Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/06/1995 08:05 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HRES - 03/06/95
Number 322
HB 170 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, PRIME SPONSOR, stated since the bill,
itself, was discussed a week ago, he would not overview the bill
again. He said there are people on teleconference who would like
to make comments and also answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 170(RES), version
G dated March 3, 1995.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted there was a hand out which compares version
C to version G of HB 170.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated there is no substantive changes in
version G, only a tightening up of the language.
Number 389
SANDRA ARNOLD, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA WILDLIFE ALLIANCE, testified
via teleconference. She stated she has spoken with many biologists
who all say the same thing about HB 170 and that is, it is
biologically unachievable unless there is an intention to have a
predator level at zero. She stressed many Alaskans value the fact
that Alaska is different--it still does have abundant predators and
spends 6 percent more dollars each year on dealing with wildlife in
non-consumptive activities. She noted she keeps hearing that the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) needs to stop managing
people and start managing the resource. She felt people management
is and has always been an inherent part of wildlife management.
She pointed out urban hunters should be more than willing to take
a year off from moose hunting or travel a little farther to where
the caribou and moose are abundant, rather than scream for more
predator control.
MS. ARNOLD wondered why no one has talked about the cost of HB 170.
Intensive management of game is very costly. She said if what the
bill asks for is possible, it would be quite expensive to achieve.
The sustained yield principle is complex and cannot be taken care
of in a two page bill. She noted it is easy to understand
concepts--a balanced budget is an easy to understand concept but it
is very difficult to obtain. She stressed it takes time, research,
and a non-stop effort to get wildlife to do what is desired and HB
170 will not change that fact. She told committee members to let
HB 170 die and the existing SB 77 be negated.
MS. ARNOLD felt the state should start over and try to come up with
a coherent, state-wide predator/prey management policy--one that
has broad-based support and where a diverse group of people are
invited to the table to discuss. She said this issue will go on
and on and there will be lawsuits, controversies, etc. In the
meantime, the resource will suffer. She stated her organization
would love to settle the issue and move on. They would gladly come
to the table in good faith to try and work out a compromise. She
stressed HB 170 and SB 77 are only going to perpetuate the strife
over predator control in Alaska and continue to divide Alaskans.
Number 433
MICHAEL TETREAU, SEWARD, testified via teleconference and stated
public lands should not be used for single species management. He
said management which favors one or two species also favors equally
certain interest groups and not the general public. Public lands
should be managed to maintain natural eco-system processes. He
noted single species management practiced in the past has resulted
in unexpected and undesirable results. He stated the bill also
references the restoration of the abundance or productivity of
identified big game prey populations. He stressed there is a big
difference between abundance and productivity. He felt
productivity should be used, not abundance.
MR. TETREAU stated HB 170 also eliminates the possibility of
placing restrictions on methods or means of taking game, access to
game, or human harvest of game. He said the people cannot be
ignored and any game management should take a holistic approach.
He noted throughout the bill, the term big game prey is used as
opposed to large ungulates or moose and caribou. He felt the true
intent of the bill is nothing more than predator control.
Number 458
JIM RAMSDELL, SEWARD, testified via teleconference and stated when
he heard of HB 170 he wondered how anyone could bring up such
legislation when Alaska is still reeling from the recent outcry
over wolf control efforts. He realized the bill was just another
effort by lawmakers to control Alaska's wild in an effort to boost
(indiscernible). He said he is a wildlife lover and deals with
many of the tourists coming to Alaska to view the wildlife and feel
the state's wild spirit. He stated he could not believe the
legislature, by their actions, would not care what tourists and
outsiders say, while standing with outstretched hands, taking
millions and millions of tourist dollars.
MR. RAMSDELL stated there is much more to the issue than just
predation including weather, food supply, bull/cow ratios, and
hunting pressure. He said in view of past legislation, freezers
full of moose, caribou, and deer can do much more damage than good.
He recommended HB 170 be killed.
Number 479
MARK LUTTRELL, PRESIDENT, EASTERN KENAI PENINSULA ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference and stated if HB
170 is not taken seriously, this bill is just a nuisance bill and
gets in the way of real wildlife management. He felt the sponsors
are guilty of what environmentalists are often accused of--filing
lawsuits to allegedly delay or try to up the costs of a particular
agency action. He said if HB 170 is taken seriously and there is
some wildlife management (indiscernible) in this bill, he felt it
is still a bad bill and the conclusion is that wolves are bad, they
should be killed and moose are good, we need them. He stressed
there is much more involved in the way people interact with
wildlife and there is much more to the ecology of predator/prey
relationships. He recommended HB 170 be killed.
Number 510
OLIVER BURRIS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated
he is a retired wildlife biologist. He stressed he is not a legal
wordsmith on the construction of the bill but expressed his major
concern is the neglected management on non-management of the
state's wildlife resources, primarily moose and caribou. He
pointed out that most Interior moose populations are only one-tenth
to one-half of former levels. He noted 90-95 percent of the calves
are killed before they reach 16 months of age, where they could
contribute to the harvest by humans. He added that 75 percent are
killed before their first winter, meaning a high winter loss is not
being looked at in most of the situations. Moose harvest,
typically, is only about three to five percent of the annual calf
crop of these moose and caribou populations.
MR. BURRIS said no where does anyone come close to harvesting 30-50
percent of the harvestable surplus which is obtainable through any
reasonably active management program and does not require the zero
elimination of predators. Active management can support high
densities of predators. Areas have been seen where active
management programs were in place and predator density was restored
to the number per square mile per area density much higher than
what it was before the active management program started. He
stressed the idea there is a need to eliminate predators to have an
active management program is false.
Number 537
SAM HARBO, PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT & STATISTICS,
FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated there are
compelling environmental arguments for greater utilization of
northern ungulates. He said more and more ecologists are
recognizing that greater dependence and greater utilization on
local resources is the environmental way to go. Environmentalists
arguing against greater utilization on local resources,
particularly renewable resources such as moose, caribou and sheep,
are on the wrong side of the environmental issue. He pointed out
they have left their value system get in the way of sound
environmental reasoning.
MR. HARBO stated active management, which he believes the bill
should be called, over prey populations undoubtedly is going to
require greater effort and hence, costs on the part of the
department. He said it does not take much effort by the department
to manage a moose population if only about one and one-half percent
of the population is being taken, which is restricted to bulls
only. He felt passive management does not cost much. Active
management is going to cost more. He stressed the environmental
advantages of utilizing local resources and much greater returns at
the local level warrant, in very selected areas, more management
than what is occurring currently.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled that Mr. Burris had mentioned a low
number between one and one-half and three percent of human harvest.
He wondered if Mr. Burris was talking about the entire herd. He
noted that Mr. Burris had talked about a 75 percent mortality of
newborns that were not harvested. He asked if the three percent
involve those who mature later or of the entire herd.
MR. BURRIS responded the figures he used involve looking at the
number of offspring being born into the population. He said the
harvest by humans normally equals...he was not talking about the
harvest of calves but the harvest of some adults in the
population...to between three and five percent of those calves
which are being born into the population each year.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified there would be 75 percent killed by
other causes and three percent of a number of calves born would
ultimately be harvested.
MR. BURRIS said that is correct. He stated when the overall
figures are looked at on the number of calves being born, and those
who survived until at least 16 months of age are looked at, it will
be found that only five to ten percent of those calves have
survived to 16-18 months of age.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified if 100 calves are born, 75 of those
will die before they have their first winter and by the time those
calves reach 18 months, there will only be five or ten calves.
MR. BURRIS said that is correct.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that of those five or ten calves, three
are harvested.
MR. BURRIS responded the equivalent of three are harvested.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified between 30-60 percent of the
harvestable calves are currently being harvested.
MR. BURRIS said that was correct and added after all other
mortality has taken place.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the sponsor is saying, therefore, let us
get into that 75 percent and reduce that percent so the numbers
reaching 18 months will go up.
MR. BURRIS stated that is correct.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced HB 170 will be rescheduled at a later
date.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|