HB 134-BOARD OF GAME MEMBERSHIP  2:39:09 PM VICE CHAIR WESTLAKE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 134, "An Act relating to the composition of the Board of Game." 2:39:28 PM CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON, sponsor, introduced HB 134. He noted that he has some concerns with the way the Board of Game (BOG) operates and explained that the bill provides for a tourism seat and a non-consumptive seat on the seven-member board. There would be no impact on board members who are currently appointed and unconfirmed, or appointed and confirmed, he continued. The bill clearly states that these seats would be filled in the future. The bill is very important, he said, because about 85 percent of Alaskans do not hunt or trap. However, he added, he would be surprised if that number also applied to the fishing predilections because he assumes that most people fish. He said he has received 20 or 30 e-mails from the public expressing concern with the board not hearing from non-consumptive users. In the 1990s, he recalled, the Board of Game had members like Joel Bennett, Victor VanBellenberghe, and Thomas Meacham who were willing to hear, entertain, and take seriously the interests of non-consumptive users. Former Senator Johnny Ellis filed, or considered filing, a bill that created a Board of Wildlife. As to the question raised in HB 105 on whether Denali Park's wolves need further protection, Co-Chair Josephson said, "You see a Board of Game that has become so politicized that if a person where, ... for example..." 2:42:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON interjected that since no members of the Board of Game are present, care should be taken when talking about the board's makeup. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON allowed that that is a fair statement. He shared his experience that if during an appointee's confirmation hearing the appointee indicated in the slightest way that he/she cared about the wildlife watcher, that appointee's confirmation would most likely be sunk. It didn't used to be this way, he continued. In the 1990s there was a culture on the Board of Game that was more accepting of wildlife viewing. He posited that there would be more dialog and diversity before the board if HB 134 was passed, and there would be an avenue for people who share different values to be heard. He pointed out that CSHB 105(RES), the bill the committee moved out earlier today, will help protect Denali wolves. However, he related, last month the Board of Game defeated a comparable proposal by seven votes to zero, while CSHB 105(RES) passed by five votes to four. He read from the current statute, AS 16.05.221(b), which identifies who may serve on the Board of Game and states: For purposes of the conservation and development of the game resources of the state, there is created a Board of Game composed of seven members appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session. The governor shall appoint each member on the basis of interest in public affairs, good judgment, knowledge, and ability in the field of action of the board, and with a view to providing diversity of interest and points of view in the membership. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said he is not suggesting that there is not a diversity of views on the board. For example, there is a difference of opinion between "residential hunters" and those supporting interests that may come from out of state. So, it is not like the hunting or trapping communities are monolithic. However, he continued, there is a huge swath of Alaska residents, 85 percent, who have essentially no voice on the Board of Game. Therefore, HB 134 says, "What would be wrong with those who are concerned with watchable wildlife, frankly in the end losing most proposals 5-2?" For the non-consumptive or tourism seat it could be a difficult experience, he said, because they are often going to have a hard time convincing the other five of something, such as that predator control is not needed in a certain unit because there is some important bear viewing going on there. So, while they will generally lose those struggles by five votes to two, at least they will have a voice, and that is very important to the people of Alaska. Co- Chair Josephson pointed out that many times people will not attend the Board of Game meetings because they view it as an exercise that is, from their vantage point, hopeless. He therefore urged that Title 16 as written be infused with more delineation and more description so there can be real diversity. 2:47:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered his understanding that under HB 134, these two seats would be the only defined seats on the board. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied that is correct. He posited, "That's what this has come to; the ... other five will surely represent the consumptive users." He said he does not have a particular problem with that, but that one could argue that there should be a little more parity, a "four to three kind of thing." He agreed there should be a strong voice for consumptive users because they know a lot about allocation and many know a lot about biology and what it takes to harvest wildlife. They reflect Alaska in all its abundance, but this other cohort is absolutely cut out of the process. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he understands and agrees, but that it seems like it would be creating two seats of equal value as opposed to the others. 2:50:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON argued that this is inserting government to determine what decisions the board should make and the outcomes of the votes. The governor gets to appoint and the legislature gets to confirm, she said, and every time that the legislature does not like the makeup of the board it has the option of voting that down and having the governor appoint someone else. The legislature already has the option of saying it wants a certain makeup on the board. It is not set in statute that there will be this one and that one, she added. It allows for everyone being represented when everyone in the state gets to have a voice through the representatives when they vote on the makeup of the board. As the makeup of Alaska changes, she posited, there may be changes on the way the Board of Game's seats are being applied. As far as needing to define seat-by- seat, the bill would bind the hands of the governor as well as those of legislators to really represent their constituents. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON responded that he is saying it is a policy call and is in the interest of the legislature and the people of Alaska to be bound by this. There is nothing atypical about saying there will be X number of pedicurists and Y number of hairdressers on a board, it is typical. This would give an audience to some ideas that nine times out of ten will fail, but members of the public will say, "I had a voice and I couldn't attend that meeting, but someone who sees the world approximately the way I do did [attend] and they tried . . . and they raised some sensitivities and concerns that never would have been raised otherwise." 2:52:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER related that as a photographer and wildlife viewer, he appreciates wildlife and being able to photograph and also appreciates the sponsor's interest in being able to view and take photos. There should be a voice out there of some sort, he said, and he commends the sponsor's idea somewhat. He inquired as to how HB 134 and the provision in the constitution that wildlife be managed for maximum benefit of the state's people on the sustained yield principle would work together. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON answered that the committee's vote today on [HB 105] said there is an economic interest in living animals and that reflected the maximum benefit. Requiring a tourism seat and a non-consumptive seat does not, in his view, run counter to that constitutional mandate. 2:55:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that fish and game are renewable resources that have been managed effectively one way or another since statehood. He said he is concerned about having folks on the Board of Game who do not have some interest in the sustainable use and consumption of that resource. He inquired whether there would be an analogous situation with the Board of Fisheries (BOF) if someone who objects to fishing were to be on that board. For example, he continued, it would be like the board of regents for a university having somebody that doesn't think kids should go to a university. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied no, people do not see fish the way they do wildlife and that is the main difference. It is an interesting question, he allowed. For example, the new director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) isn't as concerned with environmental protection and so why is he working for that department. The idea that Board of Game members should be about consumptive use only, and so why would it be appropriate to have someone who is non-consumptive, is something he thinks about. He said his concern and experience from the Board of Game meetings that he has attended is that any proposal to conserve rather than take is generally defeated. While the Board of Game does have concerns about sustainability generally, it is his opinion that board members react viscerally when somebody has a proposal that board members red flag and identify as being just in the interest of wildlife watching. But, he maintained, it should receive a voice and another reason is the economic interest in tourism. 2:58:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH drew analogy with proponents of alternative energy not being a good fit to serve on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC). While alternative energy proponents are well intentioned, he continued, the AOGCC is trying to reasonably manage and produce Alaska's oil and gas resources. He said he does not see how someone opposed to hunting or trapping would be a good fit on a board that is primarily constructed to efficiently manage and maintain a game resource that is collectively owned. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON responded that if HB 134 were to become law, it would likely be found that the non-consumptive seat holder, and surely the tourism seat holder, is not bound to looking at an issue from one perspective. For example, he said, the Yukon- Charley National Wild and Scenic River Area probably does not have scads of tourist, so the person in the dedicated tourism seat might say that there is not much interest in the tourism industry there and would cast a vote for a proposal to take X number more wolverines in a sustainable way in that area. 3:00:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO asked whether the assumption is that the 85 percent of the state's population who don't hunt are anti- hunting. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON answered no and said the cohort he is talking about may view some of the practices that are allowed in state law as abhorrent, not part of the North American model, not fair chase, and not sporting. They want some concern for intact ecosystems, he continued, and they want an Alaska that remains wild rather than a place that is all about abundance and nothing else. There is nothing in the aforementioned that would preclude some responsible and sustainable hunting. 3:02:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO posited that he and the sponsor probably have different understandings of the Board of Game. He related that he has been involved in a board meeting that had 213 proposals. He has seen the board take data and allocation considerations from ADF&G and structure seasons, closures, or openings [accordingly]. For example, a big thing for his area was when the board took numbers and allocations and set antler restrictions so that there would be a maximum yield of that particular resource to continue. Because he is a reasonably aggressive consumptive user of that resource, those restrictions meant a lot to him, he said. The governor can choose people of any background and diversity. The Board of Game has, in his opinion, made decisions based on the allocation and data that is presented to it and has acted to manage the resource correctly for the advantage of Alaska's people. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON agreed the board has done the aforementioned and allowed his comments to have been unfair to the Board of Game in that respect. The board has followed the recommendations of the department and its biologists and has made some good decisions about methods and means, he said. However, 95 percent of the time the board is truly dismissive about any non-consumptive view of the world. Generally, those dismissals have not been for areas way off the beaten path, but in places where the other interests of Alaskans should be considered. 3:05:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that she is having a hard time wrapping her mind around this because growing up she did her fair share of consuming. It was up to the game managers to ensure that the game was not over or under hunted and remained a useable resource for food. Now it is being said that it could be a useable resource for wildlife viewing. But, she continued, wildlife viewing does not reduce the number of animals, so why would the Board of Game have to worry about how many pictures were taken of something? Viewing, not hunting, is why national parks were set aside. This does not make sense, she said, because wildlife viewing is a whole other way of approaching game policy. CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON responded by citing HB 105 and noting that 5 percent of the people are seeing wolves now. In his opinion, he continued, this is because the state is complicit in the demise of wolves that leave Denali National Park and Preserve ("Denali Park"); it is part of a policy. Now, under the new [federal] administration, there is going to be less federal control and oversight in the preserves and refuges and that is going to be put back on the State of Alaska at some cost to the state. For example, on the Kenai Peninsula top federal biologists have said that no more brown bears can be taken because it is unsustainable; however, the state's position is that things are fine. His observation, he said, is that the state generally sides with "the take" and rarely "the non-take." REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON commented, "You can disagree with the policy of how the allocations are made ... and you can disagree with game policy, but that's not the same as establishing a seat on the board." Anybody who doesn't get a moose might think that the game in his/her management area could be managed better. Disagreeing with the board's policy is not the same as saying someone needs to be put on the board that is not into game management for a sustainable use, she said. [HB 134 was held over.]