be applied to 2 (e) as well. Their greatest concern in this
section is the requirement that the Board actually adopt
regulations providing for intensive management before the
Board can reduce harvest significantly.
Number 221
MERYL WOLFORD, Homer charter operator and big game guide
outfitter, supported SB 77 because it encourages game
management for biological reasons.
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Homer, opposed SB 77 because it would
stifle the creativity of the Game Board. They should be
allowed the flexibility to manage for multiple use and
multiple species. It is unwise to mandate to the Board that
they "shall" do anything.
Number 268
JAMES FREY, SR., Glennallen, strongly supported SB 77
because the constitution requires sustained yield.
Number 293
ADAM KEECH, Upper Tanana 40 Mile Fish and Game Advisory
Committee, supported SB 77. He supported the objectives and
methods used by the Department of Fish and Game including
wolf control. The management plan was sound and beneficial
to the local residents. The state compromised what was
right by acquiescing to the pressures of the tourist
industry and outside interest groups.
Number 316
HENRY SPRINGER, Anchorage, said other countries that have
extensive game resources have objectives including predator
control. 97% of the countries have a preference in their
management goals for game species that can be utilized or
consumed by humans.
SB 77 doesn't do anything new. There is extensive testimony
in the constitutional convention supporting the sustained
yield principal for human use species and excluded predators
to be managed on a sustained yield basis. The bill
reemphasizes this intent.
He said for balance, predators have a right to exist just
like any other species. He did not think it unreasonable to
have low preference in areas of national interests like the
parks and refuges, etc.
He doesn't think SB 77 is a predator control bill. He
thought Alaska has a good system where there is public
access through the Board process. He thought this bill was
a good policy tool that clarifies and underlines the intent
of the state's founding fathers. He thought it also
represented the views of a majority of Alaskans.
WAYNE HALL opposed SB 77 as a wolf control bill. It makes a
mockery of the public process and Administrative Procedures
Act by requiring the Board of Game to adopt regulations it
(the legislature) considers advisable.
Number 412
NICOLE EVANS, Alaska Wildlife Alliance, opposed SB 77
because it requires the Board to adopt regulations for
intensive management and requires the Department to conduct
intensive management programs. This bill would remove the
public's opportunity for input. A strong majority of
Alaskans are opposed to the shooting of wolves. She said a
majority of hunters opposed such predator control programs.
She thought that hunting should be restricted instead of
having predator control.
Number 444
GORDON HABER, professional wildlife scientist, has been
conducting research on wolves and their prey in interior
Alaska for the last 27 years. He opposed SB 77. He thought
the original intent of the Board of Game was to give equal
consideration to competing interests. This bill would stack
the deck in favor of one use and turn the board process into
a charade.
The bill is based on premises that are biologically untrue.
For instance the population of caribou has more than tripled
in the last 15 years and it continues to increase at an
accelerating rate. The moose population in Senator Sharp's
district has nearly doubled in the last 10 years in the
presence of a natural wolf abundance.
Number 488
JILL WITTENBRADER, Anchorage, opposed SB 77 because it
mandates the Board to intensively manage wildlife and she
opposes using that method. It also attempts to circumvent
the public process.
Number 499
STEVE WELLS, Anchorage, opposed SB 77, because it mandates
the Board to manage game for the benefit of one group of
users. This bill also limits public input into the Board of
Game process which is already biased toward intensive
consumptive uses of wildlife. It would close the door on
consideration of total ecosystem management where all
species are considered to be equally important to the
environment and to each other.
Number 516
LYNN LEVENGOOD, Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee
and member of Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association, is
the person who originally drafted this legislation. This
legislation requires the Department of Fish and Game to
actively manage, and quit monitoring, the resources for a
return of abundance of wildlife which is the constitutional
mandate. SB 77 falls short of that goal now that ADF&G has
inserted clauses that allows them to totally ignore the
legislation. He now supports his draft substitute in which
he first changed the title to reflect the goal of restoring
an abundance of wildlife in Alaska which is good for all
user groups. Second, he extracted the loopholes inserted by
ADF&G at ADF&G discretion. Third he included a definition
of sustained yield. He added that 2% of Alaskan wildlife is
harvested by humans.
TAPE 93-8, SIDE B
Number 542
TOM SCARBOROUGH, Fairbanks, supported the draft substitute
Mr. Levengood just presented and he supported his testimony.
Number 523
BILL HAGAR, Fairbanks, supported SB 77 and the substitute
proposed by Mr. Levengood. He felt this supported the
constitutional mandate.
Number 485
GREG MACHACHEK, Fairbanks, supported SB 77 and the draft
substitute. It is about time the State of Alaska actively
manages their wildlife and habitat, he said.
Number 474
OLIVER BURRIS, President, Tanana Valley Sportsmen's
Association, supported the concept of the bill. He hasn't
seen intensive management or any active management since
statehood. He found fault with the Commissioner's
definition of intensive. Commenting on the Department's
analysis of the bill, he found fault on page 2 with both
their examples. He doesn't think the deer populations have
recovered on Admiralty or any other island that has been
augmented by the restrictive measures on hunting.
Populations recover because of the quality of the habitat,
not because of regulation of human activities which are
insignificant. Example number two is totally false.
Caribou are not cyclic under anybodies definition. The
regulation of human take that has protected ptarmigan,
grouse, hares, lynx, and other muskrats hasn't changed in 35
years. If the regulations haven't changed, how can they say
they are managing the human take to bring these populations
back? He said ADF&G doesn't want to be locked into an
active management program.
Number 422
RALPH SEEKINS, President, Alaska Wildlife Conservation
Association, said we depend on ADF&G to determine when a
wildlife management program is needed, but then nothing is
ever done about it. Human harvest is statistically
insignificant - at less than 4%. The only answer to
subsistence, to more animals for viewing, to predator
population, to more consumptive use is for a return of
abundance of game in the state of Alaska.
Mr. Seekins supported the draft substitute to SB 77. With
intensive management, 60% plus of the moose population
reserve would still be for predators.
Number 358
ROBERT FOX, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association, said
that intensive management of predators is a time specific
tool that ultimately benefits all species and all user
groups. The biological aspects of wolf management in Alaska
has been vindicated by many professional groups of
biologists. He supported SB 77 with the draft substitute.
Number 341
DAVID VAN DER BERG, Northern Alaska Environmental Center,
opposed SB 77 because it would circumvent the public
process. He urged the legislature not to commit itself to
the discredited practice of predator control.
Number 311
LYNE ZELLWIGER, Prince William Sound, opposed SB 77 because
ADF&G mismanages Alaska's fish and game resources. She said
scientific studies have shown that natural predators such as
wolves do not control the number of prey animals on which
they depend. It is the other way around. Other factors
like food supply, weather, and habitat availability directly
affect the ungulate population which are the limiting
factors to predator population.
Number 245
BILL BURK, Juneau, opposed SB 77. He thought mother nature
managed game fine on her own. Killing off the predator does
not increase the prey. The predator eats only the weak and
the sickly. By killing the predator what you have is a
whole herd of weak and sickly prey which becomes genetically
inferior.
Number 215
IRENE MORRIS, Juneau, opposed SB 77. She has studied game
management and said that every living thing is linked. This
concept is called biocentrism. She said that natural
resources should be enjoyed by everyone and management
should include public opinion and not be limited to a Board.
Number 172
ALICIA PORTER, Alaska Environmental Lobby, opposed SB 77
because it is a back door method of destroying wolves and
bears. She said the cost of killing wolves is substantial.
It cost the state $634 for the destruction of a single wolf,
the market price for a wolf pelt ranges from $200 - $300, so
a fiscal loss will be generated by the state. She said
there are presently no population statistics on bears other
than harvest numbers.
She said intensive hunting methods would reduce tourism
within the state as we get boycotted.
Number 146
SENATOR MILLER thanked everyone for their testimony and
adjourned the meeting at 5:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|