Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
04/02/2012 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Board of Game | |
| HJR40 | |
| HB356 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 356 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HJR 40 | ||
HB 356-LAND MANAGEMENT:HUNTING/FISHING/TRAPPING
1:53:32 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 356, "An Act relating to land management by
the Board of Game and Department of Natural Resources for
trapping and sport and subsistence hunting."
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE PRUITT, Alaska State Legislature, stated
this bill would prevent net loss of hunting grounds or lands.
He said he introduced HB 356 with the goal and intent of
creating a baseline number of public hunting areas to ensure
people have the same hunting areas tomorrow as they have today.
He highlighted that with greater access to the outdoors and
natural resources comes a greater appreciation for conservation.
License and tag fees are matched by federal dollars and help
protect the conservation of wildlife statewide habitat. Making
access more difficult to the average hunter actually results in
less revenue for these conservation efforts. He said when
opportunities are stripped from the average hunter, people may
stop hunting completely and the state will lose valuable outdoor
advocates, conservation revenue, and an important part of the
state's economy.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT reported that many states have already
enacted similar legislation; however, applying this concept to
Alaska is more difficult than in most states. He emphasized
that this is an extremely important issue to himself and many
Alaskans.
1:55:39 PM
DIRK CRAFT, Staff, Representative Lance Pruitt, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that Section 1 would add a new section to AS
16.05 requiring the Board of Game to prevent to the greatest
practicable extent the loss of acreage available for trapping
and hunting when the board establishes open and closed seasons
under AS 16.05.255. It would also require the commissioner to
report back to the legislature each year.
MR. CRAFT related that Section 2 would add a new subsection to
AS 38.04.065, which would require the commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to keep certain land
managed by DNR available for trapping, sport, and subsistence
hunting, unless the land must be closed for certain reasons.
This section also requires the commissioner to report back to
the legislature each year.
1:56:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 1, Section 1, which
requires the Board of Game to manage no net loss of acreage when
open and closed seasons and areas are established and the
department has reporting requirements. He related a scenario in
which in game management unit (GMU) 15 is closed due to
conservation reasons it appears that it would need to be
reported as a net loss, even though the acreage hasn't been
closed. He asked for further clarification on acreage, open and
closed seasons, and how that relates to different species within
that same area.
1:57:50 PM
MR. CRAFT said that is a concern of the prime sponsor and
additional research is needed. He highlighted that the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) manages resources much
differently than in most other states. He deferred to the ADF&G
for more details on resource management.
1:58:29 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation (DWC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
acknowledged he also has questions, for example, if an area is
open to one species, but closed to another, whether the
department would consider it to be closed or open under this
bill. He said that in general the department supports the
principal of trying to keep as much land open to hunting across
the state. He questioned if the department closed an area for
conservation purposes and not for access purposes, whether the
department would need to open another area of the state, which
could be difficult due to limited options. Additionally, the
area might only be temporarily closed for conservation purposes.
He suggested there needs to be a bit more clarity in the
language in terms of closures, including closures for single
species, access, or conservation purposes. However, the
department is supportive of the concept of trying to keep as
much land open for hunting as possible.
1:59:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked how the department currently
manages areas when closures occur.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered the department tries to keep as much
land open to hunting as possible within the biological
constraints. The department's goal is to get species recovered
to the extent they can provide hunting opportunities. He
clarified that in a few cases the Board of Game will adopt
special use areas that largely pertain to local access
considerations and in those instances they may close certain
areas to certain types of access. However, the goal is to keep
those areas open to other types of access; again, to try to have
as much opportunity on the land mass to provide for hunting and
fishing statewide. The department's basic premise is to manage
within the biological constraints and allocation guidelines by
the Board of Game.
2:01:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI related a scenario in which a management
unit was closed for certain reasons, whether it would be the
policy of the sponsor or the ADF&G to have a similar area within
the same region open. For example, if a unit is closed in GMU
20 A, just north of Fairbanks, whether the goal would be to open
up another area near Fairbanks or if an area in South Anchorage
would be considered.
MR. CRAFT answered that it is complicated in Alaska and much
simpler in other states. He related that sometimes the area is
closed for certain species or for conservation, noting Alaska is
a resource development state so land is sometimes closed for
other reasons. He said, "It is not always as cut and dry as
we'd like it to be with this legislation, but we understand
there's going to be a lot more work that needs to be done to get
to where we want to go with this bill."
2:02:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT acknowledged that ideally the goal would
be to open it up within the same area, but that is not always
feasible. He agreed it would be nice to see something available
to those hunters and some hunters would like South Anchorage
opened up.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said he really likes the concept. He
related a scenario in which there is a pool of land that is
currently closed to hunting - for example, if the department
closed Section A - whether the department could partially open
some other portion within the area that would be shut down.
2:03:28 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG explained that the department tries to maintain
as many areas as possible open to hunting and fishing within the
biological constraints. He was not aware of any large tracts of
land currently closed to hunting. He acknowledged some areas
may be closed to hunting for certain species or during certain
seasons for conservation concerns for a wide variety of reasons.
He reiterated that the department tries to maintain a maximum
amount of land open for purposes. He surmised one could argue
that a few areas are closed, for example, around McNeil River
because they are viewing areas, which theoretically could be
opened up. However, he emphasized that would take a whole range
of actions to open the area beyond what the department could do.
2:04:36 PM
WYN MENAFEE, Chief of Operations, Division of Mining, Land, and
Water (DML&W), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), in
response to Representative Dick's question, explained that ADF&G
manages the open and closure of wildlife hunting, fishing, and
trapping in areas through their regulations, which is different
from opening and closing of land that the division manages. The
DML&W may end up restricting use that would prevent hunting in a
certain area, but the division doesn't actually make a closure
to hunting. He related a scenario in which in which there is an
oil and gas operation or a mining operation in which blasting
may occur. The division would give site control to the company
via the lease to be able to restrict access to the area, which
in fact, restricts hunting. The department does not currently
make a "no net loss" decision in management practices. The
department would not require some other land since a limited
amount of land in state ownership so a pool is not available to
draw from for replacement.
MR. MENAFEE said it is different than managing wildlife in terms
of where people can and cannot hunt by regulation like ADF&G
does. The DML&W discusses whether access is available to hunt
or not.
2:07:06 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked, for example, if a mine operator or oil and
gas company would be able to control hunting and fishing access
via a lease.
MR. MENAFEE answered that is correct. When someone has
exclusive lease of land, which is a provision in many DNR
leases, then the operator can control access inclusive of
someone hunting. Having said that, the division currently has
nearly 100 million acres and in that acreage the propensity for
hunting, trapping, and fishing occurs since the division doesn't
place restrictions on the activity. Thus the activity would
generally be allowed. He clarified it is only in the little,
small pieces of land in which special uses have been authorized
that restrictions can occur.
2:08:14 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired with respect to ADF&G's constitutional
mandate, related his understanding the department must manage
for utilization under the sustained use principle. He asked
whether the department does not following the sustained use
principle in any areas of the state.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that it is relative, since one could
argue that hunting opportunity around McNeil River; however, the
decision has been made the sustained use best use is for viewing
rather than hunting opportunities. He reiterated that the ADF&G
manages for the biological resource and the use of the resources
within decisions made by either the legislature or the Board of
Game as to how to best use those resources. He was unaware of
chunks of land that the ADF&G has set aside where there is
opportunity for harvestable surplus or viewing opportunities
that were closed or set aside that could be made available to
the public. It is the department's goal to make as much of that
area available as possible to the public to hunt or view.
2:10:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated, with respect to areas such as the
Dalton Highway, that there is restricted access for off-road
vehicles within a certain distance within the corridor. He
asked whether the provision on page 2, line 8, which read, "(2)
manage land under the authority of the Department of Natural
Resources to support, promote, and enhance trapping and sport
and subsistence hunting to the extent authorized by law" would
restrict the state's ability to have non-motorized vehicle use
off the corridor. More specifically, the state has been trying
to extend roads to resources. He asked whether this provision
would conflict with the restrictions the state has along the new
roads.
MR. MENAFEE answered the way it currently reads under [proposed
AS 34.04.065] (j)(2), the fact that it says the DNR would need
to manage land to support, promote, or enhance trapping and
sport and subsistence hunting to the extent authorized by state
law sets up a mandatory obligation to enhance those activities.
Further, issuing any authorization that would restrict use would
not enhance those uses so it sets up an inherent conflict with
authorizing development that would in any way restrict that use.
He offered his belief challenges exist to wrestle with the other
aspects of responsibilities in other parts of the law.
2:12:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that "authorized by state law"
means the legislature could legislate a restriction; however,
oil and gas leases by regulation seems as though it would run
afoul of the language the way it is currently written even
though that may not have been the intent.
MR. MENAFEE agreed, that while it may not be the intent, it does
appear to put specific uses over other uses. Additionally, he
agreed the language "the full extent authorized by state law"
does cause a conflict.
2:13:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT, as prime sponsor of HB 356, responded
that discussions with DNR have not yet succeeded in modifying
the language; however, the goal is not to hamper oil and gas
development or mining. He emphasized work continues on the
conflicting language.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that he did not think it was
the intent of the bill to create the conflict, but rather that
the bill identifies issues that need further clarification.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony on HB 356.
2:14:26 PM
GEORGE PIERCE stated he is representing Alaskans. He said, "No
on HB 356." He stated that a major problem exists. He
suggested that the Board of Game needs examination, noting he
listened to testimony on the Board of Game nominees. He took
issue with the people the governor nominates to serve on the
Board of Game. He offered his belief that people are not
nominated to the Board of Game unless they are for predator
control and the decisions for fish and game should be based on
science and not politics. He reiterated he belief the boards
are controlling the fish and game resources based on politics.
He highlighted that the Kasilof area has been fighting with the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the past two and a
half years about a special use area at the mouth of the Kasilof
River that is under consideration. The majority of the
residents told them they did not want the special use area. The
residents appealed the proposal, but the [board] is still
continuing to take public testimony and treats it like nothing
happened. The resources belong to the people and the game
permits should not be given away to people in the Lower 48, he
stated. He emphasized his desire for the legislature to
investigate the Board of Game. He further requested that
performance audits be conducted to see what the board is doing
for Alaskans.
2:16:48 PM
PRESTON WILLIAMS stated that lands in the Lower 48 have been
closed, particularly on the federal level, but it still affects
states. Sometimes states mirror the federal action to
acquiesce. He offered his belief this bill is fine. He
recalled access to mines being mentioned, and noted that mining
roads often enhance hunting ability if hunters are allowed
access during the season. He related his understanding the oil
companies sometimes do coordinate access to hunting during the
hunting season. He offered his belief the issues can be worked
through and he would rather have a bill to close the gap on
politics on other levels - not the politics of the legislature
or the Board of Game.
2:18:05 PM
MIKE CRAWFORD, President, Safari Club International (SCI-
Alaska), Kenai Peninsula Chapter, stated that hunting and
trapping is an Alaskan way of life and is part of our culture.
Too many states have reduced opportunities not for conservation,
but since non-consumptive users want an area that hunting is not
allowed. He offered his belief that is what this bill will
address. Further, if it is open to hunting it is open to all
other activities generally and for that reason the bill should
not be opposed by anyone. He suggested that if an area is
closed and a new area is not available to open up, this needs to
be compensated for by improving access to areas that are too
difficult to reach.
2:19:20 PM
EDDIE GRASSER, Lobbyist; Regional Representative, Safari Club
International (SCI-Alaska), stated that he is also the former
National Rifle Association representative for Alaska. He said
he grew up in Alaska. He offered his belief significant land
has been closed equal to some states' area and size, but this
bill does not address whether an area can be opened to offset a
closed area. He stated the intent of the bill is not to have
any more areas closed to hunting. He recalled that he used to
hunt in the Wrangell Mountains, the Paint River, and certain
areas of Chugach State Park, but hunting is no longer allowed in
those areas.
MR. GRASSER said the list of closures for hunting and trapping
goes on and on. He has been working with the bill sponsor and
his goal is not to stop legitimate development in Alaska, such
as mining, oil and gas, and other legitimate uses. The SCI-
Alaska's commitment to conservation is such that the
organization understands some seasons will need to be closed at
times.
2:21:03 PM
MR. GRASSER recalled when he was staff to the [House] Resources
Committee years ago, that a constituent called after the
director of the State Parks had closed the area on Byers Creek
for reasons of public safety. He understood the reasoning the
division used to avoid human and bear conflicts; however,
hunters might also want to have access to the bears that would
congregate there. That type of decision - to close bear hunting
in an area with lots of bears - for reasons of public safety did
not make any sense to his organization. He encouraged members
to consider potential future closures of millions of acres to
hunting, noting tens of millions of acres have been closed since
he was a boy.
2:22:02 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked what the reasons are for closure.
MR. GRASSER said that primarily the closed areas are federal and
related to Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA). Additionally, if a facility is built on state lands
in a matter of time a proposal will come before the Board of
Game to close the area for public safety reasons. He offered
his belief that hunters may need to oppose some development
projects for this reason.
2:23:07 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification on facilities.
MR. GRASSER answered the type of facility he was speaking to
include boardwalks and viewing stations.
2:23:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether he was recommending a
committee substitute that would relate to preventing closures
rather than to trade for no net loss of hunting.
MR. GRASSER acknowledged there might be a way to do so. He
explained that this bill was crafted from boilerplate
legislation that has been passed by other states, as previously
mentioned by the bill sponsor. He suggested that the bill's
genesis was the result of leading sportsmen's groups such as the
NRA, SCI, and National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Boone and
Crockett. He said the National Shooting Sports Foundation and
the NRA actually took the lead in crafting the boilerplate
language that is the genesis of this bill. It seemed to the
SCI-Alaska like a good way to stop closures. He recalled the
debate on Paint River, related to a fish ladder, which raised
the issue of attracting more bears to the Paint River. Some
people wanted the area closed to prevent bears that normally
habit the McNeil River from wandering to and being taken on the
Paint River. He stated that the fish ladder was never built,
but the Paint River was never reopened to hunting.
MR. GRASSER said he would support Paint River closure if the
department opened the south side of Chugach State Park from
Anchorage to Girdwood open for sheep hunting; however, that
effort did not gain traction. He said, "More people are locked
out from hunting because of closures than there are people being
locked out for viewing or whatever." He concluded the SCI-
Alaska's interest is to stop more lands from being closed to
hunting, which the NRA supports, too.
2:25:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI observed, regarding the issue of public
safety, that page 2 of the bill provides DNR with the authority
to close an area for public safety reasons. He said he thinks
that is still part of this bill, which would allow for a
determination by DNR to close certain areas to hunting and
restrict hunting and fishing access. He said he wanted to place
this on the record.
MR. GRASSER agreed.
2:26:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, regarding the federal lands that have
been shut down or restricted. He said he has drafted an
amendment that would address the ability of the department to
work cooperatively with the federal agencies and federal lands
to allow for further access. He asked whether that is something
that his group would support.
MR. GRASSER offered his belief that they probably would do so
since access is a huge issue throughout the nation. He related
that as a national board member of the SCI, he has attended lots
of meetings during the last four years. He has worked with
Responsive Resource Management, and one of the leading experts
in the nation on hunting and fishing issues. He highlighted
that access and getting youth out of doors represent two of the
main issues revolving around the future of hunting heritage, not
just in Alaska, but nationwide.
2:28:00 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 356.
[HB 356 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHJR 40 Version B 3.30.12.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Robert Mumford.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB356 Hearing Request.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356.PDF |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| Teresa Sager Albaugh.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB356-DFG-CO-03-31-12.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356-DNR-MLW-04-02-12.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356 Supporting Map.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356 SCI Letter of Support.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356 Support Comments.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |
| HB356 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 356 |