Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/28/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| SB83 | |
| SB78 | |
| HB105 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 78 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 105
"An Act establishing the Gordon Haber Denali Wolf
Special Management Area."
4:13:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, SPONSOR, provided some
background for the bill. The legislation aimed to create
the Gordon Haber Denali Wolf Special Management Area which
would be a buffer zone near the border of Denali National
Park where wolves may not be hunted. The area would be
named for Gordon Haber, who was a biologist that had done
wolf-prey research in Denali National Park and other areas
of Alaska from 1966 to 2009. While doing the work that he
loved, Gordon tragically died in a plane crash in Denali
National Park on October 14, 2009. For many years Denali
National Park had been known as one of the best places in
the world to view wild wolves. In 2013, Denali had 530,921
visitors, who contributed $513,355,000 to Alaska's economy.
The opportunity to view wolves is a big incentive to visit
the park. Unfortunately, wolf viewing success has declined
dramatically. A buffer zone previously established in 2000
on the park's eastern boundary to protect the wolves was
removed by the Board of Game in 2010. In 2014, less than 6%
of park visitors were able to see wolves, down from 45
percent back in 2010. Wolf population has declined from 116
in spring 2006 to 50 in spring 2014. House Bill 105 helps
to correct these trends.
Representative Kawasaki referred to the map in member files
(copy on file). He asked why the blue area was not part of
the area and black.
Co-Chair Seaton wanted to ensure that invited testimony had
a chance to get on record.
4:28:54 PM
RICK STEINER, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, read from a
prepared statement (copy on file):
I appreciate the opportunity to provide
comment in support of HB 105, and look
forward to any questions you may have
afterward.
For the record, I am a conservation
biologist with Oasis Earth
(www.oasisearth.com) in Anchorage, and I
was a professor with the University of
Alaska from 1980 - 2010, stationed in
Kotzebue, Cordova, and Anchorage.
As legislators, you all face many difficult
decisions this session, but HB 105 is not
one of them. This bill should be
an easy and unanimous "YES."
1. One simple standard with which to
decide bills in front of you is: does
it hurt, or help the Alaska economy?
And regarding HB 105, it is an
overwhelming economic positive.
In these challenging economic times the
state needs to do everything possible to
support the Alaska economy.
One of the easiest and most cost-effective
measures lawmakers can take to enhance our
economy is to do everything possible to
enhance the wildlife tourism industry -
a $2.7 billion/year industry in Alaska
(I will elaborate more on that a bit
later).
2. Another critical standard to base your
decisions on is the principle of fairness and
common ownership of all resources (including wildlife)
by all Alaskans, embodied in the State Constitution,
Article 8, Section 3: "Common Use":
Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish,
wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for
common use.
All of us own and have equal access to the wolves in
Denali, including the 70,000 Alaskans who visit the
park each year -- not just the 2 or 3 individuals who
hunt and trap them along the NE boundary.
and this month marks the 100th anniversary of Alaska's
most iconic tourism destination. The would be the
perfect time
to finally resolve the century-old problem
of conserving park wildlife along the
park's eastern boundary. HB 105 goes
a long way toward doing just that.
[The only friendly amendment I would
respectfully suggest is to include, in
addition to wolves, a prohibition on take
of all park predator species - bears,
lynx, wolverine, coyote, etc., as
these are valuable watchable wildlife for the
park as well.]
Wolf Townships History In 1906, when
east coast hunter-naturalist Charles
Sheldon explored the Denali area, he
noted that commercial hunters selling Dall
sheep meat to railroad workers and
miners were decimating local wildlife
populations. Sheldon went to
Washington D.C. and, along with the
Boone and Crockett Club, advocated
establishment of Mt. McKinley National Park
as a "game refuge." President
Woodrow Wilson signed the original 2
million acre park into law on Feb. 26,
1917. But the precise boundaries
necessary to protect park wildlife were unclear,
imperfect, and continued to be debated.
In particular, lands northeast of the
original park boundary, where park
wildlife migrate seasonally, were
considered by many to need park
protection as well.
According to Fairbanks historian Ed Davis,
since the initial establishment of the park,
there have been many unsuccessful attempts
to add lands along the northeast boundary,
now known as the "Wolf Townships" and
"Stampede Trail," into the park to protect
park wildlife:
1922 - AK Railroad proposes to include
Wolf Townships in McKinley Park to protect
Park wildlife. 1965 - State selects Wolf
Townships, but cites need to expand Park
to protect caribou, and that existing Park
boundary is "an arbitrary line." 1969 -
Johnson administration considers, but
declines, to add Wolf Townships into Park 1978
- Wolf Townships found worthy for
inclusion in Denali National Monument, but
lands had been selected by State. 1980
- The original version of ANILCA
included the Wolf Townships within the new
park boundaries because this area provides
critical habitat for park wildlife. Although
this area was removed from the final bill,
the Senate report accompanying ANILCA
made it clear the expectation was for
the wolf townships to become part of
Denali: The prime resource for which
the north addition is established is the
critical range necessary to support
populations of moose, wolf, and
caribou as part of an integral
ecosystem. Public enjoyment of these
outstanding wildlife values would thus be
assured.
4:38:07 PM
Representative Ortiz noted that the buffer was eliminated
in 2010. He queried the reason for that decision.
Mr. Steiner replied that it derived from the Park Service
ideology from various interest groups. He remarked that
there were several proposals asking that the existing
buffer be expanded, because it was too small. He remarked
that there were as many as 19 park wolves in that small
buffer. He remarked that 15 to 20 percent of the total park
population was killed after the wolves crossed the buffer.
Representative Ortiz came from Southeast Alaska and could
certainly understand the benefits of an area with wildlife
viewing, and felt that tourism to view wildlife had a
greater effect on the economy than hunting.
Representative Guttenberg suggested that the area had been
his previously in his district. He felt that the buffer
change did not have to do with biological certainty.
Mr. Steiner agreed. He stated that the Denali wolf was a
political pawn in the process.
Vice-Chair Gara noted that the opposition letters were
focused on the impact of subsistence and other hunting.
Mr. Steiner responded that the trapping and hunting of
wolves in the area was non-subsistence, rather it was sport
hunting.
Vice-Chair Gara commented that the letters probably were
referring to more wolves and less moose.
Mr. Steiner stated that there were complaints about the
high number of moose in the area. He remarked that the
closed area would be 340,000 acres. He stressed that most
of the moose hunting took place to the east of the area. He
stressed that there would be millions of dollars from the
tourism industry as a result of the legislation.
4:43:40 PM
SEAN MCGUIRE, ALASKANS FOR WILDLIFE, FAIRBANKS, agreed with
the previous speaker's statement that Denali was the crown
jewel for the area. People went to Denali to see the
mountain and wildlife including wolves. He suggested that
the land management for the skinny He relayed that people
were baiting wolves to go outside of the boundary.
Mr. McGuire objected profusely people baiting wolves and
removing the opportunity for tourists to see wolves. He
recalled Cecil the lion that was lured out of the park and
gunned down. He thought the state was allowing people to
bait the wolves out of the park.
4:49:40 PM
AL BARRETTE, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
favor of the legislation.
Co-Chair Seaton noted committee members had his written
testimony in their packets.
Representative Wilson asked about page 3, lines 20 and 21.
She surmised that the interpretation would be that
accidentally shooting a wolf could result in a misdemeanor.
Mr. Barrette responded that the issue was related to
trapping, not hunting.
4:55:36 PM
Representative Guttenberg noted that the area west of Healy
was the bus from "Into the Wild." He stressed that people
should never go in that area.
Mr. Barrette asked if it was a question.
Representative Guttenberg stated that it was an
observation.
TIM LESCMER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), worked
with grey wolves and took care of them at the zoo in town.
He spent more time around wolves than 90 percent of the
population. He thought what was getting lost was the
intelligent of the animals and the centurion nature of the
animals. He invited members to come meet the wolves
personally. He applauded Representative Josephson. He spoke
in support of HB 73.
Co-Chair Seaton CLOSED Public Testimony for HB 105.
Co-Chair Seaton remarked that he wanted some questions
about subsistence addressed at the next hearing on the
bill.
4:59:23 PM
Representative Wilson asked that the department address the
indeterminate fiscal note.
Representative Josephson responded that the fiscal note
related to the original version of the bill.
Representative Wilson responded that there were 3 fiscal
notes and it was possible that some of them were not
related to the current version of the bill.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified the version before the committee.
Representative Wilson requested the fiscal note
clarification at the next hearing.
Vice-Chair Gara asked about the misdemeanor issue in the
bill.
Co-Chair Seaton asked to put the question off until the
next bill hearing.
Co-Chair Seaton announced that amendments were due by
Thursday, May 6, 2017 at 5:00 p.m.
HB 105 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
5:03:34 PM
Representative Ortiz asked about amendments for SB 78.
Co-Chair Seaton conveyed that that amendments for SB 78
were also due by Thursday, May 6, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. He
relayed the agenda for the following meeting. He indicated
the following week would be focused on general fiscal
impact.
Co-Chair Seaton recessed the meeting to a call of the
chair. He recessed the meeting to a call of the chair
[Note: the meeting never reconvened].