04/14/2004 03:30 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 14, 2004
3:30 p.m.
TAPE(S) 04-39
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Scott Ogan, Chair
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Ralph Seekins
Senator Ben Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 44(RES)
Relating to research into the decline of the Southwest Alaska
population of the Northern Sea Otter in the western Gulf of
Alaska.
MOVED CSHJR 44(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 409(FSH)
"An Act relating to the maximum length of salmon seine vessels;
and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
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
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 44
SHORT TITLE: SEA OTTER RESEARCH/ENDANGERED SPECIES
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES BY REQUEST
03/18/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/04 (H) RES
03/29/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/29/04 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/31/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/31/04 (H) Moved CSHJR 44(RES) Out of Committee
03/31/04 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/01/04 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) 4DP 4NR
04/01/04 (H) DP: STEPOVICH, WOLF, KERTTULA, LYNN;
04/01/04 (H) NR: GATTO, GUTTENBERG, MASEK,
04/01/04 (H) DAHLSTROM
04/07/04 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/07/04 (H) VERSION: CSHJR 44(RES) AM
04/08/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/08/04 (S) RES, FIN
04/14/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 409
SHORT TITLE: SEINE VESSEL LENGTH
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WILLIAMS BY REQUEST OF SALMON
INDUSTRY TASK FORCE
01/28/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/04 (H) FSH, RES
02/09/04 (H) FSH AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/09/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/09/04 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/16/04 (H) FSH AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/16/04 (H) Moved CSHB 409(FSH) Out of Committee
02/16/04 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/18/04 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 3DP 4NR
02/18/04 (H) DP: WILSON, HEINZE, GUTTENBERG;
02/18/04 (H) NR: GARA, OGG, SAMUELS, SEATON
02/18/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/18/04 (H) Moved CSHB 409(FSH) Out of Committee
02/18/04 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/19/04 (H) RES RPT CS(FSH) 5DP 1DNP 2NR
02/19/04 (H) DP: STEPOVICH, HEINZE, KERTTULA,
02/19/04 (H) GUTTENBERG, MASEK; DNP: WOLF;
02/19/04 (H) NR: LYNN, GATTO
02/26/04 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
02/26/04 (H) VERSION: CSHB 409(FSH)
02/27/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/27/04 (S) L&C, RES
03/11/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/11/04 (S) <Above Bill Hearing Postponed>
03/23/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/23/04 (S) Heard & Held
03/23/04 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/30/04 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/30/04 (S) Moved CSHB 409(FSH) Out of Committee
03/30/04 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/31/04 (S) L&C RPT 1DP 3NR
03/31/04 (S) NR: BUNDE, STEVENS G, FRENCH;
03/31/04 (S) DP: DAVIS
04/14/04 (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
03/17/04 (S) Heard & Held
03/17/04 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/02/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/02/04 (S) Heard & Held
04/02/04 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/07/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/07/04 (S) -- Rescheduled to 4 pm 04/07/04 --
04/14/04 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Dan Ogg
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 44.
Ms. Julie Decker, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries Association (SARDFA)
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HJR 44.
Mr. Tim Barry
Staff to Representative Bill Williams
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 409 for sponsor.
Ms. Scott McCallister
Seine fisherman
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 409.
Mr. Kenneth Mack
King Cove AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes HB 409.
Mr. Matt Robus, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99802-5226
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 297.
Lieutenant Gary Folger
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
PO Box 111200
Juneau, AK 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 297.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-39, SIDE A
CSHJR 44(FSH)-SEA OTTER RESEARCH/ENDANGERED SPECIES
CHAIR SCOTT OGAN called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present were Senators Thomas
Wagoner, Fred Dyson, Ralph Seekins and Chair Scott Ogan. Senator
Ben Stevens arrived at 5:15. The first order of business to come
before the committee was CSHJR 44(FSH).
REPRESENTATIVE DAN OGG, sponsor, of HJR 44, said the Southwest
Alaska population of Northern Sea Otters has declines as much as
65 percent since the mid-1970s. In responds to this precipitous
decline, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service recently
proposed listing the sea otters in the Southwest region as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. This bill
recognizes that drop. Studies funded by the federal government
have found that the of another species, the Stellar Sea lion's
decline is not necessarily related to commercial fisheries. This
resolution asks the federal government to put $5 million aside
each year over the next five years to study this animal over a
period in the area of Kodiak.
CHAIR OGAN asked how many sea otters were going to get studied
for $25 million. "That's a lot of money!"
REPRESENTATIVE OGG replied that he didn't know their numbers.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS asked for an estimate of economic damages
that could potentially happen if the reasons for the sea otter
decline were not studied.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG replied Kodiak Island salmon fishery,
presently valued at $25 million, could go away if information
didn't show there was no connection between commercial fishing
and the decline in sea otters. The Kenai Peninsula has another
salmon fishery that the same thing could happen to. Possibly
crab fisheries could be taken out. It could all add up to $200
million to $300 million. Pollock fisheries might be affected,
because they are farther out, but impacts to the coastal
communities that are struggling already could become very
serious.
SENATOR SEEKINS remarked that he thought the money for a sea
otter study would be well spent.
CHAIR OGAN asked if sea otters are listed as threatened now.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG replied that the Wildlife Service is going to
list them as threatened and that is why public comment is being
taken on it at this point. It can't be said for certain that
commercial fishing doesn't have an impact until information is
gathered.
They started putting large circles around where the
Stellar sea lions live and they'll do the same thing
with the sea otters.... It knocked out incredible
portions of fisheries and we had to fight to get them
back.
SENATOR SEEKINS urged that a study seemed to be a much better
way of dealing with the decline than the shotgun approach.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG explained that the people who studied the
Stellar sea lions suggested that $5 million every year for five
years would provide enough data for a sea otter study. The study
on Stellar sea lions cost $100 million.
CHAIR OGAN asked if he envisioned the study being done as
government research.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG answered that usually the money is funneled
through one of the government agencies. The Stellar sea lions
study is presently done through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) in the Department of Commerce. Contracts are
usually picked up by universities. This one would go through the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which would decide on the
program. Kodiak already has research facilities from the Stellar
sea lion study.
CHAIR OGAN exclaimed, "There seems to be more money, sometimes,
in researching why fishing isn't good than there is in fishing!"
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said it seemed like that, but in today's
reality, people in the fishing industry understand that without
the research they won't be able to fish.
CHAIR OGAN said he was concerned about specifying an amount to
be spent and would feel more comfortable with language like,
"Congress will provide adequate or sufficient funding." He
wanted to know if there were other considerations behind
focusing the study in Kodiak.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG replied that the sea otter population starts
at the tip of the Kenai Peninsula and goes down the Alaska
Peninsula including Kodiak Island and goes out the chain. One
needs to look for research facilities that exist in that area
and scientists who work in that field. Those are found in
Kodiak; those are the scientists he talked to about what was
needed to accomplish this type of study.
CHAIR OGAN asked if anyone knew how many sea otters were taken
for subsistence hunting.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG replied he didn't really know and that those
products can't be sold.
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER informed them that the finished products
made from sea otter pelts can be bartered or sold, but he said
there had been very little hunting of sea otters in Kachemak Bay
for several years. He thought Kodiak was a perfect area in which
to conduct this research.
MS. JULIE DECKER, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Regional
Dive Fisheries Association (SARDFA), said she had submitted
written comments in support of HJR 44. Research would not only
indicate why there is a decline, but the extent of it as well.
She suggested adding three whereas clauses that contain language
from the Federal Register noticing the proposed listing as
threatened as follows:
1. On page 2, line 1, insert: "Whereas information from
monitoring programs administered by NMFS indicates that
interactions between sea otters and commercial fisheries
result in less than one instance of mortality per year
within the Southwest Alaska distinct population segment;
and"
2. After the above, insert: "Whereas information from the MTRP
estimates the subsistence harvest of sea otters from the
Southwest Alaska distinct population segment (DPS) averaged
less than 100 sea otters per year during the 1990s and the
impacts of the subsistence harvest is negligible; and"
3. On page 2, line 4, insert: "Whereas the cause of the
decline in abundance of the Southwest Alaska population of
the Northern Sea Otter is unknown, although the weight of
evidence of available information suggests that predation
by killer whales may be the most likely cause of the sea
otter decline in the Aleutian Islands; and"
4. On page 2, line 18, insert "and be it further resolved that
the Alaska State Legislature respectfully requests the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service not list the
Southwest Alaska sea otter as threatened until the amount
of decline and cause of decline is better understood
through intensive research."
REPRESENTATIVE OGG responded that Ms. Decker is addressing the
Southwest population where the Fish and Wildlife Service has
done preliminary studies noticing the 65 percent decline. That's
the reason they put up the public notice. He didn't know if the
resolution could ask them to not list them as threatened as that
is a scientific determination. That is why he is asking for
money to get the scientific determination. He wanted to leave
the resolution the way it is.
CHAIR OGAN asked if this is a decline from an all-time high or
from an average number.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG couldn't answer that definitively. Some
thought the reason for the Stellar sea lion decline is because
of extensive whale hunting in the 30s and 40s - that it knocked
out a whole segment of prey and the sea lion population filled
that void by the 1970s. He speculated that maybe the 1970s was
an all-time high of recovery.
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER moved to pass CSHJR 44(FSH) from
committee with a zero fiscal note. There were no objections and
it was so ordered.
HB 409-SEINE VESSEL LENGTH
CHAIR SCOTT OGAN announced HB 409 to be up for consideration.
MR. TIM BARRY, staff to Representative Bill Williams, who is
sponsoring HB 409 at the request of the Joint Legislative Salmon
Task Force, said it removes the statutory prohibition for the
length of salmon seine vessels and leaves the authority for
their length to the Alaska Board of Fisheries. This bill was
discussed in the Production Subcommittee of the Task Force and
by the Task Force as whole as something that could give the
Board of Fisheries and Alaska's fishermen another tool to allow
them to diversify and increase the value of their fish. This
legislation does not eliminate the 58 ft. length limit on salmon
seiners; it only puts these boats in the same regulatory regime
as all other fishing boat size limits. The 58 ft. limit is one
of only two commercial fishing boat length limits enshrined in
statute and predates statehood.
In the 1950s, the Alaska fisheries were not nearly as well
developed as they are today and territorial and early state
lawmakers wanted to protect Alaska's fishing fleet from the
dominant fleet of larger boats that fished out of Puget Sound
primarily. This perceived threat was serious enough that
legislators enshrined the length limit in statute rather than
allowing the Board of Fish to have the same discretion it has
now regarding all other length and gear restrictions. The
concerns that drove lawmakers to make that decision 50 years ago
are no longer present. There really is no threat from outside
vessels or fleets today. Alaska's fishing fleet today is far
stronger and healthier than, certainly, Puget Sound's is. HB 409
is supported by the United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) and has a
zero fiscal note from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G).
SENATOR WAGONER said the Kodiak seine fleet is already
intercepting a lot of red salmon in Shelikof Straits. If they
can get bigger vessels, they can seine more hours in more
inclement weather and asked, "Is that a good idea?"
MR. BARRY deferred to Senator Wagoner's expertise in that
particular fishery. "The intent of this legislation is to leave
that sort of determination in the hands of the Board of
Fisheries where it is with a whole lot of other fisheries in the
state as opposed to leaving it in the hands of the Legislature.
SENATOR WAGONER responded:
I guess the point I'd make if the Board of Fish were
to keep the seine fleet from Kodiak on the capes where
they were originally, I wouldn't care if they had 150
ft. vessels, but it does worry me that there is a
process being put in place now that a proliferation in
size of vessels that can better handle the water at
certain times in Shelikof Straits is taking place.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS asked why they wouldn't just say that the
Board of Fisheries would provide for the maximum size of vessels
to be used in any particular seine fishery.
MR. BARRY replied if this bill becomes law, and the Board of
Fish does nothing, the current limit stays in place - unless it
takes specific action on gear limits in a particular fishery.
CHAIR OGAN asked whose ox gets gored with this legislation.
MR. BARRY said testimony from others would provide the reasons
why having a bigger boat might allow fishermen to do different
kinds of things. He noted:
Even if the length limit would go up, an awful lot of
people would still be able to make a perfectly good
living. The other thing is that any of these arguments
for or against allowing larger vessels will have to be
made before the Board of Fish and the Board of Fish
has a process that it goes through all the time.
He stated that he has had some conversations with fishermen who
maintain they could add a lot of value to their fish if they
could have another 10 ft. on board.
They would catch fewer fish, but be able to get a lot
more money for them.... certain kinds of onboard
processing and maybe handling the fish differently and
taking better care of them.
MR. SCOTT MCCALLISTER, Alaska fisherman, said he currently
confines his fishing efforts to Southeast Alaska due to market
conditions. Southeast Alaska has a diverse array of species and
a healthy processing industry. The costs are less here and it's
easier to secure markets in Southeast.
Because of diversity of species, it has been my desire
for a long time to be able to fish money fish and
achieve a quality of fish across my deck and into the
pipeline onto the tender or, preferably I think, the
processor's dock by doing some primary processing on
board - which would be primarily bleeding of the fish
while that fish is still alive. To achieve this, I
need more room in the length of the vessel....I need
gravity to be able to channel fish and sort the fish
into the fish holds or into a processing line....
He pointed out that the vessel lengths would be changed [or not]
by region; the Board could not drop the limit statewide.
MR. KENNETH MACK, King Cove fisherman, opposed the intent of HB
409.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked what confidence he had that the Board of
Fish would not change the length of seine vessels with the best
interest of all fishermen in mind rather than just the ones in
his area.
MR. MACK replied that he has a lot of confidence in the Board of
Fish doing the right thing.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if he would like to see the statute stay
on the books so they wouldn't have that option.
MR. MACK replied yes because that would provide even more
protection.
CHAIR OGAN said he thought value added processing was definitely
the way to go and asked if there was a way to change the seine
length limit to apply only to processing. He asked what the
rationale is behind the 32 ft. limit for Bristol Bay gillnetters
and the 58 ft. limit for seiners.
SENATOR FRED DYSON said he thought both of those were a
misguided government attempt to keep the boats owned by local
people. "Like most government efforts, it never works."
TAPE 04-39, SIDE B
SENATOR DYSON continued saying the larger the boat, the more
flexibility a person has to change with the markets and
regulatory environment. "Plus, it's safer.... I'm embarrassed we
didn't do this 25 years ago."
SENATOR WAGONER said that Kodiak seiners used to fish off the
capes and, therefore, they didn't intercept the salmon migrating
around Kodiak Island into Cook Inlet.
All I was implying is, if you have a 58 ft. vessel -
and the 58 ft. vessels that they use now are much
different than the original 58 ft. vessels - the 58
ft. vessel they use today is much more seaworthy -
much more adaptable boat to the fishing that they do.
The point is, at one time the Board of Fish did pull
the fishermen in Kodiak back onto the cape and then
after the politics was all done, they let them go back
off the capes again and intercept fish. So, they made
a decision and they reversed their decision two years
later. All I want is a little time to contact the
fishermen in Cook Inlet and see what they feel about
it....
CHAIR OGAN said that he would hold HB 409.
4:35 - 4:46 - at ease
SB 297-BEAR HUNTING/DISPOSAL OF HIDE/SKULL
CHAIR SCOTT OGAN announced SB 297 to be up for consideration and
that they had adopted SSSB 297, version W, at the last meeting.
MR. MATT ROBUS, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
said:
We believe the sponsor substitute made some important
improvements to the original bill. Foremost of these
is the change in approach from an expansion of hunting
methods to the establishment of a bear predation
management program. We think that's an important
distinction to make. This avoids some of the ethical
issues involved in the original bill which you heard
about at previous hearings and it preserves hunting as
a fair chase activity, which the department feels is
very important.
The sponsor substitute limits the use of ordinary
additional methods for taking bears to specific
situations where the Board of Game has found that a
bear population needs to be reduced. The sponsor
substitute language would now serve as an umbrella
statute to the bear management policy in associated
regs that were recently adopted by the Board of Game
and do it in a way that is analogous to the structure
of wolf predation management laws that we already
have. The result of this would be to allow both wolf
and bear predation issues to be addressed together in
predation control plans formulated by the Board of
Game.
The Board of Game and department have agreed for quite
a while that the first step in reducing bear numbers
when necessary should be through liberalized hunting
regulations. Often, such attempts have been less
effective than hoped because liberalized hunting rules
did not result in higher hunter effort even though we
had more liberal bag limits and seasons. If you don't
have more hunters in the field, it really doesn't
result in any more bears being taken.
Allowing non-residents to hunt brown and grizzly bears
without a guide and treating first-year military
personnel as residents are innovative approaches to
increasing hunter effort in areas where we need to
have more bears taken. At the last meeting of this
committee, some members questioned why first year
military personnel were included in the exemption for
having a guide for taking brown bear and grizzly bear.
Concerns are expressed that this might provide an
opportunity to challenge the guide requirement based
on safety issues. When this concept was first
discussed, we in the department suggested that
allowing first-year military residents to hunt without
a guide would be something to look at because we
thought it would likely provide the increase in the
number of hunters that we were looking for to increase
the harvest in the game management unit (GMU) 13 while
having a minimal impact on the guiding industry
through legal challenges. We would require all first-
year military personnel obtaining a permit to attend a
training course where we would emphasize safety and we
thought that would reduce the exposure to the safety
argument. This could be done rather easily because the
military population is a closed group of people that
we would have relatively easy access to. Since the
bill has been expanded now to allow other non-resident
hunters to qualify for permits, it would probably not
be necessary to deal with military people separately.
However, whatever the permittee pool ends up being, we
will consider requiring some level of training as a
permit condition. I think this could provide some
protection in case the statute is challenged along
safety lines.
MR. ROBUS said he had some suggested changes. First changing the
phrase "control of black and brown or grizzly bear" to something
like "bear predation management" in the title and elsewhere in
the statute. He thought it best to eliminate the connotation
that the state is trying to eradicate bears. "We're trying to
have a predation management tool when bears become part of the
predation equation that needs to be addressed."
Secondly, since the Legislature would be making a distinction
between hunting bears and taking them as a predation management
measure, he thought it appropriate to not require non-residents
to obtain a standard non-resident brown bear tag, because it's
hunting related. He did agree with charging some sort of
management or permit fee of about $500 rather than $50 - because
of the importance of funding the division's management programs.
Even with the $500 fee, this program would be the only
time in North America that a person could hunt a brown
or grizzly bear, with very limited exceptions, without
engaging the services of a guide, which costs from
$5,000 up to $8,000 for a hunt. The limited exception
would be the second degree of kindred possibility that
is presently in state regulation.
The department believes that the main purpose of the
statute should be to establish the authority under
which bear predation can be managed and should contain
general sideboards for such programs. We believe that
including detailed methods and means descriptions at
this level is unwise. As the sponsor substitute is
written, all of the described methods and means would
be authorized in all cases where bear predation
management is in effect under a program established by
the Board of Game. Since every wildlife management
situation is unique and has different challenges, we
believe the different bear predation management
programs in different areas should be custom tuned and
managers and the Board of Game should have the
flexibility to choose the methods and means that would
be most effective and most appropriate. I'm speaking
in general here and have a short list of specific
places in the present language where we believe
specific methods and means should be removed from the
statute language and taken care of at the Board of
Game level.
In our opinion, a better way to approach all of this
would be to have the Board of Game develop the details
for each bear predation program and include them in a
predation management plan that would be adopted in
regulation. This is the way that wolf control is
presently done. We think this would mesh nicely with
it. This would allow the board to authorize measures
appropriate and justifiable for the specific situation
without including methods that are not necessary and
probably very controversial.
The Board of Game developed the regulatory framework
for conducting bear predation management at its March
meeting and it did so because the members recognized
the need to reduce bear predation in certain areas in
order to reach regulatory management guidelines. The
board adopted a bear management policy, which included
provisions for reducing bear numbers when certain
conditions are met. They adopted regulations to allow
issuance of permits for bear population reduction. So,
the regulatory structure for bear predation management
is substantially in place already. The committee
should note that in constructing its bear management
policy, the Board of Game has already included most of
the methods and means included in the sponsor
substitute as potential ways to implement a bear
reduction program. Methods and means included in the
sponsor substitute that are not already in the
regulation could be referred to the board for its
consideration in mounting future bear predation
programs.
Section 2 has two basic components, the first of which
is to allow a qualified organization to accept
donations of bear hides and skulls - auction or raffle
those off and return at least 50 percent of the net
proceeds to the fish and game fund, which is the state
money that funds the Division of Wildlife
Conservation's management programs. It's the only
money we have to match federal monies that are
available to us....
The only concern we have here is an administration
overhead to process and work these hides through some
sort of a system of raffles or sales or auctions. We
can make that work. I do have one request, though, and
that is that the department be given the discretion to
accept hides, because from our experience with dealing
with defense of life and property hides or other types
of bear hides that we come in possession of through
enforcement actions, for instance, we could run up
some very large disposal fees in getting rid of hides
that really aren't worth anything - because of the
time of year they are taken or the hair has slipped or
whatever. So, we would appreciate some discretion
there in picking ones that are worth taking through
the sale process.... That concludes my testimony and
would try to answer any questions the committee has.
SENATOR SEEKINS pointed out that section 2 says the department
"may" accept a donation, not "shall".
MR. ROBUS replied, "The intent is noted and appreciated."
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if there was anything in Alaska law that
would keep him from selling a bear skin from Alaska in
Washington.
MR. ROBUS said he knew that was allowed in the state of Montana.
Once the hide gets out of state, he turns that situation over to
enforcement people.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he is trying to allow the sale of those
things in the state on somewhat the same basis that they are
sold outside the state - to provide some means of revenue.
LIEUTENANT GARY FOLGER, Alaska State Troopers, said troopers
don't have jurisdiction over those actions, but if that is the
Legislature's intent, it could be addressed instate.
SENATOR SEEKINS agreed that the title change would be
appropriate because he wants it to be a bear predation
management bill. He asked if the training course would be a
Board of Game decision.
MR. ROBUS answered that he mentioned it as a potential condition
of the permit, which he thought was within his division's
authority. "It would be something we would discuss with the
board before we implemented it."
SENATOR SEEKINS said it wasn't the intent of the Legislature to
allow a permit that would be authorized by the Board of Game to
have administrative discretion attached to it. He didn't have a
problem with people who have never hunted big game being
required to take a safety course. Some states require it to hunt
any game.
CHAIR OGAN noted that bow hunters have to be certified by
statute.
MR. ROBUS replied that he thought that requirement was
associated with a Board of Game regulation. In reference to
Senator Seekins' comment, he could also think of moose permits
for an antler-restricted hunt where people are required to watch
a short movie clip on distinguishing a legal moose from an
illegal moose.
I believe that is done under our discretionary
authority, which is given to us in regulation....
There are several examples where, as part of a permit
process, you're required to upload some information
before going in the field.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he didn't have a problem with there being
reasonable training or a safety course provided that it's
readily available. Since he couldn't find that authority in
statute, he thought the Board of Game gave him that authority.
MR. ROBUS assured him if he was given one or more of those
programs to run, he would figure out ways to provide what is
necessary to people who were willing to provide the extra
harvest pressure on a population the board had designated to be
reduced. "I think we're fairly successful in providing the types
of training I mentioned earlier...."
SENATOR SEEKINS said he would be very reluctant if the
department with its permit issuing process would be able to
trump a decision made by either the Legislature or the Board of
Game to implement a predator control program. "That's my
concern." He asked Mr. Robus why the board hadn't come up with a
bear predation program before their last meeting in March."
MR. ROBUS replied:
My perception is that for years we and the board have
been involved in trying to get appropriate wolf
predation control started - when we had a fairly
wholesale change. A large portion of the board changed
soon after this administration came on board. At the
spring meeting in '03, some of the members approached
us, on the record, asked us to start putting together
some sort of bear predation approach. That resulted in
us putting a draft before them at the next board
meeting in November and they asked for it to be on the
agenda this spring so they could take action. So, it
took a year. Why it didn't happen prior to that is
probably a combination of it not being as high a
priority for the previous board. That previous board
and we were fully involved, in addition to managing
all the hunts around the state, were trying to get 19D
started. That was the primary effort and in the wake
of that, Unit 13.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked how soon the board, under the department's
bear management policy would be able to consider implementation
of a bear predation management plan in Unit 13.
MR. ROBUS replied the next regular meeting for the Southcentral
region occurs next March and it would require that some findings
be made. Those findings could be put on the November agenda. If
something were put on the books at the March meeting, it could
be implemented on July 1, when regulations are normally
implemented.
SENATOR SEEKINS bemoaned the fact that two fall hunting seasons
would be lost before anything would be done.
MR. ROBUS said that is correct unless emergency measures are
taken.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if other areas where bears are an emerging
problem would have to go through the intensive management
process and then go through the bear management process.
MR. ROBUS replied that the intensive management process has
already been gone through statewide up to a certain point.
We've got about six predation management plans already
in effect in regulation with primarily aimed at
wolves, but where bears could certainly be spliced in
relatively easily. Yes, normally you go around the
two-year cycle that's presently in effect for board
meetings and new areas would be added or areas taken
off the books at those meetings unless some sort of
special action was taken by the board.
SENATOR SEEKINS surmised that it could take up to four years to
get a bear management plan in effect.
MR. ROBUS replied that is correct. However, a recent survey in
unit 13 indicates that liberalized hunting regulations there may
have had an effect.
We're seeing lower bear densities out there in our
surveys. We're going to be doing more work in the next
month - surveying bear there with the latest technique
that we have. Yes, the bear predation management
timeline is off in the future. I can say it's not like
no progress has been made in 13. It looks like we may
have reduced brown bear densities there.
SENATOR SEEKINS noted that Mr. Robus was monitoring the process
and asked if he recalled what the dot points were for revising
methods and means.
MR. ROBUS replied:
I was not there at the meeting during the final
iteration of that. I know that a pool of methods and
means that could be used was either specifically
included at the bottom of that document or was
referenced and included in the array of things from
same day airborne access, which is in your sponsor
substitute here, use of vehicles, baiting. There was a
whole variety and it was not meant to be a closed box.
It was a starting list of things that could be used
depending on what was appropriate and effective in the
situation. If and when it was determined by the board
that either black or brown bear populations needed to
be reduced.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the department made recommendations to
the board on unit 13, would it pick out a couple of methods and
wait for two years to see what happens or would it advise using
all of the methods at once - to solve the problem expeditiously.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS arrived at 5:15 p.m.
MR. ROBUS replied:
I think it's only honest to say that the department
and the board have spirited discussion sometimes from
different points of view and while both the board and
department are interested in getting into solving some
of these problems, we are highly aware of the fact
that whatever we mount, it needs to be a sustainable
program - because these ungulate populations didn't
get into the situations they are in instantly - and
it's going to take more than an instant for things to
return to a higher abundance - and we may urge some
caution in these situations and it may be related to a
particular technique. It may regard which area or the
extent of the area. When that happens, it's going to
basically be a judgment on how can we proceed with a
program that's effective while not going so far and in
a manner that might cause the whole thing to come to a
halt. As I say, it may be judgment - there may be
differences of opinion.
SENATOR SEEKINS said the reason he asked that question is
because it's been his experience that a solution is applied
slowly and, as a result, ineffectively. He wanted to hear
specifics on methods and means.
CHAIR OGAN said he was concerned about the Legislature setting
methods and means.
I agree we need to strike the bear control permits
with bear predation management and I think we should
work on some methods and means - maybe giving express
authority for methods and means - require them to
consider alternative methods and means beyond normal
or standard hunting practices including, but not
limited to, same day airborne, because that's probably
one of the most effective ways....to hunt.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he wanted to solve the problem and if
nothing else, this bill has moved the board toward a
comprehensive bear management plan.
We didn't have that before in the State of Alaska....
That alone makes me very pleased.... Secondly, there
are some things that absolutely have to be changed in
statute if we're going to be able to address getting
more hunters into the field. Because we have statutes
that prohibit things, now we have to loosen those
statutes....
I think, as Mr. Robus has suggested, that a safety
training course for someone in these paragraphs that
loosen up their ability to be able to participate in
this bear predation management plan is a worthwhile
suggestion.... I think beyond that if this committee
believes that it may be wise for the time being to
allow some discretion on the Board of Game to be able
to implement methods and means over and above the
ordinary, I have no objection to that.
CHAIR OGAN asserted that, "shall" should be used instead of
"will" to "incorporate methods and means beyond seasons and bag
limits."
SENATOR SEEKINS agreed that it shouldn't be a regular hunting
license or tag and that there should be a ceiling fee that goes
along with this type of program. He wouldn't change anything in
(e) or (k). He had no problem with eliminating (f), (g) and (i)
as long as he felt comfortable that those would be methods and
means that would be considered by the Board of Game.
CHAIR OGAN said they would continue to work on this issue and
adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|