Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/22/2017 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB134 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 2017
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative Dean Westlake, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Justin Parish
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative George Rauscher
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Talerico
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
Representative Chris Tuck (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 134
"An Act relating to the composition of the Board of Game."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 105
"An Act establishing the Gordon Haber Denali Wolf Special
Management Area."
- HEARING CANCELED; BILL REPORTED OUT OF COMMITTEE 3/20/17
HOUSE BILL NO. 172
"An Act relating to the regulation and production of industrial
hemp; relating to industrial hemp pilot programs; providing that
industrial hemp is not included in the definition of
'marijuana'; and clarifying that adding industrial hemp to food
does not create an adulterated food product."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 46
"An Act relating to the state and municipal procurement
preferences for agricultural products harvested in the state and
fisheries products harvested or processed in the state; relating
to merchandise sold and certain fees charged or collected by the
Department of Natural Resources; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 134
SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF GAME MEMBERSHIP
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
02/20/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/17 (H) RES
03/20/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/20/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/20/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/22/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
VIC VAN BALLENBERGHE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
LYNN MITCHELL, Spokesperson
Alaska Safe Trails
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
EDWARD SCHMITT, President
Alaska Wildlife Alliance (AWA)
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
RON SOMERVILLE, Spokesperson
Alaska Outdoor Council
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
MARK LUTRELL
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
KNEELAND TAYLOR
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
ROBERT ARCHIBALD
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
JESSE ROSS
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
KEN GREEN
Cooper Landing, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Spokesperson
Coal Point Trading Company
Kachemak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
ROBERTA HIGHLAND, Spokesperson
Kachemak Bay Conservation Society
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
AL BARRETTE
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 134.
JAMES KOWALSKY, Spokesperson
Alaskans for Wildlife
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
NANCY BALE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
SYLVIA PANZARELLA
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
CONNIE BRANDEL, Staff and Board Member
Alaska Wildlife Alliance (AWA)
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
NANCY KUHN
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 134.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:26 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Tarr,
Josephson, Parish, Birch, Johnson, Rauscher, Westlake, and
Drummond were present at the call to order.
HB 134-BOARD OF GAME MEMBERSHIP
1:04:12 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 134 "An Act relating to the composition of the
Board of Game."
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON, prime sponsor of HB 134, reminded members
that two days ago he introduced the bill and had begun taking
questions from the committee members.
1:05:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE stated that the Board of Game (BOG) is
comprised of people looking at hunting regulations and as such
is a consumptive use board. He asked why putting non-
consumptive users on the board would be wanted.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON allowed that this is a fair question and said
the committee will be hearing testimony from an individual who
was on the Board of Game over a dozen years ago. He said he
believes this person will testify that the methods and means
practices that have been allowed by the contemporary board are
practices that previous boards would have found unacceptable in
terms of the [North American Model of Wildlife Conservation]
practices, fair chase, and fair hunt. While the current Board
of Game is not monolithic and has some diversity of opinion,
there is no way for the occasional non-consumptive voice to be
heard. He said he would entertain a term other than non-
consumptive if an acceptable one could be found, because
probably neither the non-consumptive seat nor tourism seat would
oppose traditional hunts in terms of, for example, the yield of
caribou north of the Brooks Range. The role of the seats is not
designed to be anti-hunting, but rather a role that is sensitive
to what some believe are wildlife practices aimed only at
abundance, not diversity of species and not the economics of the
tourism industry. In that respect, the non-consumptive seat
would frequently vote in the affirmative on traditional hunts
that are open and voice concerns only when there are issues like
the Denali wolf issue heard by the committee earlier this week,
as well as comparable issues where there are sensitivities.
1:08:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH recalled that during the bill's previous
hearing there was repeated assertion that the [proposed] non-
consumptive seat or the tourism seat would be opposed to
hunting. He said he takes issue with that because he hunts and
fishes and has spent years in tourism. Conceivably, someone who
is also a subsistence hunter, or a guide for non-residents, or a
wildlife photographer like Representative Rauscher could occupy
the tourism seat. There is not a definite implication from
someone being primarily a non-consumptive user to the person
being opposed to any form of hunting.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON commented that if this were to become law and
an occupant of the seats spoke ill of the demise of any fur-
bearing animal, he would find it odd because that is certainly
not what this is about. This is about sensitivity to situations
where interests clash and there are places where there aren't
those sensitivities.
1:11:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he doesn't think this is a good idea.
He offered his understanding that currently there are no
designated seats on the Board of Game or the Board of Fisheries.
He inquired whether this would start going down the road to
suddenly designating board seats.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied that anything is possible and he
cannot speak to what other bills could be filed. There are over
100 boards and commissions, he noted, and more typical is that
there is a designation rather than not. His frustration has
been with the lack of representation of visitors to Alaska and,
more importantly, of the hundreds of thousands of Alaskans who
have thrown up their hands and don't attend Board of Game
meetings because they've basically said that this isn't a model
that represents them and allows them to be heard. The enabling
act creating the Board of Fisheries and Board of Game says that
the appointment should be made with a view of providing
diversity of interest and points of view in the membership.
While there are points of view, there isn't sufficient diversity
on the board. Of concern to him is that when a person finds a
practice offensive, the person is reluctant to say so given the
climate and culture of the Board of Game and the person feeling
marginalized. He said, "I also can't really see the harm that
would be caused by having the vast majority of the board members
continue to ostensibly support the [methods and] means ... that
they wish to."
1:14:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said harm would come from this because
there is the potential of wedging somebody into the Board of
Game who looks at viewing wildlife as a use. A non-consumptive
use like wildlife viewing is not a use, he stated. Anybody can
walk down the street just about anywhere and view wildlife. He
said his understanding is that the Board of Game relates
primarily to the use, and that would be the consumptive use of
that resource, in a manner that preserves that resource for the
good of the public. It doesn't limit viewing and therefore he
doesn't see this as being consistent with the Board of Game's
marching orders. He requested the sponsor to respond.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON allowed that many people share Representative
Birch's view. But, he continued, many people do not share that
view and think that the viewing of wildlife is a use, that it
brings the state a tremendous amount of money, and that there is
a value there. While Representative Birch's position is well
founded in some respects, it illustrates the need for this seat
or seats, he argued. Seven members of the board see it the same
way as described by Representative Birch; but, with a growing
population and the increased intimate connection between people
and nature resulting from that population growth, there are
people who feel absolutely marginalized. The Board of Game has
much expertise, but many Alaskans are horrified by some of the
things that the board has approved. For example, the use of
artificial lights to wake up bears in their dens and kill them
is a relatively new practice designed to facilitate the hunt,
but he thinks that most Alaskans find it outrageous and there is
no one on the board to say so.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he has used artificial light on the
Chatanika River to spear whitefish in the dark. Whether it is
light for spearfishing or whatever, he said, he sees the Board
of Game more focused and directed on the responsible use and
application of statute in a manner that preserves and protects
the state's wildlife resources in perpetuity. While many people
would like to fence off the whole state and preserve it for
tourists, it must be ensured that the people living in the state
are accommodated and still have wildlife viewing opportunities.
1:18:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired as to how many seats the bill
would create.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied it would create two seats. Thus, the
Board of Game would have five seats representing hunters and
trappers, one seat designated for representing the tourism
industry, and one seat designated for a non-consumptive use such
as tourism, wildlife viewing, or scientific study.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated that the bill would change the
demographics of qualifications for 33.5 percent of the board,
which would be a big influence, not just a voice. He related
that as a photographer he used to go to Homer where a lady fed
the eagles and he would photograph them. This feeding of the
eagles created a big hullabaloo and after a while this lady
became the only person left in the state that could do that.
Tourists from all over the world began coming to see and
photograph these eagles. Attracted by the hundreds to this
small feeding area, the eagles would fight over the food and
injure each other. He said while photographers captured
excellent shots of the birds killing each other, this was
misguided because of tourism, photography, and other reasons
that were wrong. He opined that when tourism is thought about
in terms of the money that it will bring into the state, it is
being done for all the wrong reasons. The animals are being
used and are not being helped, and the bill would start this all
over again. The bill would not utilize the correct reason for
the board. The board was put there because it would like to see
something continue in a safe way and that will provide for
people and for future Alaskans; therefore, the bill is headed in
the wrong direction.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON responded that he doesn't believe that the
Board of Game wants to change Alaska culture such that there is
nothing left to consume. However, he continued, he has real
concern about the board's treatment of prey populations, which
in the last dozen years are a sea change from what used to be
allowed. Practices allowed now would have been thought beyond
the pale just 10 or 15 years ago.
1:24:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered her belief that viewing animals
in their environment is an appropriate use. She concurred with
the sponsor that the Board of Game does need to consider viewing
as a use even though it doesn't consume the animals. She does
not see where two out of seven people will be a presiding vote
on almost any issue, it just introduces the concept to the
conversation and will make for much more spirited debate. She
surmised that all committee members have had wildlife on their
property and said that while she doesn't want tourists viewing
wildlife in her backyard, she does want tourists to be able to
see the things that Alaskans have the privilege of seeing every
day. She expressed her support for the bill.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON noted that under the bill it would be two
voices out of seven. Often those two voices would vote for a
prescribed hunt, he said, and therefore it would not necessarily
be a series of five votes to two.
1:26:54 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR noted that these statutes were written at a time
much different than the more recent boards that have come into
play. She said she has long thought that both statutes need to
be updated with respect to what Representative Birch is saying
because, for example, the seats on the Board of Fisheries are
not designated for commercial or sport or subsistence, yet
people will talk about it as if there is a de facto 3, 3, and 1.
She inquired whether people talk about the Board of Game in this
same way as far as how many guides, resident hunters, and so
forth should be on the board.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied that this is a good point because,
relative to the Board of Fisheries, this is going on in the
[capitol] building anyway. Relative to the Board of Game, it is
known as was evidenced in last year's confirmation hearing, that
there is a real battle between groups that want to prioritize
above all other things the right for residents to hunt visa vie
the right for big game guides to practice their trade the way
they might want to. There are people who look at the seven
members and say, "Well, four of them or five of them see this
issue this way and so we support them and the other two we don't
support." So, this is going on regardless of whether the
statute calls for it.
1:28:53 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease while Co-Chair Tarr passed
the gavel to Co-Chair Josephson.
1:29:22 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON requested Mr. Vic Van Ballenberghe to provide
his invited testimony.
VIC VAN BALLENBERGHE stated he has lived in Alaska since 1974
and has worked as a biologist for the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game (ADF&G) and the research branch of the U.S. Forest
Service. He served on the Board of Game three times, being
first appointed by Governor Sheffield and two times by Governor
Knowles. Over the years he has attended numerous Board of Game
meetings when he wasn't on the board and has testified before
the board on many issues.
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE said that regarding HB 134, the issue at
hand is diversity of Board of Game members. Should they only
represent the hunting and trapping interests or should they have
broader emphasis with some members representing non-consumptive
interests who experience wildlife through photography or viewing
or hearing but who don't kill the wildlife? In recent years
governors have appointed, and legislators have confirmed, only
those representing consumptive users - hunters and trappers.
Historically, the idea of a more diverse Board of Game goes all
the way back to the Hammond Administration. Governor Jay
Hammond appointed Jay Meachum to the board in the mid-1970's to
represent non-consumptive users. At that time there was a
national effort to value non-consumptive use of wildlife by
people who wanted to photograph or experience wildlife without
hunting or trapping. Surveys done in the 1970's and onward have
illustrated the importance of non-consumptive uses.
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE, regarding committee discussion at a
previous meeting about how many people buy hunting licenses
compared to how many don't, allowed there are various figures
but said whether it is 80 percent or 60 percent, clearly most
people in Alaska do not buy hunting or trapping licenses and do
not personally hunt or trap. Many of those people are
interested in seeing wildlife and having the Board of Game
promulgate regulations that can ensure or enhance that.
Governors Cowper and Hickel continued Governor Hammond's
tradition of appointing someone to the board to represent non-
hunting interests. Mr. Van Ballenberghe offered his
understanding that Juneau resident Joel Bennett served for a
long time, about 13 years. Governor Tony Knowles tried to
appoint quite a few members to represent non-consumptive users,
but during that time the legislature adopted a much more
aggressive approach toward confirming Board of Game members than
it ever had in the past. It had a litmus test for Board of Game
appointees as to whether they supported wolf control and if they
didn't their chances of confirmation were very slim. During
Governor Knowles' final year the legislature failed to confirm
several of his Board of Game appointments because it feared that
the appointees were not totally in favor of predator control.
At one point the board had five vacant seats because the
legislature did not vote on those seats and a no vote is the
same as not confirming an appointee. When Governor Frank
Murkowski was elected in 2002 there was a real change in that no
longer could a governor be willing to appoint members to the
board who were representing non-consumptive uses. Governors
Sarah Palin and Sean Parnell followed suit. Even last year a
Board of Game appointee was not confirmed by the legislature
because he admitted to having sympathies for non-consumptive
users; he was deemed unfit by the legislature to serve on the
board. Currently - through the governor who appoints and the
legislature who confirms - not a single member of the seven-
member Board of Game represents non-consumptive uses. From the
committee's earlier discussion, he observed that there is still
disagreement and strong feelings that diversity on the board is
a valuable thing. However, he continued, many people in the
state do think it is a valuable thing and would like to see a
Board of Game on which there is some representation for their
interest rather than no representation and a board that has been
captured by the hunting and trapping special interests. But, if
it is agreed that representing non-consumptive interests has a
long history and is important, the question is whether it is now
important to mandate that by statute.
1:35:58 PM
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE stated that the Board of Game should remain
focused on hunting and trapping. But, he added, the majority of
Alaskans who don't hunt or trap deserve representation too. In
his view, hunters and trappers should not have exclusive
representation on the board; wildlife should be managed for the
common good, not just the special interest good of consumptive
users. Evidence of a Board of Game process that went awry and
that excluded non-consumptive interests, he continued, is the
"Denali [wolf] buffer issue," an issue the committee is familiar
with through its consideration of HB 105. In 1992 the Board of
Game established a buffer to protect wolves that wandered
outside Denali National Park and Preserve ("Denali Park") that
got hunted and trapped and that affected the ability to view
wolves in the park. In 2000 and 2002 the board further enhanced
boundaries of those buffers. In 2010 the National Park Service
(NPS) came forward with a proposal that would solve some of the
problems that were still occurring given the buffers existing at
that time. The NPS had a very firm, large, and convincing data
set to make its arguments, plus there were other proposals by
conservation groups at that time. A couple hundred people
contacted the board through oral or written testimony that
supported these proposals. Besides not responding to all of
that, the Board of Game proceeded to rescind the existing
buffers, mystifying those people who had worked on this issue
for years and who never thought it would come to that. In 2017
this issue came up again and again. Despite a National Park
Service compromise proposal that would have left the hunting and
trapping seasons open for half the year and closed them the
other half, the Board of Game voted seven to zero to not adopt
that or any of the other proposals. In this action, the Board
of Game protected the opportunity of about five hunters and
trappers to kill wolves and greatly reduce the opportunity of
hundreds of thousands of park visitors to experience wolves
while they contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the
Alaska economy. Alaska's wildlife offers great potential for
residents and visitors alike to experience nature on a grand
scale, but the present board structure limits this opportunity.
He urged the committee to support HB 134 because it would help
rectify this issue.
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE addressed the interaction among committee
members regarding whether a non-consumptive user would be anti-
hunting and therefore would poison the Board of Game's
activities. Some committee members, he said, seem to assume
that a person representing non-consumptive interests on the
board would be anti-hunting. However, going back to the Hammond
Administration, none of the previous nominees appointed to
represent non-consumptive users were anti-hunting. Some did not
hunt, but they did not oppose hunting. Those who were confirmed
voted dozens or hundreds of times on proposals benefitting
hunting and trapping. His own case demonstrates that Board of
Game appointees can wear two hats. He started hunting when he
was 10 years old 63 years ago. Over those years he has held
hunting licenses somewhere and hunted something in six different
states. He has never missed a year of hunting something
somewhere. While he is now too old to pack out a moose, he can
pack out three pheasants just fine and that is the bag limit in
South Dakota where he hunted last November. He said as a Board
of Game member, he supported hundreds of proposals benefitting
hunters and trappers while also supporting proposals benefitting
non-consumptive users. He stated that if HB 134 resulted in
appointees who are anti-hunting and generally oppose consumptive
uses of wildlife, then he would oppose the bill. In any event,
he said, he has faith that governors would not appoint, and
legislators would not confirm, candidates who oppose hunting and
trapping. There is no reason to believe that Board of Game
members can't wear two hats, he reiterated.
1:42:01 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON recalled his own testimony about there being
a change in what is viewed as an acceptable practice over the
last 12-15 years. He requested Mr. Van Ballenberghe to state
his agreement or disagreement with this statement and to provide
some examples that are of concern to him.
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE replied that Co-Chair Josephson is
referring to some practices that came about within the last
several years related to reducing bear and wolf populations to
try to increase moose and caribou populations. One of those
practices was the gassing of wolf pups in their dens. Who would
have ever thought 20 years ago that this would be seen, but
suddenly it became lawful. Another practice is the whole
program of aerial shooting since the Murkowski Administration.
About every year, over 100 private pilots have been permitted to
shoot wolves from aircraft in the wolf control programs. That
followed a couple of decades where the state severely limited
aerial shooting by private pilots. At one point there was a
land-and-shoot program where the plane had to be landed and the
hunter had to get out to shoot rather than shooting directly
from the air, but now wolves can be shot from the air. Again,
this was controversial and again it was adopted. Also, he
questioned, who would have ever thought 20 years ago that it
would be legal as a predator control method to trap bears or
shoot cubs or shoot sows with cubs or hunt and shoot bears the
same day of being airborne? Those are all practices that were
outlawed decades ago but have come back in recent years because
of this overriding desire to reduce bears and wolves in order to
benefit prey populations. There are other practices, he said,
but the aforementioned list is enough.
1:45:15 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON requested Ms. Lynn Mitchell to provide her
invited testimony. He asked Ms. Mitchell to speak to the
research she did and the spreadsheet she prepared [entitled
"Summary of Non-consumptive Proposals w/ Final Board Actions"
and provided in the committee packet].
LYNN MITCHELL, Spokesperson, Alaska Safe Trails, explained that
she prepared the spreadsheet in anticipation of filing a lawsuit
against the State of Alaska. Per the constitution, wildlife
must be managed for the benefit of all, she said, but under the
current Board of Game it is very evident that wildlife is not
managed for the benefit of all. In anticipation of that
lawsuit, she was asked by the attorney to research 19 years of
Board of Game meetings, which she did, and it is court ready.
She identified non-consumptive user proposals or proposals that
were non-consumptive in nature and included them in this
spreadsheet that covers all the board's meetings from March 1998
through 2016. However, there were many proposals put forwarded
by hunters who wanted areas closed because terrain and habitat
were being destroyed and animals were moving out of these areas.
She did not include those proposals because she did not identify
them as non-consumptive, even though it could be said that that
was non-consumptive bent. She relayed that all her findings are
summarized in this spreadsheet, and she has all the information
printed and attached to each meeting summary, which she has
stored in her possession. When she was uncertain whether the
user was or was not consumptive, she researched the person who
submitted the proposal. She remarked that because she deals
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), she knows how to be
prepared for court cases.
MS. MITCHELL noted that she also pulled some population
statistics, with 2013 being the most recent population statistic
that she could find. In 2013 the number of Alaska residents
over the age of 18 was 546,215 and in 2015 the number of hunting
and trapping licenses that she came up with was 97,942. She
qualified that there is probably duplication within the
statistics for hunting and trapping licenses, because people
might buy one or more licenses and they are counted twice;
therefore, she is being extremely generous in that she is using
an outdated population figure that is probably low and
statistics for hunting and trapping licenses from 2015 with
probably some duplication. Dividing the license figure by the
population figure comes up with 18 percent. These statistics
highlight the question that if the constitution mandates that
wildlife must be managed for the benefit of all, then who is
really benefiting?
MS. MITCHELL recalled [Representative Rauscher's] statement that
tourism shouldn't be considered and suggested that perhaps the
many out-of-state hunters coming to Alaska shouldn't be
considered either and Alaska's wildlife shouldn't be being
managed for their benefit. If tourists aren't going to be
considered, then her question to the committee is: Why are out-
of-state hunters being considered?
1:51:35 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON, regarding Ms. Mitchell's research for the
years 1998-2016, inquired as to the percentage of non-
consumptive proposals that were passed either in original form
or as amended.
MS. MITCHELL answered 5 percent.
1:52:02 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON requested Ms. Mitchell to address the other
spreadsheet that she referenced.
MS. MITCHELL replied that the other spreadsheet was for her own
information and in it she established categories based on what
these proposals addressed. She explained that this was "a
little more squishy" because so many of these proposals could
fall into a couple of different categories. She did her best to
come up with some idea of what the proposals related to. For
example, under the category of buffer zone she looked only at
the Denali Park buffer zone and she believes there were more
proposals that may not have hit the meeting summaries relating
to that, but she strictly went from meeting summaries. The
proposals under the category of trapping were primarily
proposals having to do with restricting trapping in populated
areas. Another category she included was wildlife or habitat
preservation. Some of these proposals were from lodges near
refuges that wanted restrictions on hunting activities in those
areas so the tourists they were catering to would be able to see
the wildlife that they were coming to view. Some proposals
addressed the bigger issue of public safety.
1:54:29 PM
[Although not stated on the audio recording, public testimony
was opened.]
1:55:00 PM
EDWARD SCHMITT, President, Alaska Wildlife Alliance (AWA),
testified that the state designed the board process to allow
citizens to give input and guidance to their governing bodies.
The board process functions best when the opinions of all user
groups are heard and carry some weight. He opined that
currently the Board of Game does not represent all user groups
in Alaska and is distinctly non-representative of Alaskans as
the majority of Alaskans do not hunt or trap. The Board of Game
is currently composed of hunters and trappers exclusively. He
proffered that the state and its citizens would be much better
served by allowing the voices of non-consumptive users to be
heard. Doing this would allow for more balanced discussion and
better decision making about the state's iconic wildlife.
Democratic institutions work best when well-informed and well-
intentioned people gather to discuss issues facing the citizens.
Presenting multiple points of view often leads to better
information and informs better decision-making. Mr. Schmitt
said changing the composition of the Board of Game would be a
great step forward in assuring that Alaska's resources are best
managed for the benefit of all Alaskans.
1:56:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH requested clarification on those who have
been invited to testify and public testimony.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON clarified that Mr. Schmitt's statement was
public testimony, and that Mr. Van Ballenberghe and Ms. Mitchell
were invited to testify. For the record, he officially opened
public testimony, saying he meant to do so prior to Mr. Schmitt.
He stated that witnesses would have two minutes to testify.
1:58:12 PM
MR. SOMERVILLE, Spokesperson, Alaska Outdoor Council, stated he
is a lifelong Alaskan, served five years on the Board of Game,
and worked twenty-four years for the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game (ADF&G). He recalled that many years ago he and
Senator [Joe] Josephson had this same discussion while he was
working for ADF&G. Things have changed and this was not
reflected in the earlier testimony, he maintained. Looking at
the constitution is important and even though it says that the
state's resources must be open to common use, Article 8, Section
2, states that the legislature shall provide for the
utilization, development, and conservation of all, natural
resources belonging to the state, including land and water, for
the maximum benefit of its people, not non-residents. While
there are people who take non-residents hunting or fishing, it
needs to be kept in mind that this benefits Alaskans.
MR. SOMERVILLE addressed the testimony about things that have
happened in the past and said the legislature would have to
repeal the intensive management model that it passed, which
directs that subsistence is the highest priority use of fish and
wildlife in the state. The legislature instructed the Board of
Game to develop methods and means by which it would increase the
subsistence use of resources. There are seven members on the
Board of Game, and it angers him when someone says that non-
consumptive users aren't against hunting, because hunters aren't
necessarily opposed to viewing. For example, he said he enjoys
watching wildlife, is a photographer, and appreciates the value
of tourism. While at ADF&G he tried to get the tourism industry
to work towards some system where it helped pay its way towards
the process of managing fish and game, but both times the
industry unanimously rejected it.
MR. SOMERVILLE said the Board of Game is responsible for
balancing all these demands, but that doesn't mean they all must
be balanced in the same area. The federal government controls
63.8 percent of the 373 million acres in Alaska. Federal
overreach is quickly diminishing the state's ability to manage
wildlife on 63 percent of the state. In addition, there are
also state parks and refuges amounting to 3.2 million acres.
So, a significant amount of the state is set aside exclusively
for viewing, but there are no areas that are exclusively for
hunting. Very few areas are open to hunting year-round except
for small game.
MR. SOMERVILLE said he was on the Board of Game when the issue
of the Stampede wolves came about. He said the issue disgusts
him more than anything else, because when he [worked for ADF&G]
and served on the "D2 Task Force," he spent four years trying to
get the National Park Service (NPS) to not have these straight
lines running across millions of acres as this would create
conflicts due to state management on one side and federal
management on the other. The NPS said there needed to be buffer
zones, so the preserves were established specifically to provide
the buffers to the national park systems that were in existence
when the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) was passed. That is important because now [the NPS]
wants more buffer areas. The reason the Stampede area has
become such a controversy is because the NPS has done nothing to
cooperate with the state, yet the NPS wants the state to
cooperate with it. The NPS will not allow the state to have
access into some of the areas in the preserves. He indicated
that the NPS will not allow people to exercise their subsistence
rights, granted by the federal legislation, in some of the
preserves and park areas. Mr. Somerville questioned why the
state always must give in and provide [the buffer areas]. He
opined that what happened with the Board of Game this time was a
case of "gol-dangit we're just not going to continue doing
this."
MR. SOMERVILLE stated that statistics can be deceptive, one
problem being that people under age 16 are not required to have
hunting licenses. How many families are dependent upon that one
hunter to kill moose and caribou? Many people in rural areas
refuse to buy a hunting license, so this statistic is being used
against them.
MR. SOMERVILLE allowed that the controversies mentioned by Mr.
Van Ballenberghe were bad. He said he was on the Board of Game
[at the time] and wasn't too happy himself with some of them,
but the point is that they were selectively applied and not
applied statewide. For example, he was kind of opposed to the
concept of trapping bears because he thought it would cause
adverse reaction [to Alaska] from the outside public, but the
board went ahead and tried it. Bears take a significant number
of moose calves, more than wolves in many cases, so the board
was trying to reduce the black bear population particularly.
However, brown bears also take calves. [An ADF&G] research
project in Game Management Unit 13 showed that brown/grizzly
bears, not wolves, were taking most of the caribou calves. To
abide by the intensive management law passed by the legislature,
[game managers] must try to affect in some way the populations
of brown bears and black bears.
2:06:31 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON interpreted Mr. Somerville's statement that
intensive game management is tied to subsistence as meaning that
some intensive game management (IGM) is needed to provide and
meet subsistence goals.
MR. SOMERVILLE replied yes.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON addressed Mr. Somerville's statement about 63
percent of the state being federal. He noted that about one-
third [of Denali National Park and Preserve] is park, while the
rest is preserve in which sport hunting and subsistence hunting
take place. He interpreted Mr. Somerville's testimony as saying
that hunting wasn't taking place in preserves.
MR. SOMERVILLE clarified he didn't mean there was no hunting in
the preserve, but rather that the state's management authorities
were significantly reduced in the preserve. The National Park
Service recently passed regulations restricting some of these
intensive management practices that the state has been using
outside of the preserve. Because these practices cannot be used
within the preserve, the NPS is restricting the state's ability
to manage animals inside of [the preserve], which would be of
benefit to subsistence users.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON related that yesterday Congress passed a law,
HJR 69, which now only needs the president's signature. Under
this law, he said, the federal involvement in wildlife on
federal lands would be greatly diminished. He inquired whether
that would be cause for increased support for a non-consumptive
seat [on the Board of Game].
MR. SOMERVILLE answered that this resolution would only apply to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; it would not affect the
preserves at all. Regarding what is being contemplated, he said
more pressure would be put on the state economically as well as
socially for issues like fish and wildlife management. The
seven members of the Board of Game must now more intensively
manage state and private lands to provide for the mandates that
the legislature passed to provide for subsistence uses. He
opined that this is very disrespectful to the rural people of
Alaska. How many people in Barrow or other rural communities
will be willing to give up a seat that they've had on the board
for a long time? Almost all the board appointments have tried
to provide for a geographic balance, not a balance of
philosophy. Because of that, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and
Southeast get a majority of the seats, and the others are
reserved for rural parts of the state. He asked, "Who wants to
give up these two seats on the seven-member board just to
provide for non-consumptive use advocacy?"
2:10:20 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR offered her understanding that administration of
intensive game management practices costs hundreds of thousands
of dollars and suggested that they may need rethinking as to
whether the intended benefit is being achieved. Some people are
saying that despite the money spent there has not been a rise in
[prey] populations, which could be due to other factors that are
influencing [the prey populations]. She asked Mr. Somerville to
comment in this regard given his comments that legislation was
passed requiring these intensive management practices.
MR. SOMERVILLE replied that there is no perfect game management
program and disagreed that intensive management practices
haven't worked. Because of these programs, moose populations
are up significantly in Game Management Unit 13, as well as in
units 19 and 20, although in units 19 and 20 that is partially
from good winters. Other areas of the state have benefitted to
some degree, although Unit 16 hasn't been as good as the
department would like. As to whether the cost to benefit is
there, he said a lot of state programs probably wouldn't shine
up too well when the cost to benefit is looked at. They have
been beneficial because once equilibrium has been established
between predators and prey it can stay that way for a long time.
The time when it is bad is when the predator-prey relationship
drops down to a predator pit situation where the predators keep
the ungulate population so low that it doesn't have any chance
of recovering. Once out of that, like in Unit 20, his criticism
is that hunters aren't taking enough moose and so the moose are
impacting that range.
2:12:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE recalled the testimony that there was a
non-consumptive seat from Governor Hammond onward. However, he
remarked, it seems to be a democratic process as to whether the
seat is consumptive or non-consumptive. It therefore puzzles
him that the talk now is about creating seats rather than
letting the democratic rule of law make that happen. He asked
whether he is missing something.
MR. SOMERVILLE responded that he doesn't think Representative
Westlake is missing something. The problem, in his opinion, is
that the designation of two seats as non-consumptive will
increase significantly the controversy on the board. That may
be good for the people who don't want to see predator control or
they want to see more areas established for viewing. If that is
the intent, his recommendation is to create viewing areas
exclusively or for certain parts of the year. A state park was
created right outside of Anchorage and people immediately
advocated for closing it to hunting. He was the regional
supervisor [at ADF&G] at the time and ADF&G negotiated with the
parks people and it was found that the major problem was with
after Labor Day, so it was established to not have major hunting
until after Labor Day. To this day that park is still open to
hunting and open to some controversial trapping. Consideration
should be given to all the things that the legislature is asking
these seven board members to do and putting two non-consumptive
people there and creating controversy would be counter-
productive.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER requested Mr. Somerville submit a
written statement if he has any other things he would like to
tell the committee.
2:15:54 PM
MARK LUTRELL thanked the committee for considering HB 134 and
said that having some non-consumptive users on the Board of Game
would help to solve the board's present problem of unbalanced
representation. Currently the board is composed exclusively of
hunters, guides, and trappers; none of them shoot with a camera.
Even the name of the board is a clue as to which way the members
are going to go. Renaming it the Board of Wildlife would take
it from that approach rather than assuming right off the bat
that the animals are there to be killed. The Board of Game is
so deaf to non-consumptive users that there is no point in
offering proposals anymore. Ms. Mitchell's statement that only
5 percent of such proposals get accepted underscores this point.
Non-consumptive uses are not represented and instead the four or
five trappers on Stampede Trail get all the wolves there at the
expense of all the visitors in the tourism industry. In the
"Yukon-Charley" 40 wolves have been killed in the last few weeks
and 619 wolves have been killed there since 2005. It is
certainly consumptive use and it represents the kind of attitude
that the Board of Game has. Non-consumptive users like him are
shut out of this. He said he is dismayed with Representative
Birch's extreme position that the proposed actions under HB 134
would result in fencing off the whole state as such hyperbole
skews the discussion. He stated his support for the bill and
everything said by Mr. Van Ballenberghe.
2:19:00 PM
KNEELAND TAYLOR testified he has lived in Alaska for 42 years
and has been a hunter, although he doesn't hunt anymore. He has
been involved in wildlife issues for 20 years, including three
Board of Game subcommittees. He has applied for a position on
the Board of Game. If appointed he would probably have very
little substantive impact given he'd be one non-hunter out of
seven members. However, he could play an important and positive
role because one non-hunter/non-trapper on the board would bring
out a lot of other citizens to testify. He has attended the
board's meetings for years and the extent to which non-
consumptive users do not show up and do not participate is
appalling, but [their non-attendance] is because of the hostile
reaction. He recently listened to the board's deliberations
regarding the Stampede area and Denali wolves. The board
members talked about the impact on tourism, the impact of the
money that would be made, and the impact on trappers who would
be inconvenienced, but not a single mention about the enjoyment
that Alaskans like him get from seeing a wolf. Had he been
there as a board member he could have brought up that different
point of view. Much urbanization is happening in Alaska and
city people such as himself are like the city people in other
states - going to the wild lands on weekends to enjoy wildlife.
Alaska's wildlife belongs to all Alaskans and having [non-
consumptive seats] on the board would bring a different point of
view and would not create controversy.
2:22:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked Mr. Taylor what he would do
differently if seated on the board and whether the board would
operate differently if he were a member. For example, whether
as a board member in this capacity Mr. Taylor would advocate for
less hunting or less trapping or less taking of wildlife.
MR. TAYLOR replied that he has made proposals for setbacks along
popular trails so that dogs don't get trapped. He is also
interested in no wolf trapping in the Stampede trail area.
Perplexing and worrisome to him is the intensive game management
statute. As an attorney who has appeared before administrative
hearing officers and judges, he said he knows the importance of
having impartial people there, and as a board member, he would
be impartial when there are clear and specific mandates, as he
believes anyone would whether or not he/she is a non-consumptive
user. However, within the mandates there is room for wildlife
viewing or no wolf trapping in the Stampede road area and there
is room for setbacks and there are some areas in which wildlife
viewing could be increased - for example, there are two or three
spots in the state where there is good Dall sheep viewing.
2:25:09 PM
ROBERT ARCHIBALD testified he has been in Alaska since 1978 and
currently he is a non-consumer. The issue at hand, he said, is
how to change, or whether to change, the population of the Board
of Game. Putting a non-consumptive position on the board
doesn't mean that that member is a non-hunter - a person could
have hunted in the past and would therefore be knowledgeable in
that regard. Many people just don't hunt anymore, so it cannot
be categorically said that that is going to be a tourist-
inclined person. The Board of Game lacks scientific knowledge
these days. While the members may be fine hunters and trappers,
they have not taken the very profound information that has been
put forth by the scientific community. It would therefore not
hurt to have a different make-up of the board. The board is
tasked with managing the game for successful population of the
state and he would like to see it a little more diverse.
Regarding the eagles in Homer, the issue was rather cantankerous
and some good science on that would have helped.
2:27:04 PM
JESSE ROSS said he has been an Alaska resident for 21 years and
currently holds the trapping seat on the Juneau-Douglas Advisory
Committee (AC). Advisory committees are located in various
areas throughout Alaska, he explained, and they advise the Board
of Game and the Board of Fisheries on issues pertaining to each
AC's area as well as statewide areas. Co-Chair Josephson's
statement that non-consumptive users do not have any other way
to voice their opinion is untrue, he said, because all
communities in Alaska have representation via an advisory
committee and non-consumptive users can voice their opinion to
their respective advisory committee. There is a designated seat
for non-consumptive, for non-consumptive commercial such as tour
operators, as well as designated seats for hunters, big game
guides, commercial fishermen, and sport fishermen. This is the
process that has been in place for many years. While he wants
to support everybody, the Alaska constitution states that the
mission is to protect, maintain, and improve fish, game, and
aquatic plant resources of the state and manage their use and
development in the best interest of the economy and the
wellbeing of the people of the state consistent with the
sustained yield principle. The sustained yield principle means
predator control. To boost prey populations such as moose,
caribou, deer, and mountain goat there may have to be predator
control measures. Being a game manager or Board of Game member
is not an easy job because pleasing everybody cannot be done.
2:30:04 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON addressed Mr. Ross's assertion that there are
other avenues for non-consumptive voices to be heard. He said
his understanding is that it is only the Juneau-Douglas Advisory
Committee that has a dedicated seat for a non-consumptive user
and therefore it is untrue that other advisory committees have a
non-consumptive seat.
MR. ROSS offered his belief that the aforementioned is not true
because there are dedicated seats based on the population. He
suggested talking to "board support" in this regard.
2:31:01 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON reiterated his understanding that it is only
the Juneau-Douglas Advisory Committee that has a dedicated non-
consumptive seat. He asked whether that is true or false.
MR. ROSS replied he believes it is false because there are open
seats on every advisory committee. A democratic process is
already in place and saying that [non-consumptive users] don't
have a voice is trying to change the game. There is very much a
voice here, [non-consumptive users] can be heard by getting
involved in their local AC; for example, three alternate seats
are vacant on the Juneau AC but nobody shows up to participate.
2:31:49 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON proffered that he and Mr. Ross may agree and
that he and Mr. Ross are just using different terms for the same
thing. He said he doesn't doubt that there are open seats and
that theoretically anyone can fill them. However, he continued,
"I had a separate question, and I didn't really get an answer."
2:32:33 PM
MR. ROSS continued his testimony. He said several issues are
going on and he thinks the sponsor is trying to use the bill as
an avenue to address not hunting but predator control, which are
two different things in Alaska. The state has a system in place
for appointment to the Board of Game. Anyone can send a name to
the governor for nomination of an appointee to the Board of Game
when a seat becomes available. The governor then selects a
person and that person must be confirmed by the legislature.
This is a democratic process. During the Knowles
Administration, it was a very liberal Board of Game because
those were the people appointed by Governor Knowles. He is all
for every user group to be represented, he said, but the mission
of ADF&G is to stay consistent with the sustained yield
principle, which is written in the state constitution.
2:33:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH noted that one of his staff is a former
member of the [Juneau-Douglas] Advisory Committee. But, he
said, it would be useful to have on the record the composition
of the Juneau-Douglas AC. Recalling that Mr. Ross holds the
designated trapping seat, he asked what are the other seats.
MR. ROSS confirmed he holds the trapping seat, and said the
other seats include a hunting guide, several non-consumptive
seats, and alternate seats without a title in case someone is
unable to attend the meeting. These are just advisory
committees and, as such, all the AC's do is give feedback based
on the local issue at hand to the Board of Game or Board of
Fisheries. There are commercial fishermen, a commercial seafood
processor, and a non-consumptive commercial user like a tour
operator, so it is a well-rounded group of people and at times
this results in some lively debates.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH inquired whether this breakdown of the
advisory committee works well and allows for a robust debate and
the forwarding of good suggestions to the full Board of Game.
MR. ROSS responded yes.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:36:36 PM
KEN GREEN offered his support for HB 134. He said non-
consumptive users deserve to be heard and have a place on the
board. It is very difficult to deal with the board as it is set
up today. At the moment it is almost like speaking to an "old
boy" network. He has dealt with the board on trapping and
setback issues. During his last effort he was told about how
the Board of Game attempts to deal with people who bring
proposals to it. That the board doesn't deal with proposals is
reflective in the unanimous votes opposing anything. This makes
him suspicious because it shows that other people are not being
represented and are flat being ignored, and this is not right.
He said he is in favor of diversity on the board because then
there would be some recognition of scientific information.
2:39:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH inquired as to Mr. Green's profession and
whether he has any economic involvement with wildlife.
MR. GREEN replied he is retired and is allowed to subsistence
fish on the Russian and Kenai rivers. He noted that his dogs
have been caught in traps three times and he was able to release
them each time, but now one dog is missing for an unknown
reason. One of the traps was a snare and each time it was a
difficult emotional experience to go through and that is what
got him involved with the Board of Game.
2:40:51 PM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Spokesperson, Coal Point Trading Company,
explained that her customers are fishermen and wildlife viewers.
She served on the fish and game advisory committee for 17 years
and has participated in the Board of Game and Board of Fisheries
process for 35 years. There is an elephant in the room, she
said, and it is the wildlife viewers who come every summer
wanting to see moose, marine mammals, and other wildlife.
Almost 670,000 visitors come to Alaska each year specifically to
view wildlife plus there are almost 200,000 residents that view
wildlife. These people bring $2.7 billion into the state;
hunting brings in $1.3 billion, half the amount of wildlife
viewing. She urged the committee to read the statistics
compiled by ADF&G regarding the economic importance of Alaska's
wildlife. Regarding government revenue, she relayed that
wildlife viewers brought $231 million into the state of Alaska,
whereas hunting brought in $112 million. Labor [for wildlife
viewing] was nearly 19,000 people versus 8,000 for hunters, so
[wildlife viewing] is a huge economic engine to Alaska.
MS. HILLSTRAND said things are changing and this proposal is
necessary for the Board of Game because regulations are needed
for the huge amount of people coming into the state and
utilizing the state's wildlife. According to the tourism board,
the reasons why people come to Alaska are its beauty, its
wildlife, and shopping. She expressed that it is extremely
important to get a balanced view on the Board of Game because,
in her experience, it is not balanced. She said she has had a
hard time getting in any type of proposal.
MS. HILLSTRAND said she has no problem with hunting, as her
whole family hunts and she has hauled out moose and skinned
moose and deer. She emphasized that hunting is not the point
here; the point is that Alaska has a huge amount of people that
need to be regulated, and this is needed on the board so it can
do a good job for the state's wildlife and future and uphold the
state constitution for the preference of all people. She
pointed out that the "North American Waterfowl Plan" has been
revised because based on the realization that wildlife viewers
must be incorporated into the fold. She further noted that
several years ago, she came to the legislature to try to get a
$5 license for non-consumptive users to be able to bring money
into ADF&G, but it was brought up to a $25 emblem. She opined
that $5 is more appropriate, because [paying more than that] is
hard when people aren't taking meat home.
2:45:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked Ms. Hillstrand whether she sees
sustained yield as unable to coexist with wildlife viewing by
the public.
MS. HILLSTRAND replied that she worked with the Board of Game
and was on the advisory committee prior to Senate Bill 77, which
brought into being the maximum sustained yield for human
harvest. Prior to that requirement it had to do with making
sure the populations were robust and populations; it was a more
balanced view of predator-prey relationships. She stated that
when it comes to viewing, only two places are designated viewing
areas and they are packed with people. The state could put any
price it wants on them because people want to go to McNeil to
see the bears, yet having any more areas than that is not
allowed when it comes up before the Board of Game. Ms.
Hillstrand said it is an interesting imbalance and it is not a
democratic process any more. She opined that more science and
more information are needed on the board to ensure that the
state's wildlife population is managed by sustained yield.
Often populations are taken too far "over the edge" and then a
long time is needed to rehabilitate them.
2:47:42 PM
ROBERTA HIGHLAND, Spokesperson, Kachemak Bay Conservation
Society, testified that her organization is not anti-hunting and
strongly supports HB 134. Diversity on the Board of Game is
important, she said. She has been in Alaska for 45 years and is
one of those people who have been horrified by some of the
board's decisions. She has felt marginalized as well as
discriminated against. Her organization supports wildlife
viewing and photography because they are wonderful attractions
for people living in and traveling to Alaska, plus they are
sustainable ways for Alaskans to make a living. She said she
disagrees with maximum yield and finds the word "maximum"
frightening. These user groups should be represented on the
Board of Game, plus her organization would like to see it taken
one step further with the establishment of a wildlife stamp so
these users could add to the state's coffers. She, too, thinks
the board should be called the Board of Wildlife, because the
Board of Game makes it focus only one way. She said the Homer
Advisory Committee is frequently not listened to, so the
statement that one's voice can be heard through the AC has not
proven to be true. This situation has been ongoing for a long
time and it is past time for a change. Adding only two seats
still won't make it even; it would be preferable to balance it
with three and three and one that goes either way. She said
that given there is no balance, she is happy to see this bill.
Wildlife viewing is a moneymaker, she said. She concluded,
"Seeing one animal by a thousand people versus one person taking
that animal - it hasn't made sense."
2:50:26 PM
AL BARRETTE stated he is former Board of Game member and is
currently a 17-year-long advisory committee member. He urged
the committee not to support HB 134. The current statute is
fine, he said, and what it all boils down to is the legislature.
The governor can appoint somebody, but it is ultimately the
legislature that is responsible for who is on the Board of Game.
Designated seats are not needed; the makeup of the legislature
will determine who is or is not on the board. Fixing the
perceived problem here is the responsibility of the legislature.
People's voices are heard at the Board of Game, although people
may not like the answers or votes that come back from the board.
The board deliberates on every proposal, hears public testimony,
and takes written comments. He said he has written hundreds of
proposals in the last 17 years and probably hasn't had any more
success than somebody writing a proposal to close the Stampede
Trail area. The Board of Game must operate under sustained
yield and it meets that requirement which means there are
populations of game for people to view, but it may not be where
people want to go view them. The current makeup of the board is
diverse, it has two bonafide biologists on it and it has people
who probably don't hunt anymore but who do consume wildlife.
Regarding the proposal that somebody must be appointed from the
tourism industry, he said that the hunting guide currently on
the board is already engaged in tourism because big game guides
are part of tourism.
2:53:06 PM
JAMES KOWALSKY, Spokesperson, Alaskans for Wildlife, testified
in support of HB 134. He said the Board of Game has for too
long been way out of touch with the demographic reality of the
state. He noted that [Article 8], Section 3, of the state's
constitution states that fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved
to the people for common use. It does not say to "certain
people," it says "the" people, he pointed out. For too long the
state has had a Board of Game that has nowhere near that kind of
guidance and therefore his organization supports a change. The
two representatives that would be enabled by HB 134 would still
leave the Board of Game out of sync with the realities of the
state. He urged it be recognized that all people in the state
are stakeholders and need representation, which is not currently
the case. This Board of Game is an exclusive group that does
not represent the state's public. He expressed his hope for the
bill making some headway.
2:55:15 PM
NANCY BALE stated that HB 134 is a good idea. She noted that
the Board of Game statute under AS 16.05.221 and the duties
under AS 16.05.225 provide that there be a diversity and the
ability to put into regulation a wide variety of proposals, not
just proposals for hunting and maximizing hunter opportunity,
but also setting aside game reserve areas. Refuges and
sanctuaries are part of the statutory role of the Board of Game.
In HB 134 the sponsor is not trying to make the board different
but trying to make it so the board can realize its full
potential. She recently attended the Board of Game meeting in
Fairbanks. She belongs to the Denali Citizens Council, which
brought one of the Denali wolf buffer proposals, Proposal 142.
She has gone to Board of Game meetings and just listened and she
has a great deal of respect for the board who is taking care of
the needs of the many hunters throughout the roadless areas of
Alaska who have asked the board to intervene on their behalf so
they will have enough animals for their table. She appreciates
what the board does to provide meat for the state's citizens and
yet she believes that when it comes to a proposal that would
take hunter opportunity the board seems quite reticent and is
much more likely to believe testimony from trappers, hunters,
and subsistence user groups that don't want to share. She wrote
the Board of Game executive director Kristy Tibbles and asked
whether the board is only making decisions based on hunter
opportunity. She then read the following from Ms. Tibbles'
reply: "The board makes policy and allocation decisions and can
make decisions that reduce hunter/trapper opportunity. For
example, access can be restricted in certain areas, bag limits
and seasons serve as restriction, methods and means can be
prohibited, and so on. Specific examples include the closure to
hunting outside McNeil River and Seymour Canal." So, she
posited, by saying this, the Board of Game can do so much more
than it has been doing and is statutorily authorized to do it.
Other states try to take care of this allocation thing, so it
wouldn't be unusual for Alaska to do something in this nature.
Alaska's Big Game Commercial Services Board has nine members and
allocates all the seats - two members from licensed guides, two
from transporters, one from the Board of Game, two who represent
private landowners affected by guided hunting, and two public
members not otherwise allocated. In Wyoming, not more than five
members of the seven-member board can be of a single party.
2:59:16 PM
SYLVIA PANZARELLA said she has lived in Alaska for 18 years.
She offered her support for HB 134 and said it is long overdue
for having at least two members representing non-consumptive
use; they are not second-class citizens. So often when someone
supports having other user groups on the board it is as if they
are going against mom and pop having enough food in their
freezer; however, denying a subsistence person or other people
from putting a moose in their freezer is not the point at all.
She said so much of the Board of Game seems to be going towards
the big game hunting groups, outside groups like the Safari Club
and such; game management doesn't mean having a game farm in
Alaska. She said so often it is heard about not wanting to have
the state made into a national park, but she said she does not
want the state made into a game farm; therefore, she said she
would like to have some non-consumptive users on the board. She
opined that integration is not easy and sometimes it has to come
with a mandate.
3:01:27 PM
CONNIE BRANDEL, Staff and Board Member, Alaska Wildlife Alliance
(AWA), said she is a 30-year resident of Alaska. She offered
her organization's strong support for HB 134, saying the bill's
provisions are something her group has supported unsuccessfully
for years. Highly qualified people have submitted applications
to the governor's office to serve as non-consumptive
representatives, from hunters to wildlife biologists to people
with decades of experience on wildlife issues. These fair-
minded people would support non-consumptive uses of wildlife and
the responsible scientifically managed harvest of game, but
these candidates just aren't chosen. Non-consumptive users
simply cannot get a voice, much less a seat at the table. As
was stated by Ms. Mitchell, the Board of Game has approved only
5 percent of the non-consumptive proposals submitted over the
last 20 years.
MS. BRANDEL stated that as a supporter of this bill, she never
contemplated that these two non-consumptive seats would come
from a mindset of opposing hunting or trapping proposals; that
would be counterproductive and negate everything AWA is trying
to achieve. The only difference would be to make the votes on
the Board of Game for non-consumptive proposals five to two
instead of seven to zero, so things would be where they are now.
She said the AWA wants the people in these two seats to be open
to consumptive use of wildlife and be willing to debate and
compromise, and AWA would hope for quid pro quo from the rest of
the board. The Denali wolf buffer issue has been stonewalled
for years, she added. Not only was the existing buffer taken
away, a six-year moratorium was enacted banning the public from
even submitting buffer proposals. Therefore, how can it be said
that the board is receptive to non-consumptive users?
3:04:56 PM
NANCY KUHN testified that she has attended some Board of Game
meetings and came away frustrated after sitting for hours for
several days. She said she supports HB 134 because it is time
to get some new voices and not to be afraid of the little old
ladies who may come in and say they don't need to have the Board
of Game tell them how many moose they can kill or bears they can
trap. It is time for the board to open its ears to new words
such as sustained yield. Does that mean that every month people
will go out and kill something for putting on their wall or
putting in their stomachs? Is it that the Board of Game will go
to a museum to view things and then say that it is not making
use of the museum because it didn't kill and eat the animals?
She has been in Alaska since 1975 and she has yet to see a wolf.
She would like to think that before she dies she will see a wolf
and not have to go to a museum or zoo to do so. The Board of
Game needs to get modern; women and citizens are not to be
feared.
3:06:51 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON, after ascertaining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 134.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON held over HB 134.
3:07:13 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0134 BoG proposals spreadsheet.xlsx |
HRES 3/22/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |