Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
02/21/2014 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB202 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 202 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 202-BISON DRAWING PERMIT FEES
1:05:48 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the only order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 202, "An Act raising the application fee for a
drawing permit for the hunting of bison to $20; requiring the
game management plan for bison in the Delta Junction Bison Range
Area to include mitigation of bison damage to farm crops and
farm and personal property; and authorizing the commissioner of
natural resources to make grants to mitigate or prevent damage
caused by bison."
1:06:00 PM
MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff, Representative Eric Feige, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced HB 202 on behalf of Representative
Feige, the sponsor of the bill. He paraphrased from the
following written statement [original punctuation provided]:
In 1928 a group of hunters brought a small number of
bison from the National Bison Range in Montana to what
is now known as Delta Junction Alaska and released the
animals to hopefully one day provide additional
hunting opportunities in the state. This magnificent
animal is large, elusive, and a prized hunting trophy,
as well as a source of excellent meat.
When the animals were brought to Alaska, there was
most likely little discussion on the negative impact
of interaction between these animals and humans. Nor
was there likely any discussion on these animals not
being native to Alaska and thus an invasive species
being introduced into the state.
As the animals adapted to their new home, they quickly
looked for the most available sources of food.
Unfortunately, some of this food was located at
existing settlements in the area along the Tanana
River. Documented history shows the bison interacting
with humans shortly after their arrival at Rika's
roadhouse, consuming food planted for travelers using
the roadhouse.
By the 1950s, the herd had grown to several hundred
animals and plans were made to realize the dream of
hunting bison in Alaska. Since the first hunts, the
desire to hunt bison has resulted in the development
of the most popular draw permit for hunting in Alaska.
In 2013, 19,605 applications were received with less
than 100 permits issued.
The hunt is not easy. Most of the hunt takes place
during the winter when it is cold, dark, and windy in
Delta Junction. Fish & Game refers to the hunt as a
"challenging endeavor" and requires those that receive
a permit to study a package of material and pass a
test before being allowed to hunt. The success rate
for the hunt averages around 80 percent, depending
upon the specific hunt.
Hunting Delta Bison is one of the premier hunts in
Alaska.
As mentioned previously, depredation of crops has been
a problem since shortly after the bison were released
along the Delta River.
Traditionally the largest herds were found along the
Delta and Tanana Rivers and animals were often found
in Delta Junction. Stories abound of children not
being able to go to school because they could not get
out of the house because bison were in their yard.
Once the herd discovered the presence of grains being
grown east of the community center, the herd adjusted
its annual migratory route, traveling further from the
Delta River to the farm area east of Delta Junction.
On page 17 of the "Delta Bison Interim Management
Plan," you can see that the bison travel over military
land from the spring calving area west of the Delta
River to the Bison Range and agricultural areas to the
east. Today bison are rarely seen in the more heavily
developed areas or around Rika's Roadhouse. Two
smaller animals were reported within a couple of miles
of the city limits a few years ago.
Work to determine the damage to crops and other
property has only been casually reviewed in the past
few years. Up to that point, no [known] surveys of
damage have been done. Most recent surveys have put
the damage near $100,000 annually. Unfortunately,
damage isn't spread equally across all producers and
can have a significant negative impact on a single
producer. Also, loss of opportunity income from higher
dollar crops, that are not planted due to the
potential for loss, is not included in the damage
estimates.
In addition to the problems the bison cause for
farmers and the occasional vehicle/bison collisions is
the problems the animals cause for the military. The
military operates under strict rules pertaining to
interference with local wildlife. The "Integrated
Natural Resources Management Plan" places restrictions
on interaction between military training operations
and wildlife, including bison.
To help address both the problems with interaction
between the military and bison and between farmers and
bison, along with improving the condition of the herd,
the state has developed the Delta Bison Range and the
military has done work to improve the conditions near
the calving areas.
The military contracted with the local soil and water
district in 2012 to make improvements to food for the
bison on land along the Delta River in an attempt to
control the location and movement of the bison by
keeping the herd nearer the river and on inactive
ranges for a longer period of time, thus keeping the
bison off agricultural land.
The bison range, created and funded by the state, has
cleared fields where grains and other crops are
planted in an attempt to provide the bison with
sufficient food and to attempt to keep the bison south
of the Alaska Highway until after harvest. The bison
range also has wells where water is provided for the
bison. The herd is intensely managed, fed, and watered
by the state for the benefit of hunters. Similar to
how farmers manage other livestock.
During discussion on the management plan for the bison
range, the state's wildlife biologist indicated there
is no definitive evidence that the natural habitat is
sufficient to supply food and water to the herd and,
absent the food on the bison range and in farmer's
fields, the herd may not be sustainable at its current
size.
Questions also arose surrounding the current
activities on the bison range as to whether they are
having the desired effect of keeping bison south of
the highway until later in the farming season or does
the feed on the range move up the arrival of the bison
in the area. Also, does the feed on the bison range
allow a herd to exist that is larger than could exist
naturally.
Reducing the herd size was recommended by the state's
biologist to determine if such a reduction would
reduce damage. The experimental plan that was
introduced was not accepted by the hunters on the
working group.
One [consensus] that the working group did reach was
that fencing was the option that would have the most
impact on reducing the amount of damage that occurs.
Four major options were considered; fencing the herd
in, creating an enclosure to [temporarily] restrain
the herd, placing some type of barrier along the south
side of the highway to restrain the herd, and finally,
fence the farms. All of which have positive and
negative aspects.
Fence the herd
Fencing the herd is the most effective way to control
the herd. A determination by [Legislative Legal and
Research Services] that the intent language for
creating the bison range prohibits the permanent
containment of the herd, has led to no discussion on
this option. The intent language contained a provision
that one of the purposes of the bison range was to
promote a free ranging herd, although this and future
legislatures are not bound to that intent.
Temporary Fence
A temporary fence might be useful if the animals could
be funneled into an area and then enclosed until
harvest is complete. Questions exist as to whether
this type of enclosure will work.
Barrier Fence
Creating a barrier fence would result in reducing the
movement of existing wildlife and would require gates
to prevent bison from using existing roadways and
driveways to move beyond the barrier. It would also
limit access to recreational and hunting areas in the
Granite Mountains.
Fencing Farms
Fencing farms solves the immediate problem of keeping
bison out of fields while, at the same time, proposes
to cause the animals to relocate in search of winter
feed. Having a fence installed on individual farmer's
property, shifts the maintenance burden to the farmer,
but also provides a better mechanism to execute
maintenance.
The idea of having farmers fence in their own fields
was mostly supported by hunters. Unfortunately,
fencing crops is not normally part of the business
plan for farming. Yes, farmers often fence fields to
keep animals in and it is a realized cost of raising
livestock, it is generally not viable to fence
wildlife out.
As a compromise by farmers to facilitate a resolution
to the bison crop damage problem, HB 202 was
introduced to help facilitate farmers fencing their
fields.
HB 202 increases the application fee for a Delta Bison
Draw Permit from $10 to $20. It also allows funds to
be expended to mitigate crop damage through methods
determined by the Commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources. Fencing is specifically allowed,
but other avenues of mitigation of damage would also
be allowed.
HB 202 also requires Fish and Game to include in its
game management plan information for "mitigation [of]
bison damage to farm crops and personal property."
This issue is not solely a local issue. With the
creation of the Alaska Food Policy Council, the
passage of HJR1 last year by this legislature and the
creation of the State Food Resource Development Group,
and the emphasis on increasing food production in
Alaska, this is a problem that impacts the entire
state.
Although the Bison Management Plan is supposed to be
updated every five years, the current "Interim" plan
is the first plan since 2000 and, since the completion
of the last meeting of the working group in 2011,
nothing has been done to further address the damage
problem.
Four recommendations, shown on page 3 of the plan,
were made:
1. Reduce herd size.
2. Continued evaluation of crop damage.
3. Increase permit draw application fee to $20.
4. Establish a state cost-sharing program to
assist farms with construction [of] bison-proof
fences to keep bison out of private agricultural
land.
As a general summary, I call your attention to the
Executive Summary of the 2012 plan:
"This updated plan for management of the Delta bison
herd is interim pending resolution of the issue of
fencing. Although the Delta Bison Working Group (a
citizens' stakeholder group that provided
recommendations on management of Delta bison to the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game) agreed that
fencing was the best solution for keeping bison out of
agriculture fields, and that agriculture lands should
be fenced into three large compounds, the farming
community and others indicated fencing three large
compounds was not a solution they could support.
Furthermore, it did not appear likely that the Working
Group would be able in the near future to agree on a
specific fencing solution supported by key interest
groups. Also, the farming community's preference is to
explore management alternatives that current ADF&G
funding cannot support, or are outside the scope of
authority for ADF&G. However, the interim plan will
provide the basis for carrying out all other aspects
of management of the Delta bison herd. Therefore, to
avoid impasse in implementing management actions,
[ADF&G] decided to suspend efforts at this time to
resolve the fencing debate through the Working Group.
Instead, ADF&G will continue to work at the regional
level and through Headquarters to collaborate with the
Department of Natural Resources to explore various
fencing construction and maintenance alternatives as
well as other means to mitigate or prevent bison
damage to agriculture fields. Leadership in both
departments will seek agreement on recommendations to
forward to the Legislature, and to the Governor's
office if appropriate. If the ultimate resolution of
this issue includes a cost-share agreement for
fencing, it may be possible to take advantage of a
joint funding offer from the Salcha-Delta Soil and
Water Conservation District of $320,000. Further
delay, however, in reaching a resolution may result in
the expiration of this opportunity."
With no action by the department, it is now time for
the legislature to move forward on a solution to this
long term problem.
1:19:56 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked about the size of a typical bison in the
Delta bison herd.
MR. PASCHALL replied that a bison calf in the "couple hundred
pound range" would grow to a ton.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked how high this 2000 pound animal could jump.
MR. PASCHALL replied that the enclosures for domestic bison were
usually 10 feet in height, and that bison could easily jump a 4
foot fence.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked how long this problem had existed in the
Delta Junction region.
MR. PASCHALL replied that the problem began shortly after the
animals were released in 1940.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked about the current size of the herd.
MR. PASCHALL replied that the herd had not been effectively
reduced to the suggested 275-325 bison. He deferred to the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game for exact numbers.
1:22:09 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), reported
that the bison herd had not been decreased in size, as there had
not been any proposals submitted to the Board of Game with this
request. He relayed that it had been discussed at the board
meeting, however no decision had been made as there was not a
proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether this objective was
dependent on the number of permits issued by the department, or
would it need to be a separate proposal through the Board of
Game.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that ADF&G would work to reduce the
herd size through the permit process, although it would seek
guidance to the process through the Alaska Board of Game.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarification whether the issue
was in front of the board, and whether the board had not yet
decided or had chosen not to reduce the herd size.
MR. VINCENT-LANG, in response, explained that ADF&G had
presented an interim management plan with a variety of options,
although there was not a proposal to the board to discuss a
reduction to the herd size.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether ADF&G had a recommendation
on herd size.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that the the herd size was an
allocative decision, and that ADF&G was neutral on it. He
shared that there had been a lot of community discussion for
whether a reduction in herd size would lead to a proportional
reduction in field damage, as the herd reduction may not include
those bison feeding in the fields.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether ADF&G had the ability to
specify locations for the bison permits.
MR. VINCENT-LANG reported that the hunt was in the winter time
and was dictated by private property interests, as many of the
bison were killed on private land. He pointed out that hunting
on private property was determined by each land owner.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the winter hunt was a
different hunting season than for most other animals, and he
asked for the reason of the winter hunt.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that he would get back to the committee
with an answer.
1:26:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked when the damage occurred and what the
nature of the damage was.
MR. PASCHALL explained that most of the damage occurred late in
the growing season, during September. He relayed that the herd
moved to military land, much of which was not open to hunting,
for calving, and then back to the bison range in mid-summer.
This was too early to hunt accompanied cows, although there
could be a bull hunt. He pointed out that the most available
land was the private farm land, where the bison moved in late
summer. He noted that there had also been property damage from
hunters, which discouraged land owners from allowing hunting.
He reported that some small portions of the herd would break off
and remain in the farming area all year.
1:28:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON calculated that there would be a $150,000
revenue increase to the state by increasing the permit fee. He
asked for clarification to the use of the money.
MR. PASCHALL replied that the intention of the proposed bill was
to develop a long term solution to the problem. He directed
attention to the Alaska Department of Fish & Game fiscal note
[Included in members' packets] which explained the calculations
and the estimates based on past history for fee increases. He
stated that any distribution of grant money would need to be
made through an appropriation bill and submitted through the
budget process.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 3, line 10,
Subsection 11 of the proposed bill, and asked for the connection
to the soil and water conservation district, as this appeared to
designate funds to owners of damaged property. He asked about
the extent of the grants, and if it would have any impact on the
amount of damage.
MR. PASCHALL, in response, explained that the proposed bill
tried to provide language broad enough for options to address
the concerns expressed in the ADF&G management plan. He shared
that it was envisioned for Department of Natural Resources to
assist the soil and water district's existing funding program to
install fences around farms.
1:32:26 PM
EDMUND FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), shared that DNR had been
involved with this issue since the 1970s, were active
participants in the Delta Bison working group, and had helped
create the current management plan. He declared that the
department was fully supportive of the management plan and its
recommendations, which were the basis for proposed HB 202. He
pointed out that DNR had reviewed many mitigation options and
crop damage assessments. He expressed agreement that, as the
bison were "a significant stressor to the agricultural industry
in Delta Junction," this affected crop decisions. He opined
that, should proposed HB 202 pass, it was the intent of DNR to
pass the money through to an organization that could handle the
program in Delta Junction. He stated that DNR did not
anticipate having a grant program, as the Delta Soil and Water
Conservation District had an existing program.
1:34:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 3, line 11,
describing the parameters of the program, and expressed his
concern that this would create a situation where that money
would not go through the intended mechanism.
MR. FOGELS replied that it was not DNR's intention to create an
individual grant program within the department, but instead to
work with an existing organization that would administer the
money.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the anticipated amount of grant
funds would only come from the application fees.
MR. FOGELS replied that the intent was to only use funds
appropriated through the increase of fees. He offered his
belief that there could be supplemental funding in the future.
1:37:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, offering her belief that the bison herd did
not use the land designated as a bison range, asked if there
were other options for designating that land.
MR. FOGELS deferred to Mr. Vincent-Lang, although he opined that
the herd did "spend a fair bit of time in the range. It's just
in the summer they migrate over and then they'll winter in the
range."
MR. VINCENT-LANG declared that ADF&G did not want to lose that
designation for the Delta Bison range, as it was a critical
element for moving forward with this program. He opined that
loss of the designation would lose management options for
addressing the concerns addressed in the interim management
plan.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if there was an opportunity to extend
the range into the areas with the problems.
MR. VINCENT-LANG expressed his agreement that land ownership
definitely boxed in the range. He emphasized that ADF&G did not
support loss of designation, as this was an important piece for
long term solutions.
1:40:16 PM
MR. PASCHALL drew attention to the report in the committee
packet entitled "2009 Delta Bison Crop Damage Assessment
Report," pages 9 and 10 [included in members' packets], which
depicted the damage by the physical presence from the bison. He
said that the farmers were not opposed to the bison, only to the
damage caused. They would like to have management for that
damage. He reported that the portion of the bison range south
of the highway was federal land; whereas, the land north of the
highway was mostly private land. He said the land was bounded
on the east by the river, with two cultivated fields also used
by the herd.
1:43:13 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened invited testimony.
1:43:55 PM
BRYCE WRIGLEY, President, Alaska Farm Bureau, Delta Junction,
Alaska, offered some background to the early visions for bison
fields, noting that the Legislature had appropriated money for a
drift fence, which had been vetoed by the governor. He reported
that the money for the bison field had been kept in place,
however. He said that the past focus had been for re-
authorization of the drift fence to keep the bison out of the
crops. After three years of working with Alaska Department of
Fish & Game and having no success for achievement of this goal,
the group then worked with the local soil and water district on
a cost share program to assist the land owners with bison
problems by fencing the land. He shared that the proposed bill
would raise the cost of permits for bison, while authorizing a
portion of the proceeds to mitigate bison damage. These
proceeds could supplement the cost share program for fencing.
He stated that farmers did not believe it was their fault that
the bison were destroying the crops, and the reluctance from the
hunting community to reach a solution had not contributed to a
good relationship.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked where the drift fence would be located.
MR. WRIGLEY said that he did not believe a location had ever
been determined in the initial proposal. However, when the
Alaska Farm Bureau addressed the problem a few years prior, they
had proposed to put it 1/4 mile south of the Alaska Highway as
this was state land and did not impact any private land. He
acknowledged that there were some roads that would require
access. He relayed that a drift fence on the north side of the
highway would allow the bison to mill around it, creating a
traffic hazard. He explained that the original proposal had
been to run it to the river, and then proceed south into the
range and on to Delta. It had been estimated to cost $1.2
million to put in the fence. He noted that the soil and water
conservation district had already spent about $100,000 on cost
share, with proposed applications for an additional $220,000.
1:49:20 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked for clarification that these were matching
grants to farmers for fencing from the cost-share program.
MR. WRIGLEY expressed agreement, noting that there was a 50
percent match up to a limit.
1:49:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how much fencing would be required,
and at what cost, in order to estimate the amount of money
necessary through the cost - share program.
MR. WRIGLEY asked if this was in reference to the increased
funding from the permit receipts.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his agreement, and offered his
belief that the program was offering fencing around the farms,
not the aforementioned drift fence. He pointed out that he
wanted an estimate for the amount of fencing and its cost.
MR. WRIGLEY replied that some of the scenarios were complicated
by requirements from other state agencies. He offered anecdotal
explanations. He estimated the fencing cost to be $3 per foot
noting that the program only allowed for the fencing of a
perimeter, about $100,000 in cost - share for fencing around one
of the larger farms.
1:52:38 PM
LYALL BRASIER, Vice President, Delta Chapter, Alaska Farm
Bureau, stated that the Alaska Farm Bureau's Delta Chapter
supported the proposed bill.
1:53:56 PM
STEPHEN SORENSEN stated that he was in support of the proposed
bill and the proposed solution by the soil and water
conservation district. He reported that he was a farmer, a
rancher, a hunter, and a conservationist. He shared that it was
important to satisfy all the parties in order to maintain a
healthy bison herd and to find an effective management tool to
prevent bison damage to the crops. He said that bison were on
his property from mid-August through early April. He reported
that bison ate grass and oat crops primarily, wallowed in the
hay fields, damaged the ground, destroyed cattle fence, and
brought in weed seeds. He relayed that there was a growing
confrontation between the hunters and the farmers, both feeling
they had the priority rights. He offered some anecdotes of
hunter actions that had cost the farmers.
1:57:39 PM
MR. SORENSEN surmised that there were two parts to this issue:
create a good bison range with feed for the animals, and prevent
the bison from getting onto the farmland. He offered his belief
that the proposed bill addressed both of these issues, although
he expressed his concern that the increased fee would not be
enough to cover the initial costs for sufficient quantities of
fencing. He reported that the aforementioned fencing was not
robust, and was merely a stop gap measure to get the program
started and not a long term solution. He pointed out that the
upkeep on a fragile fence was very high. He stated that there
was a requirement to put up a game fence, an 8 foot, welded wire
fabric fence, in order to raise bison and elk in Alaska;
therefore, the same fencing should be required to keep bison out
of an area. Although he supported the bill, he expressed his
concern that there was not enough revenue to support the
solution for a more robust fence to keep down the maintenance
costs. Directing attention to page 2, line 3, he recommended a
change from "mitigating" to "preventing" as the intent was to
keep bison off farm land. Moving on to page 3, line 13, he
again suggested changing the wording to "prevent" instead of
"mitigate." On line 14, he suggested adding "wild game" in
front of "fencing costs" which would meet the fencing standard
already established by the state to prevent damage from a game
animal and not a livestock animal.
2:03:33 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE acknowledged the agreement with Mr. Sorensen from
the committee members.
MR. SORENSEN offered his strong support for HB 202.
2:04:29 PM
DONALD QUARBERG reported that he had been a resident of Delta
Junction for 38 years, during the time when the first
legislation for bison range and drift fences had been
introduced. He opined that the drift fence was a "carrot" for
the governor to veto, then allowing the proposed bill "to be
pared back somewhat and also be passed." He relayed that he had
participated on the Delta bison working group since its
formation in 1992, and he had worked as an agriculture agent for
the University of Alaska agriculture extension service. He
reported that he had also worked on the fish and game advisory
committee for the past 25 years. He noted his confusion for HB
202, as the district newsletter from Representative Feige had
stated that the increase to the fee for the bison drawing permit
would be used for management of the Delta Bison herd. He
offered his belief that the fee had originally been increased in
the 1980s to provide operating money for the planting of crops
on the bison range. He reflected that mitigation had never been
discussed by the bison working group, and yet, now it was
proposed for introduction into the bison management plan without
an understanding for the meaning of mitigation. He asked if
mitigation was intended to be a financial remuneration for the
landowners. He reported that, in the 1970s, the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game had never promised the agriculture
promoters anything, other than that there would be bison damage.
He reported on a test clearing of 5 acres in 1976 at Mile 1408,
which quickly showed bison tracks. He said that bison would
show up wherever crops were planted. He stated that, although
bison were a problem, this was not a surprise problem, as the
bison had been in the area for 50 years before the land was even
sold. He claimed that the pro-agriculture promoters had failed
to heed the advice of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game or
the Division of Agriculture. He stated that the agriculture
development was supported by the Salcha-Delta Soil and Water
Conservation District as the area could raise barley, which had
been commanding a high price on the world market at that time.
He offered his belief that mitigation should come from those
supportive agencies, and not from the Alaska Department of Fish
& Game.
2:09:12 PM
MR. QUARBERG expressed his concern for another issue with the
proposed bill, wildlife damage to the crops. He stated that
bison took the majority of abuse for crop destruction, although
the moose herd had a similar effect on crops. He noted that
moose like to eat oats, as did the grizzly bears. He opined
that HB 202 opened a Pandora's Box because it only addressed one
game species, bison, and one land user. He reflected on an
earlier visit by the President of the Alaska State Senate to
Delta Junction to discuss bison damage, at which time
legislative support had been offered toward a proposed bill for
all wildlife damage for all land users. He declared that he
still accepted this position. He opined that a prominent
discussion point should be for the denial of warranty regarding
conditions which were inserted into land purchase contracts in
1982 from the Division of Agriculture. He read:
The seller has advised the purchaser of bison movement
which may occur in the Delta 2 East disposal. The
seller assumes no liability whatsoever for bison
related crop losses or for any other personal or
property damage resulting from wildlife on or to the
parcel. The purchaser and his heirs in assigns
further agree never to sue the state for compensation
related to such damages and will indemnify and hold
the state harmless against similar claims by others.
MR. QUARBERG offered his belief that this had been a part of all
the successive land contracts. He mused that he had suggested
peripheral fences around large blocks of land, as opposed to
fencing the boundaries of all the small tracts of land. He
offered his belief that there was concern for the responsibility
to maintenance of each portion of the fence. He pointed out
that the section lines in Delta had been vacated, and replaced
with boundary easements between each farm, which required
fencing on either side of the easement. He reflected that he
had not heard any support from hunters for using the permit fee
on a grant program for fencing. He suggested moving the
mitigation and grant program into a separate bill, and simply
pass the proposed bill for the increase in fees for the bison
permit.
2:14:39 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony.
2:14:59 PM
MIKE SCHULTZ said that he was a farmer producing grain and seed
who had been affected by the bison. He shared that he had
purchased his farm from the state in 1982 and that, although
there had been a disclaimer about the bison, the herd was about
250 head at that time and had nearly doubled since then, with a
significant increase to the amount of damage. He reported that
he had been building fence on his farm for three years, with
most of the payment out of his own pocket. He expressed his
desire to participate in the soil and water conservation
district program to cost share the fence construction. He
declared his support for the intent and wording of the proposed
bill, as it provided a way for the state to contribute to the
program.
2:18:31 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE held over HB 202.
[Public testimony remained open.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 202 ADF&G Bison Range Webpage Information.pdf |
HRES 2/21/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 ADF&G Crop Damage Survey 2009.pdf |
HRES 2/21/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Bison Depredation on Grain Fields.pdf |
HRES 2/21/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Delta Bison Management Plan 2012.pdf |
HRES 2/21/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Delta Bison Range Map.pdf |
HRES 2/21/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 News Miner Article 2009.pdf |
HRES 2/21/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 SDSWCD Newsletter.pdf |
HRES 2/21/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 2/21/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Version C.pdf |
HRES 2/21/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB202-DFG-WCD-02-21-14.pdf |
HRES 2/21/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |
| HB202-DNR-AGR-2-15-14.pdf |
HRES 2/21/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 202 |