Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/17/1993 09:00 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 46
Act authorizing moose farming.
Upon reconvening the meeting, Co-chairman Frank directed
that SB 46 be brought on for discussion.
TERESA SAGER-STANCLIFF, aide to Senator Mike Miller, came
before committee. She explained that the bill would give
the Dept. of Fish and Game authority to dispose of surplus
moose by transferring them to private ownership--either to
individuals or groups for commercial, scientific, or
educational purposes. The legislation would also legalize
the sale of moose meat.
DAVE KELLYHOUSE, Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Dept. of Fish and Game, next came before
committee, voicing department opposition to the bill. He
explained that, based upon experience in all jurisdictions
previously providing for moose farming, the legislation will
not likely result in significant contributions to Alaska's
economy. Further, it is likely to require significant state
subsidies for moose farming ventures without prospects of
compensating revenues. Moose farming is also likely to
adversely impact Alaska's wild game populations as well as
businesses presently benefitting from state wildlife.
After over fifty years of experience, moose have not proven
to be a viable game farm species for either meat, draft
animal purposes, or milk production. Of two farming
operations in the former Soviet Union, one has closed and
the other has been converted to a wildlife research station.
Those operations found that moose were subject to behavioral
stress and related illnesses in high density situations.
They were unsuitable for draft purposes because they cannot
rid themselves of body heat. Milk production was low, and
feeding proved to be exceedingly expensive. The type of
fencing required to contain a moose costs approximately
$13,000 per mile. It would thus cost approximately $52,000
to fence a square mile of moose habitat. Without adequate
natural browse, moose must be provided supplemental hand-cut
browse or a special ration that costs twice as much as
domestic animal feed.
Moose do not do well in high stocking rates. Contrary to
other testimony, they are not herd animals. They are
solitary most of the time and group only during certain
times of the year. Large acreages of land are needed to
accommodate them.
As with other agricultural endeavors, an expensive state
subsidy is likely to be necessary for single-use dedication
of land, fencing, etc.
The department believes that, in terms of land use, active
management of wild moose populations has proven capable of
producing equal or more productivity per dollar than private
ownership.
Mr. Kellyhouse questioned assertions that moose farming
would provide viewing opportunities for tourists.
Department experience since statehood indicates that
roadside zoos result "in a high number of complaints."
While the department would likely have little jurisdiction
over private ownership, it would nonetheless be expected to
do something when complaints arise. The department's zero
fiscal note assumes that the only department involvement
would be to "find a surplus in coordination with the board
of game and then inspect facilities to see if they're
adequate." In reality, the department would probably
experience far more involvement. As an example, Mr.
Kellyhouse noted that the department has little authority
over the Delta bison herd. However, when captive bison
escaped, the department devoted two man-months to "trying to
get those animals back." The effort was unsuccessful since
the domesticated bison blended with the wild herd. There
would be more of a problem with moose.
A further concern relates to the "very real potential for
disease transmission and introduction to the wild." Most
game farms tend to have a variety of stock in close
proximity. Moose are extremely difficult to contain.
During rut males from outside the enclosure are likely to
attempt to gain access. The reverse is true for confined
males. Escapes are highly likely as is transmission of
disease.
ALICIA D. PORTER, Alaska Environmental Lobby, next came
before committee, voicing lobby opposition to the bill. She
said the legislation is considered biologically and fiscally
detrimental to the state. History has shown that game farms
are labor intensive and economically draining. Hidden costs
relate to:
1. Identifiable costs to the Dept. of Environmental
Conservation, including:
A. Examination of animals for disease
B. Inspection of meat for human consumption
C. Preparation of regulations
2. Vulnerability of the Dept. of Public Safety to
increased enforcement costs resulting from
legalization
of the sale of moose meat. Poaching of wild
animals frequently becomes a problem in areas
where the sale of game meat is legalized. After
the Province of Alberta, Canada, legalized elk
farming and the sale of elk meat, enforcement
costs skyrocketed due to increased poaching.
3. Dept. of Natural Resources need to permit land as
agricultural.
4. Dept. of Fish and Game need for:
A. Issuance of moose farm permits
B. Inspection of fencing and other facilities
C. Surplus determinations
D. Response to complaints from constituents and
tourists when facilities appear to be
substandard
E. Predator control
Ms. Porter noted that many agricultural projects in Alaska
have failed to meet economic expectations and have turned to
the state for subsidized, low-interest loans. The proposed
bill is accompanied by a zero fiscal note. The Alaska
Environmental Lobby believes that fiscal notes should be
requested from DEC, DNR, DPS and DF&G. Ms. Porter voiced
her belief that SB 46 would be a costly venture for the
state to fund.
OPAL WELTON next came before committee in support of the
legislation. She presented written testimony on behalf of
herself and her husband, Doug. (A copy of that testimony is
appended to these minutes and is also on file in the
original Senate Finance bill file for SB 46.)
DOUG WELTON next came before committee in support of the
bill. He explained that he and his wife, Opal, have been
working on moose farming legislation for over five years.
He took exception to Dept. of Fish and Game opposition and
said that moose farming represents a conservation effort.
Referring to Article VIII of the Natural Resource section of
the state Constitution, Mr. Welton read the following:
It is the policy of the state to encourage the
settlement of its lands and the development of its
resources by making them available for maximum use
consistent with the public interest.
The response to attempts to educate the public concerning
moose farming has been overwhelming support for the
proposal.
Mr. Welton further noted constitutional language calling for
legislative provision for utilization, development, and
conservation of all natural resources, including land and
waters. The key word is "conservation." He voiced his
belief that moose farming would provide a means of
counteracting the hunting and killing of moose.
Further constitutional provisions relate to reservation of
fish, wildlife and waters in the natural state to the people
of Alaska for common use. Residents of the state are to
benefit from Alaskan wildlife, not merely employees of the
Dept. of Fish and Game and those who come to Alaska from
other countries and states to hunt and fish.
Mr. Welton noted that orphaned animals are often sent
outside the state to zoos elsewhere. He suggested that
Alaskans should have a prior claim on this wildlife, and he
took exception to references to proposed moose farm efforts
as "roadside zoos." He made reference to the reindeer
facility at the University of Alaska and musk ox and
reindeer facility at Palmer and noted that neither could be
so classified.
Mr. Welton again pointed to constitutional language and
advised of the requirement that fish, forest, wildlife,
grasslands, and all replenishable resources belonging to the
state be utilized, developed, and maintained on the
sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among
beneficial uses. There are beneficial uses for moose aside
from hunting. It could provide a healthier, leaner red meat
than the beef on the market today.
Constitutional language further states that the legislature
may provide for facilities, improvements, and services to
assure greater utilization, development, reclamation, and
settlement of lands and to assure full utilization and
development of fisheries, wildlife, and waters. Mr. Welton
again stressed that full utilization should allow for more
than merely hunting. Moose farming would not have to
escalate into large commercial operations. Small rural
farms would provide families with fresh milk and breeding
stock for an ongoing meat supply. The legislature is
obligated to provide Alaskans with these opportunities.
JOHN CRAMER, Director, Division of Agriculture, Dept. of
Natural Resources, came before committee. He voiced
department support for the legislation, but noted his
personal belief that a large-scale commercial operation for
meat production would probably not be economically feasible.
Noting Dept. of Fish and Game opposition, Mr. Cramer said he
was unaware of the basis for concerns regarding a potential
"significant state subsidy."
Speaking to the likelihood of disease transmission, Mr.
Cramer suggested that it should be addressed by the state
veterinary rather than the Dept. of Fish and Game. He then
suggested that the committee consult with the veterinary in
the course of further discussion of the bill.
Mr. Cramer further advised that lands already identified as
agricultural lands could be utilized for moose farm
operations. Farming efforts would not necessarily remove
lands from other uses and set them aside as additional
agricultural lands.
Addressing comments by the Alaska Environmental Lobby that
agriculture has failed, economically, in Alaska, Mr. Cramer
said, "There are successes in every segment of agricultural
industry in the state of Alaska, including game farming."
The Dept. of Natural Resources and Dept. of Fish and Game
could work together on fencing requirements. Current game
farms are working. There have been no releases aside from
the Delta bison incident. Regulations can be written and
enforced in such a way that a significant hazard for wild
populations would not be posed.
Co-chairman Frank voiced his understanding that Senator
Miller is working with the administration to change
definitions within the bill. He then directed that the bill
be HELD in committee pending those changes.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|