03/24/2004 03:30 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 24, 2004
3:30 p.m.
TAPE(S) 28, 29
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Scott Ogan, Chair
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Ralph Seekins
Senator Ben Stevens
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 344(RES)
"An Act relating to annual rental fees, statements of annual
labor, and production royalty for mining claims; and providing a
cure for abandonment."
MOVED SCS CSHB 344(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 329
"An Act relating to control of nuisance moose."
MOVED CSSB 329(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 318
"An Act relating to the individual right of Alaska residents in
the consumptive use of fish and game."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 344
SHORT TITLE: MINING FEES/LABOR/ROYALTIES/ABANDONMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FATE
01/12/04 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/04
01/12/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (H) RES, FIN
02/04/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/04/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/04/04 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/23/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/23/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/04 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/25/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/25/04 (H) Moved CSHB 344(RES) Out of Committee
02/25/04 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/26/04 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) NT 7DP 2NR
02/26/04 (H) DP: HEINZE, LYNN, STEPOVICH, WOLF,
02/26/04 (H) KERTTULA, MASEK, DAHLSTROM;
02/26/04 (H) NR: GATTO, GUTTENBERG
03/02/04 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/02/04 (H) Moved CSHB 344(RES) Out of Committee
03/02/04 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/03/04 (H) FIN RPT CS(RES) NT 7DP 3NR
03/03/04 (H) DP: MEYER, CROFT, MOSES, FATE, FOSTER,
03/03/04 (H) HARRIS, WILLIAMS; NR: HAWKER, STOLTZE,
03/03/04 (H) JOULE
03/08/04 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/08/04 (H) VERSION: CSHB 344(RES)
03/10/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/04 (S) RES, FIN
03/24/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 329
SHORT TITLE: NUISANCE MOOSE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) BUNDE BY REQUEST
02/13/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/04 (S) RES, FIN
03/24/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 318
SHORT TITLE: CONSUMPTIVE USE OF FISH AND GAME
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) SEEKINS
02/11/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/11/04 (S) RES, JUD
03/01/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/01/04 (S) Heard & Held
03/01/04 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/24/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Hugh Fate
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 344.
Mr. Jim Pound
Staff to Representative Hugh Fate
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 344 for sponsor.
Mr. Cameron Leonard, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 344.
Mr. Matt Robus, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5226
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 329.
Mr. Wayne Heimer
Fairbanks AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 329.
Mr. Roger Gay
Mat-Su AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 329.
Ms. Karen Deatherage
Defenders of Wildlife
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 329.
Mr. Gary Olson, Chair
Alaska Moose Federation
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 329.
Mr. Tom Scarborough
Fairbanks AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 329.
Mr. Mike Tinker
Fairbanks Advisory Board
Fairbanks AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports CSSB 318(RES).
Mr. Len Livengood, Atty.
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 318.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-28, SIDE A
HB 344-MINING FEES/LABOR/ROYALTIES/ABANDONMENT
CHAIR SCOTT OGAN called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present were Senators Thomas
Wagoner, Ben Stevens, Fred Dyson, Ralph Seekins, Kim Elton and
Chair Scott Ogan. Senator Georgianna Lincoln arrived at 3:45.
The first order of business to come before the committee was HB
344.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGH FATE, sponsor, noted that he supported the
two proposed amendments and explained that the bill simply
corrects a situation in which a person makes a mistake or, for
some reason, can't get into the recorder's office to record his
assessment and other paperwork required by the department for
mining claims. If the filing does not occur on time, the claim
immediately becomes abandoned, making it open to staking or
location by someone else. Also, if that mistake has been made
and someone has overfilled the claim, the person who overfilled
it is the new claimant of the property.
This legislation allows for a true error to be made so that, if
there has not been an overfilling or the property has not been
located, a miner has the opportunity to pay a penalty and
refile. The penalty would be equal to the last year's royalty
and assessments on the property. So, he not only has to pay the
current fee, but a penalty equal to that fee, as well. Being a
former miner, he has seen people coming into the recorder's
office 10 minutes late and not being able to record.
So, all their equipment is sitting out there, their
cabins and everything else. If somebody knew that this
was going to happen, they could actually go in and
locate those claims. This gives redress for that. It
doesn't mean that they have an opportunity at all to
delay coming for 30 days.... It allows them to have
redress. But, if somebody did topfile on one of their
claims, it's up to them to know they were topfiled and
it's up to them to know that the paperwork has to be
clean, because if they do not file in a timely manner
and they are topfiled, that claim would belong to the
person who topfiled.
By the same token, if they don't file - and even if
they make an error in getting there in time...
usually, it's about a 24-hour mistake - either they
got the dates mixed up or they just can't get in for
some reason - broke down or whatever, they still, if
somebody comes in and claims that it's open ground,
even though they may have redress, it's still open
ground. So, it doesn't alter at all the law, which
allows somebody else to file a claim on open
ground.... It's a real step for a lot of the small
miners out there who have this concern and have lost
claims by not being able to get in.
SENATOR KIM ELTON asked what the typical rent is for a claim.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied, "If they are productive, they would
have to pay royalty; they would have to pay a labor assessment.
I think it's $200 on a two-year claim."
SENATOR ELTON asked if this would allow a miner to cure the
problem of a late filing up to any period of time as long as
nobody has filed a top claim or a claim on the claim.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that is correct.
CHAIR OGAN asked if he had statistics on how often this has
happened.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied that he had been topfiled and from
his own experience, you usually know when someone has topfiled,
because they do it year after year hoping you make a mistake.
When a miner files his assessment at the recorder's office, he
can see if he has been topfiled. "You try to make sure your
paperwork is clean." He has seen a number of miners come in one
day late because they get the dates confused. He has also
actually seen instances where miners get to the recorder's
office before the doors close. Bob Loeffler, Director, Division
of Mining, Land and Water indicated this happens quite
frequently.
CHAIR OGAN asked, if a miner decides to abandon a claim and
another person decides to topfile and then that first miner
changes his mind, is there a time limit for paying the penalty
and refiling. He pointed out that HB 344 has no time limit.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said the first miner couldn't get his claim
back if it had been topfiled by someone else.
CHAIR OGAN said he is still missing how HB 344 changes that.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE sought hard to enlighten him saying it
doesn't change that aspect of it. This will help a small miner
who has made a mistake by being a day late or some equivalent
small blunder. In all circumstances, if no one else has
topfiled, the claim becomes open ground and under current
statute, he can't refile on his property for a full year. SB 344
allows him pay a fine and refile.
CHAIR OGAN supposed that this is like someone who pays his taxes
late and, therefore, has to pay a stiff penalty, too.
SENATOR GEROGIANNA LINCOLN arrived at 3:45 p.m. She said she
understood what Representative Fate was trying to do and asked,
"What kind of person would actually take advantage of a bill
like that and, then, what's the grace period you've got in here
for a late filing?"
MR. JIM POUND, staff to Representative Fate, replied that the
department has indicated that about 5 - 15 people per year miss
the filing deadline.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE added that there really isn't a grace period
per se.
If that ground is open after he's made the error in
not filing in a timely manner, it's not a grace
period. It's open ground.... They're usually in there
within a day or, at the latest, two.
SENATOR LINCOLN said there is a reason for deadlines and asked
for examples of other circumstances in which a miner might file
late.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied weather factors, sickness, injuries,
and, commonly in November, people would think it was the 31st
and be exactly 24-hours late.
It's frequent enough to be a concern and yet it's not
that prevalent, but 5 - 15 is not a small figure,
really compared to the number of small mines that we
have today out there, especially in the Interior. When
I started mining, there were 3,000 people in the small
mining industry. Within three years, there were
300....
He said that the Department of Natural Resources and the Mining
Association support this legislation.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if a person has to physically go in and
file.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied that they have to go in physically.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS asked if there is any requirement for
notice of topfiling.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied no. He said that sometimes a person
who topfiles doesn't know that the ground has already been
staked. He also knows of people who topfile in huge blocks
just trying to capitalize on someone else's mistake.
SENATOR ELTON asked if someone doesn't make it in by the
deadline and wants to cure the problem six months later, is the
claim renewed for 18 months or for two years from the six-month
period.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied that it would be a new filing for a
two-year basis. He reminded the committee that the penalty for
late filing is equal to one year's rent, which is $100 - $200.
SENATOR FRED DYSON said he thought that a miner already has a
huge incentive to file on time and the penalty would add to
that. He moved amendment 1 on page 2, lines 10 - 13, as follows:
Page 2, lines 10-13
10(b)...mining claim, or leasehold location[, or
11 prospecting site] that includes all or part of the mining
claim, or leasehold location [, or
12 prospecting site] abandoned under (a) of this section, or
the area is closed to mineral location under AS 38.05.185
- 38.05.275, a person may cure....
The revised subsection would read as follows:
*Sec.2. AS 38.05.265 is amended by adding a new subsection to
read:
(b) Unless another person has located a mining claim,
or leasehold location that includes all or part of the
mining claim, or leasehold location abandoned under
(a) of this section, or the area is closed to mineral
location under AS 38.05.185 - 38.05.275, a person may
cure the failure to record or pay that constituted the
abandonment and cure the abandonment by
(1) properly recording a certificate of
location or a statement of annual
labor, paying any required annual
rental, and paying any required
production royalty; and
(2) paying a penalty equal to the annual
rent for the mining claim, leasehold
location, or prospecting site that was
abandoned under (a) of this section.
MR. POUND explained that there is no such thing as abandonment
of a prospecting site. They just expire after two years.
MR. CAMERON LEONARD, Assistant Attorney General, said he had
worked with Bob Loeffler at DNR and Mr. Pound on this language.
It addresses two different issues. The first being
that prospecting sites aren't abandoned in the same
way as mining claims and leasehold locations and so
there is no need to try to cure them under the new
language in 265(b). But, the more significant problem
that this amendment addresses is the possibility that
after a claim is abandoned, if for some reason the
area is closed to mineral location by the state, if
someone were to come back in at that point and try to
cure the abandoned claims without this amendment,
there might be an issue that they have a right to do
so, even though the area had been closed to mineral
location.... Those are the two changes and DNR
supports both of those changes....
CHAIR OGAN asked if this amendment would prevent a miner from
coming back into the Girdwood area that was closed to minerals
last year, for instance, and saying he had for some reason not
filed his claim. "Would this keep him from getting the claim
activated again?"
MR. LEONARD exclaimed that it would have exactly that effect.
SENATOR GEOGIANNA LINCOLN asked if "prospecting site" on line 18
was applicable to section (b)(2).
MR. LEONARD replied that she was correct and that language
should be deleted.
MR. POUND agreed.
SENATOR LINCOLN moved to delete "prospecting site" from the
proposed amendment in (b)(2). There were no objections and it
was so ordered.
SENATOR FRED DYSON moved to pass SCS HB 344(RES) from committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
4:07 - 4:08 - at ease
SB 329-NUISANCE MOOSE
CHAIR SCOTT OGAN announced SB 329 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR CON BUNDE said moose might for one reason or another end
up causing death to humans or being injured or killing
themselves and SB 329 provides for them to be moved to another
area of the state where they could help propagate more moose. He
pointed out a technical correction that was needed in the first
line of the bill where the word "Department" should be
underlined and bolded.
The CS is a product of agreement between the people who
requested the bill and the Department of Fish and Game. It would
allow the Department of Fish and Game to authorize one or more
private groups or individuals to relocate nuisance moose from
urban areas to rural areas. The proposed CS calls for a private
group to reimburse the state's costs related to the relocation
program and removes liability from the state. It's not his
intent to remove all the moose from urban areas, but just those
that might pose a risk to people.
This bill would benefit urban areas by removing moose
that might pose a significant risk to health, safety
or economic wellbeing of individuals. It could also
protect moose from being hit by vehicles or that might
have to be shot when they get in situations where they
threaten people....
SENATOR BUNDE said he has heard there is an average of $15,000
damage for every moose/car collision, which runs into the
hundreds every year. SB 329 would save some of those moose and
add them to brood stock in rural areas. He noted that the Alaska
Moose Federation indicated there is a wide range of support for
this bill.
SENATOR KIM ELTON said he is having a hard time getting his mind
around the concept of a nuisance moose. He could better
understand a nuisance moose population. He didn't see how it
could be anticipated which moose would be hit by a car, but he
could see how moose populations in general could increase the
risk of accidents.
SENATOR BUNDE replied that it's not difficult to identify a
specific moose, although it's harder with the car crashes.
Particularly in the wintertime, moose exist in a relatively
small area and it's easy to identify one that hangs around a
schoolyard, for instance. He has helped ADF&G keep track of a
collared moose in his neighborhood.
CHAIR OGAN said he had a hard time with the idea of identifying
a specific moose, also. He supposed they could be marked with
paintballs. He wanted to know how the details would work.
SENATOR BUNDE elaborated that moose don't all look alike and
aren't hard to recognize if they continually come into a
schoolyard. The department would probably go through the
procedure of tranquilizing and collaring it and giving it a
trial period before moving it along. The other option is to do
nothing and let a lot of moose unnecessarily be killed.
CHAIR OGAN said he would like to open up Chugach Park to a
shotgun or bow season and knock the population down.
SENATOR BUNDE said he had encouraged the department to establish
an archery hunt in Chugach State Park, but the previous
administration wouldn't allow it to take place. That is only
part of the problem; Anchorage has chosen not to allow archery
in any of its parks.
SENATOR GEORGIANNA LINCOLN said the Alaska Federation of
Natives, although it supports this bill, expressed concerns
about the cost of the program. According to the fiscal note, the
program will cost a quarter of a million dollars to relocate 100
moose.
While I think the concept is a great one, Senator
Bunde, we have been concerned about the fiscal gap and
how to close that.... Although I know that probably
your rebuttal will be probably that the costs involved
and the expenses that we have incurred from encounters
with the moose. I just want it noted...there's also a
concern expressed from the Alaska village initiatives
about where the moose will be transported to....
TAPE 04-28, SIDE B
SENATOR LINCOLN continued noting that the Alaska Moose
Federation had a trailer and it sounded like the moose would be
air lifted. Also, the Alaska Zoo had upgraded their moose pens
to allow more moose to be kept there. She asked him to explain
how that would work. Also, the Municipality of Anchorage Police
Department expressed some concern saying:
Without having an opportunity to fully evaluate the
cost and externalities associated with active
intervention plans, such as transplanting moose away
from the Anchorage Bowl area, we are unable to offer
complete unqualified endorsement.
SENATOR LINCOLN also stated that a letter from the Department of
Fish and Game indicated the Board of Game said, "On March 10, we
urged careful consideration of this concept." She asked him to
respond to that.
SENATOR BUNDE responded that the large fiscal note was
reflective of the original bill, but the CS has a very small, if
any, fiscal note and is based on the Moose Federation doing the
program at no cost to the state. Their notion is to use the
trailer to get moose from somewhere in Anchorage to a place
where they could be airlifted. The Zoo is obviously not going to
hold 100 moose at a time, but the idea is to have a staging area
for a moose until it can be moved somewhere else. He thought the
Anchorage Police Department was referring to the fiscal note
with the original bill and it would probably rather see a
quarter of a million dollars be used for revenue sharing.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if drugs are used to dart a moose and then
it is transported to another area and shot for human
consumption, would the drugs be harmful to humans.
SENATOR BUNDE replied that there is a period of about 30 days
after an animal is drugged during which ingestion would be
harmful to humans. Moose are currently drugged as part of
studies or because they have been injured or tangled up in a
swing or something similar. They are identified by collaring
because they could end up in an area with permitted moose hunts.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if it is illegal to shoot a collared moose
during a hunting season.
SENATOR BUNDE said the department would have to answer that and
added that collars are biodegradable and last only for a certain
amount of time before falling off.
SENATOR ELTON moved to adopt the CS to SB 329 as follows [no
identifying label available]:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
*Section 1. AS 16.05 is amended by adding a new section to
read:
Sec. 16.05.052. Nuisance moose. The Department
[COMMISSIOINER] shall avoid destruction of nuisance moose if a
practicable alternative exits for the relocation of the moose to
suitable habitat where the moose will not be a nuisance. [THE
COMMISSIONIER SHALL SEEK TO RELOCATE NUISANCE MOOSE AT THE LEAST
COST TO THE STATE.] The commissioner may authorize one or more
private individuals or groups to relocate nuisance moose to
suitable habitat designated by the department if, upon review
and evaluation of a written application and proposal, the
commissioner finds that the individual or group is qualified to
relocate nuisance moose without undue danger to the public,
themselves, or the moose. Before relocating a nuisance moose, an
individual or group shall provide financial assurances
acceptable to the commissioner that will cover the state's
reasonable, anticipated costs of the relocation. The individual
or group shall reimburse the state's costs that arise from
relocating a nuisance moose. A civil action to recover damages
or costs that arise from relocating a nuisance moose may not be
brought against the state, its political subdivisions, officer,
or employees. In this section, "nuisance moose" means a moose
designated by the department in an area of concentrated human
population that poses a significant risk to the health, safety,
or economic well-being of persons in the area.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
MR. MATT ROBUS, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), said the department
had concerns with the original bill.
Our main concern was, frankly, that in trying to
reduce problems with nuisance moose in places like
Anchorage, we really didn't want our limited financial
resources diverted from the programs we are doing to
manage animals around the state, especially now that
we're doing research on predator and prey populations
that are helping us defend and maintain predator
control programs and we'll have more of that going on
in the future. We also wanted to make sure that the
department had a role in deciding which moose were
problems and where moose would be moved to, because
that, in our view, needs to be done in the context of
moose management and how that's going in different
parts of the state. It doesn't make a lot of sense to
move a moose into a situation where we have a real
high predator density and there's not much likelihood
that they'll survive very long. So, we would like a
hand in choosing where to put these animals.
We do have some concern that even under the best of
circumstances, this will be a program with some
controversy. There will be some people who think a
moose is a nuisance and other people will think it's a
viewing opportunity or something that will make their
lifestyle better. That's another reason, in our view,
to have the department involved in trying to decide
which moose should be moved and which should not.
There will also, no matter how well the program is
implemented, be some degree of mortality, probably,
amongst moose that are moved. That depends upon the
season of the year and what the condition of the moose
is and a lot of other factors that we don't need to go
into. We should all go into this with our eyes open in
realizing that one big advantage would be reducing
public safety problems at the capture end of this.
Hopefully, a benefit will be putting a moose into good
habitat somewhere else, but there will be some degree
of moose that don't make it and that, of course, may
generate some controversy.
MR. ROBUS said that earlier today he talked with representatives
of the Alaska Moose Federation and now better understood some of
their plans. This program could occur along a spectrum of
scenarios and could be anything from the department doing some
moose capture and moving work and being reimbursed for staff
costs all the way to almost a subcontracting or agreement
relationship where the Moose Federation would do everything from
A to Z under the guidance of the department. The federation has
basically committed to doing the financial underwriting of the
operation.
....We believe that we need to have more meetings,
certainly, and there's lots of details to work out,
but we're in agreement with the CS as it's written. I
believe that we and the Moose Federation have figured
out the general framework within which to work
together to try to take some moose off of roadways and
out of schoolyards and provide a little bit safer
situation.
CHAIR OGAN asked how the department would identify a nuisance
moose. He told a short story about his daughter who has a summer
job with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shooing moose off of
runways with paintball guns.
MR. ROBUS said that there are no standard procedures for
wildlife management. It could vary from a moose that comes
around a particular part of a neighborhood for days on end and
shows some aggression towards people; he might be marked
temporarily to keep track of it. Or it could be that a moose
walks into a schoolyard and right then someone needs to make a
decision that that moose either needs to be hazed away or
capture and trans-located or be put down, if it's an immediately
threat to life and property. Area biologists would likely be
involved in making judgments on the fly.
CHAIR OGAN asked if he would just allow moose to cross a super
highway where the speed limit is 65 mph just because it's going
from one side to another. That happens all the time and is
normal behavior. "You're going to focus on moose that might be
more of a threat or one that does it every day or....?"
MR. ROBUS replied that no matter how well this program works,
it's not going to change the fact that moose cross roads and get
hit by vehicles. The basic idea is to take the moose that are in
the worst situation and start working them out of the urban
scene, which could potentially reduce - not only the immediate -
threat, but over time, reduce conflict in the community.
It's not going to be cheap in our estimation and it
remains to be seen just how much of this can be done
and what the after-effects are, but we feel it's worth
a pilot approach and see how it works.
CHAIR OGAN asked if hunting in Chugach State Park is off the
table.
MR. ROBUS replied that he thought a hunt was still on the books,
but past administrations have judged it too controversial to
hold, basically.
SENATOR ELTON said the CS is a reaction to the fiscal note of
the original bill and asked what he thought it would cost the
department.
MR. ROBUS replied that it depends on the style of program that
is eventually decided upon. "If this is a program where the
Moose Federation is able to work out the details with the
department and have a veterinarian of their own who is allowed
to handle the lethal-to-humans drugs that are involved and can
do the whole program, except for the pointing out of...the moose
to be taken, then I think the department's costs are very very
small and it would be just biologist time. At the other end of
the scale, if we're actually doing the work and then being
reimbursed, costs would be higher and that fiscal note makes an
attempt to look at what the general cost for moving a moose
would be. But, if somebody else pays for those costs, whichever
way we're doing it, the fiscal note to the department becomes
zero or very near zero.
SENATOR ELTON asked if his department's single biologist would
be doing additional fieldwork to go out and certify moose or
would he have enough expertise and knowledge of the moose
population to sit at his desk and decide about a particular
moose.
MR. ROBUS replied that the biologist and his assistants and
their counterparts in Fairbanks are pretty aware of what's going
on in their towns. Right now those people are putting down or
hazing moose, to a certain extent, to help ease conflicts. This
would be partially shifting that type of activity into the
translocation process. It all depends on how many moose are
relocated. Right now, his only option is to put the moose down
or chase it away and hope it decides not to come back into the
schoolyard.
CHAIR OGAN said some of the drugs used in the dart guns are
controlled substances and a certified person would use the dart
guns and know the dosages. "That becomes tricky - to have an
inexperienced person do that."
MR. ROBUS responded that the CS mentions a comprehensive
document that is agreed upon between the department and the
third-party organization.
Yes, if the organization is going to be doing the
capturing, they would have to show that they can
competently administer the drugs - the issue of having
a dart miss a moose and would that type of drug in a
neighborhood do something that strikes us as being an
issue. Yes, there would either have to be our people
doing it and being reimbursed or the third-party
organization showing us that they have the right
people with the right certifications to be able to do
the work.
CHAIR OGAN asked what the average mortality rate is for moose
that are drugged and relocated.
MR. ROBUS replied that it depends on where you're doing it, what
time of year, the body fat content on the moose, what drug is
used, how far they are being transported, etc.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if he anticipated the state absorbing the
costs upfront and then billing the third party for them.
MR. ROBUS replied that is a possibility if the department does
the work. The agreement would give assurance of reimbursement to
the department, which already has the authority to capture and
translocate animals.
So, this bill really gets to the working of the third
party organization and the department together with
the intent that there not be a cost to the state in
accomplishing that work.
SENATOR LINCOLN said that nuisance moose don't happen just in
the Anchorage Bowl and asked him if he considered applying this
program in the Anchorage Bowl as a pilot approach.
MR. ROBUS replied that his discussions with the Moose Federation
concentrate on Anchorage as the spot that needs the most
attention soonest, but dangerous moose can happen in all sorts
of places.
These are some of the things that need to be worked
out. The bill is written in a statewide fashion - but,
I think, yes, Anchorage would be the place where we
would propose to start this off and see how it works.
SENATOR LINCOLN said the bill assumes that this is an on-going
operation and perhaps it should have a sunset provision to see
if it is working in a year or two. On the issue of collaring a
drugged animal, she wanted to know how the department is going
to protect individuals who might be hunting in an area that has
a relocated moose.
MR. ROBUS replied that collared and marked animals are available
to the hunter.
The only rule is that if you recover a collar, you
have to turn it back into the department within a
certain amount of time because of the value of the
equipment. Getting back to your original question, the
drugs that are used to capture wildlife do have a
period after which the meat cannot be consumed. For
some drugs it's 30 days; for other drugs it may be
longer than that. I foresee doing something like what
we've done with bears I've been involved with where we
would ear tag the animal with a sign right on the ear
tag saying, 'Do not consume the meat from this animal
prior to a date certain from the date of capture.'
He pointed out that most of the moose would be moved at a time
of year before the next hunting season. He didn't think there
was a huge amount of potential problems there.
MR. WAYNE HEIMER, Fairbanks resident, supported the concept of
SB 329. He lives on the lower Chena River on the Pump Road and
has a lot of moose that move routinely through his yard. He
enjoys seeing them, but doesn't enjoy seeing them hit on the
road. He can't remember a year when at least one moose hadn't
been killed within a mile of his house. He felt that any
obstacles could be overcome through cooperation of agency
biologists and organizations like the Moose Federation. He
thought that nuisance moose populations rather than individual
moose should be reduced as much as possible.
MR. HEIMER concluded stating that he had worked for 25 years
with ADF&G primarily as a sheep biologist, but also worked in
general management with state and federal relations, as well.
4:55 p.m.
MR. ROGER GAY, Mat-Su, said that hitting moose on the highway is
the most ridiculous way to harvest big game. It ruins the meat,
destroys the vehicles and scares the hell out of people.
Nuisance moose should be shot on sight. Alaska State
Troopers and the Department of Fish and Game officers
should be responsible for shooting the moose and it
would take less time than responding to an accident
and, therefore, saving money as well as saving the
meat. If you want to send moose to rural areas, they
should be frozen first. That way the people will eat
the moose instead of wolves or bears. If you don't
want to send the moose to the bush, you can dispose of
it the same way we do with road kill moose. You donate
it to the local Beans Café or the Alaska Zoo. The
bottom line is that the moose are dead whether they
are shot or hit by a car. Transporting live moose will
be a boondoggle whereas clearing our roads of nuisance
moose is long overdue.
He thought using the paintball technique could help people
identify which moose were hanging out on a roadway. He concluded
saying:
It doesn't make any sense to me to knock down a moose
in Wasilla and then fly it live to the Bush with the
intent that it should be killed by a rural hunter. If
you've already got it down, package it, freeze and
send it wherever you like.
CHAIR OGAN noted that Mr. Gay is his constituent.
MS. KAREN DEATHERAGE, Defenders of Wildlife, Anchorage, said she
has a lot of concerns with SB 329. Having served on the
Anchorage Urban Wildlife Task Force, she could assure them that
moose play an important role in the quality of life for
Anchorage residents.
A poll done in the mid-90s showed that 87 percent of
Anchorage residents believe that while moose cause
some problems, they make life in Anchorage seem
interesting and special. Over 80 percent of
Anchorage's residents take pride in the city's
wildlife and agree that people in Anchorage should
learn to live with some conflict. So, let's talk about
this conflict. Less than 2 people have been killed in
Anchorage by moose in over a decade. Less than 10
moose have been dispatched each year and there have
been less than 10 injuries each year. Typically, this
is extremely low given the close proximity of a large
population of people to wildlife and to the second
largest state park in Alaska. The Defenders do not
believe that relocation is a viable solution to
problems with the city's moose.
The most effective long-term solution to minimizing
wildlife conflicts continues to be public education.
This has been proved with the collective effort of the
ADF&G and groups like the Defenders of Wildlife, which
have resulted in a large reduction of bear conflicts
in Anchorage over the past 20 years. We also defended
and engaged with the Park Service in a wolf education
program at the Denali National Park, which has reduced
the conflict with wolves in the Park for the last two
years.
She agreed that a relocation program would be cost prohibitive.
She thought the Legislature should support an Anchorage Moose
Planning Task Force similar to the Anchorage Fair Committee
where education and conflict resolution efforts can be addressed
by multiple agencies and members of the public.
SENATOR OGAN asked if she thought it was a good idea to ship
moose out to rural Alaska in frozen form.
MS. DEATHERAGE replied that less than 10 moose are dispatched
each year in the city, she didn't have a problem with shipping
the meat to McGrath or to the Interior.
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER asked if she said that two human deaths
in 10 years was an acceptable level.
MS. DEATHERAGE replied that no death is an acceptable level, but
taking such extreme measures for the rather low mortality is not
the smartest thing to do. Other measures could be taken that
would cause a reduction in conflict.
We haven't had a fatality since 1993. I think that's
pretty good, given the amount of moose that we have in
the city and the growing number of people in the city.
SENATOR WAGONER countered that while there aren't many
fatalities, he has a close personal friend who is a quadriplegic
because of a confrontation in his car with a moose.
MS. DEATHERAGE came back saying that it's been proved in Chugach
State Park that bears keep coming back as long as the habitat is
available.
I think looking at a long-term solution like public
education, which is what we're doing with bears, would
serve us all a lot better in the long run,
including...serious injuries like you're talking about
and that could happen statewide.
CHAIR OGAN agreed with some people about spending state money to
move moose, but the bill said:
Before relocating a nuisance moose, an individual or
group shall provide financial assurances acceptable to
the commissioner that will cover the state's
reasonable anticipated costs of relocation.
MR. GARY OLSON, Chair, Alaska Moose Federation, said SB 329 has
tremendous support. Moose are on school playgrounds around the
city and since 1992 there has been a 75 percent increase in
vehicle moose collisions in Anchorage. Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) statistics estimate
those cost about $15,000 per incident. If 300 to 400 moose get
hit this year, that's about a $4.5 million cost to private
industry. One of the biggest points the federation wants to get
across is that the state is already paying substantial resources
in dealing on a reactive level to the ever-expanding moose
populations in urban areas. The state is also losing a
tremendous resource when the moose are killed.
MR. OLSON said the Moose Federation came into existence when the
pipeline got shot. The state stepped in and fixed the pipeline
situation to hold the oil in quantity and quality for all
Alaskans. However he noted:
We allow our moose to pile up on the front of our
trains and in front of our cars. We put forest fires
out to create moose food. The moose have shouldered
the burden of conservation by themselves this entire
time....
In the 50s, moose were moved to the Copper River
Delta. Twenty-eight cows were moved down there when
TVs were black and white. That resulted in a beautiful
moose population down there where moose had never been
to. They were also moved to Berner's Bay; they were
also moved to Calgon Island in Southeast. Moose have
been moved into areas where moose have never been
before, but now we're looking at it from an area where
they are a liability to go into an area where they are
an asset.
The country of Sweden, which is the size of
California, harvested 170 moose last year; Alaska
harvested about 6,000 moose. So, when you look at the
concept of taking these moose and putting them in the
other areas of the state to help rebuild the existing
populations out there, this can't be that bad of an
idea - certainly, since private industry with the
intent from our D.C. delegation taking a lot of
interest and helping with not only the public safety
perspectives of this bill, but also to attempt to
reestablish these herds around the state that have
been in a decline for decades. We need to look at
moose not as a moose, but as a resource that the state
owns and we are offering ourselves as a tool for the
state to use to address this problem proactively.
This is a serious commitment that we are undertaking
in seeking the funding for this program. The $200,000
to $250,000 - that is dwarfed by the costs that we are
already paying right now. We have industry lining up
to buy equipment based on this to purchase the
necessary tools and drugs and everything else lined
up. In the 15 months that we've been created, we've
had 10 states in the Lower 48 that want chapters
including one in Hollywood, California, who want to
help, Shangri-La, to rebuild this moose population.
This is something that we've taken living in Alaska
for granted and which we've seen from the Lower 48 is
a tremendous negative perspective of where Alaska
takes control and handles its own business....
The intent is to address the ever-growing dangerous
population in these urban areas. If the communities
decide to have hunts inside these urban areas, that's
great. That's what should be done.
TAPE 04-29, SIDE A
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the federation was prepared to fund the
Anchorage Bowl relocation program now.
MR. OLSON replied yes.
The State of Alaska does not have the same ability as
a non-profit does for going out and seeking the
efforts through private industry to help offset the
cost of this program. There is one section of the
private industry that is lining up to purchase trucks
and trailers and equipment for this. There is another
section of private industry that upon the governor and
the passage of this bill and everybody in support of
this, they're looking at major flight ability with a
C-130 aircraft, as has happened in the past with elk
and bison and other species - that have been done
throughout the state. So, we have the ability being a
non-profit to work with private industry for building
this idea where the state doesn't have this ability to
go out and seek these efforts. And yes, we are
prepared to seek every dollar, every cent of funding
that this program is going to require.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if he was prepared to have the $250,000 to
implement the program next year if this was enacted now.
MR. OLSON replied yes.
MR. TOM SCARBOROUGH, Fairbanks resident, said he lives off of
Chena Ridge Road and supports SB 329. Little is done to save the
moose and they are a valuable resource. Their meat is worth more
than $2,000 per animal and, with recreational value, they're
probably worth more than $5,000. Adding that to the $15,000
involved with car collisions becomes a significant figure.
CHAIR OGAN asked Mr. Robus if the CS has a zero fiscal note.
MR. ROBUS replied that was correct and he would prepare another
fiscal note based on his understanding from today.
CHAIR OGAN stated that the committee has the authority to zero-
out a fiscal note and proceeded to do that. There were no
objections.
SENATOR DYSON moved to pass CSSB 329(RES) from committee with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note.
SENATORS FRED DYSON, BEN STEVENS, RALPH SEEKINS, THOMAS WAGONER
and CHAIR SCOTT OGAN stated for the record that they have a
conflict of interest because they are all board members of the
Moose Federation. There were no objections and CSSB 329(RES)
moved from committee.
5:20 - 5:21 - at ease
SB 318-CONSUMPTIVE USE OF FISH AND GAME
CHAIR SCOTT OGAN announced SB 318 to be up for consideration. He
said there was a proposed CS.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS moved to adopt CSSB 318, version Q, for
discussion. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIR OGAN said that he would take public testimony today and
planned to move it out on Friday.
MR. MIKE TINKER, Fairbanks Advisory Board member, said:
Ever since the concept of prioritizing uses for Alaska
have come out of the original subsistence bill of the
state in 1978, the Boards of Fish and Game have had a
terrible time figuring out how the priorities are -
how to word the various definitions of the terms
within them. And, although this seems very obvious,
the way it's written - that sustenance should be
important and Alaskans should use their fish and game
resources for food - it gets complicated at the board
level when the PhDs and sociologists and professional
folks at the subsistence division try to work out the
details. I think it's extremely good for you on the
legislative side to put these things into statute,
especially the definitions, and let the regulatory
folks on the boards have more guidance to deal with
them.... I think this is a wonderful direction to go
and I hope you will move it along.
CHAIR OGAN asked him if he supported the CS.
MR. TINKER said he did.
MR. WAYNE REGELIN, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G), said he didn't intend to testify because
the committee really needed to talk to the Department of Law.
CHAIR OGAN said that he had talked to the Legislative Legal
Services Division about changing the language from individual
right to use preference. He had some concerns that the original
bill talked about it being a fundamental right, which could be
misconstrued by some people and found in court that hunting
seasons couldn't be closed, for instance.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS read from page 11 - 12 of the McDowell 1
case in 1989 regarding fundamental rights and justification of
law:
The only justification for a law regulating and
restricting the common right of individuals to take
wild game and fish is the necessity for protecting the
same from extinction and, thus, to preserve and
perpetuate to the individual members of the community
the inalienable rights, which they have had from time
immemorial.
He then explained:
When the state holding the title to game and fish, so
to speak, in trust for every individual member of the
community, 'May pass laws to regulate the rights of
each individual in the manner of taking and using the
common property. Yet, as we have already stated, this
must be done under the constitution upon the same
terms to all people, etc.'
So, it is the established law of the State of Alaska
that even on an inalienable right, the State of Alaska
has the right to pass laws to regulate the taking for
perpetuation of the species which is in compliance,
then, with the sustained yield principle under the
state constitution - and used the word 'inalienable,'
which, I think, is stronger than 'fundamental.'
MR. REGELIN maintained that it has the potential to change the
way fisheries are allocated. He thought it was the Legislature's
right to provide direction to the boards if it wants to, but
lawyers could explain how the bill would change that.
MR. LEN LIVENGOOD, Atty., said the word "fundamental" goes back
to how the sustained yield principle was put into the
constitution. It was expected that the Legislature would enact
definitions and protections for the consumptive uses as the
highest and best use.
This legislation has been needed since statehood and
will make it clear that consumptive uses are
considered fundamental rights for Alaska residents to
provide sustenance for themselves. It will change the
way the Boards of Fish and Game enact regulations
because consumptive uses will have a higher standard
than other uses. Other than that, I think this is
something that is consistent with our constitution and
this is necessary.
The question about fundamental right giving a person
the right to violate other laws - clearly we have the
rights to keep and bear arms and there are laws
regarding concealed carry. We have the fundamental
right of freedom in travel, but that doesn't allow you
to violate speeding regulations. So, the law and
constitutional rights are dovetailed and are
intertwined. Just because something is a fundamental
right does not provide an unfettered ability to
violate the state's law and regulations. I urge you to
pass this legislation.
SENATOR WAGONER said he didn't have any questions for Mr.
Livengood, but he wanted to hear from the Department of Law
before he passed this out.
CHAIR OGAN said he would be happy to bring this up again on
Friday. There being no further business to come before the
committee, he adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|