Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/01/1993 09:10 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:
An Act authorizing moose farming.
Co-chair Pearce announced that SB 46 was before the
committee. Co-chair Frank MOVED for adoption of the work
draft CSSB 46 dated February 26, 1993. No objections having
been raised, CSSB 46 was ADOPTED for discussion purposes.
Co-chair Pearce invited Teresa Sager-Stancliff, Aide to
Senator Mike Miller, sponsor of SB 46, to join members at
the committee table and speak to the changes in the CS for
SB 46.
TERESA SAGER-STANCLIFF, aide to Senator Mike Miller, said
the CS gave several state agencies regulatory authority over
moose farming. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
would be given the authority to promote and develop moose
farming, and regulate it as it does domestic livestock. The
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) would also be
given the authority to regulate moose farming as it does
domestic livestock. That would mean DEC would be authorized
to visit and inspect moose farms for experiments, provide
care and breeding disease prevention, and certify that a
facility would be able to prevent disease transmission from
captive moose to wild moose or other wild animals, and from
captive livestock to other domestic livestock. It would
also give the Department of Fish and Game (DF&G) the
authority to require certain provisions of a moose facility.
DF&G would require a certificate from DEC on disease
prevention and transmission, ear tattooing and an ear tag
for identification. It would require escape-proof and
entry-proof fencing, and notification of birth, sale,
slaughter, escape and death of a captive moose. The
applicant would have to agree to pay for a necropsy when a
captive moose dies to determine the cause of death, and be
required to notify DF&G if a wild animal enters the moose
farming facility within 24-hours of the entry. The facility
would have to register their moose with all three agencies,
DEC, DF&G, and DNR. She said the importation of moose for
moose farming purposes, and raising moose and domestic
livestock on the same facility would be prohibited. She
informed the committee that the two amendments being
proposed were agreed to by Senator Mike Miller, sponsor of
SB 46.
In answer to Senator Kerttula, Ms. Sager-Stancliff said that
the way CSSB 46 was presently written, domestic livestock
and moose would not be allowed in the same facility.
Senator Kerttula advised that brucellosis was a very
dangerous and easily transmitted disease between domestic
and wild animals, and this disease alone made him cautious
about domesticating moose. Ms. Sager Stancliff agreed that
was also a concern of Senator Miller's.
End SFC-93 #32, Side 1
Begin SFC-93 #32, Side 2
DAVE KELLYHOUSE, Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Department of Fish and Game, thanked Senator
Miller for including language that addressed DF&G's concerns
regarding moose farming. He said that a new fiscal note had
not been prepared for CSSB 46. He said that if the
legislature and its constituents believe that the potential
benefits of moose farming are great enough to offset the
concerns and problems foreseen by DF&G, then he recommended
the state proceed cautiously. He offered a conceptual
alternative to CSSB 46 that would provide for a well-funded
pilot project jointly administered by DF&G, DEC and DNR over
the next five years. He suggested five years because in
that time a moose could mature and reproduce, and monitoring
could be done of the operation and procedures could be
developed to safeguard Alaska's wildlife resource. He
proposed that Alaska's wildlife was worth over a $100M in
hunting alone plus hundreds of millions in tourist dollars.
He said that whatever approach the legislature would take
regarding moose farming, DF&G should be given regulatory
authority along with DNR and DEC. He stated that DF&G had
over 20 years experience for captive moose in the state. He
reiterated that the potential for disease transmission to
animals and humans, and the potential for poaching, are real
concerns that must be dealt with if SB 46 was to pass.
Co-chair Pearce questioned DF&G's request for a 5-year pilot
project. She felt that DF&G already had spent 30 years on a
pilot project at the moose research center, and questions
should have been answered there. She said she was tired of
DF&G saying no in a new way.
Senator Kerttula said that money had been funded to visit a
large Scandinavian moose facility. His opinion was that
questions could be answered by investigating existing
facilities. He said his main concerns were biological, and
cost to the state in the enforcement of new regulations for
moose facilities.
In answer to Co-chair Pearce's request, Mr. Kelleyhouse
agreed to have a new fiscal note and position paper from
DF&G ready for the next committee meeting. Senator Kerttula
asked DF&G to speak to his suggestion that information
regarding moose farming was readily available from other
facilities. Mr. Kelleyhouse said that Dr. Chuck Swartz,
senior research biologist at the moose research center, had
contacted all the game farm operations in North America and
also one in the Soviet Union. He said the information Dr.
Swartz had gathered has been the basis of DF&G testimony for
the last two years. He said Dr. Swartz was developing a
manuscript on moose farming, and it should be available
within two weeks.
Mr. Kelleyhouse explained that what he meant by a pilot
program in earlier testimony was that DF&G would work with
private enterprise at a moose facility. Senator Kerttula
asked if DF&G felt that it would take another five years of
research at a facility or does DF&G have enough information
at this time. Mr. Kelleyhouse said he believed that moose
farming would not be commercially viable in Alaska, and
there were other problems too. He said the DF&G research
and information has been collected in other jurisdictions
and situations. If moose farming is going to proceed in
Alaska under Alaskan situations, other questions would have
to be answered such as, availability of feed, transportation
corridors, etc. But he stated that DF&G would be willing to
work with DEC and DNR in that regard.
JANICE ADAIR, Assistant Commissioner, Chief Administrative
Officer, Legislative Contact, Department of Environmental
Conservation, said that DEC did not have any problems with
SB 46. She pointed out that DEC has a meat and poultry
inspection program, and within that program, employs a state
veterinarian, Dr. Bert Gore. She quoted from Dr. Gore's
letter which addresses disease transmission, dated February
25, 1993 (copy on file). She read, "Confined animals have
difficulty transmitting disease to wildlife or other animals
if there is no contact. Disease could only be transmitted
from confined animals to others using a vector or
intermediate host," such as a flea. "To date I am not aware
of any vectors, i.e., flies, ticks, or snails, in Alaska
which have been incriminated in disease transmission in
livestock" with the exception of dogs and cats who "do get
tapeworms from shrews, rabbits and some fleas." She also
said that Dr. Gore, because of research information
available, supported the farming of indigenous species in
Alaska.
Senator Kerttula said that he disagreed with Dr. Gore in his
evaluation of disease transmission. He said a vector did
not have to be involved in disease transmission. He said it
could simply be a dog that went under a fence and had
contact with an animal, or simply an animal that stepped in
infected fecal matter. He warned that it was a dangerous
situation and not to be taken lightly.
Co-chair Pearce asked Cindy Roberts, Special Assistant,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, if she
wished to testify. CINDY ROBERTS answered that the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development was in
support of SB 46, and directed the committee's attention to
a position paper by the Department in their files.
Co-chair Pearce invited Doug Welton to join the committee at
the table. Since Mr. Welton had testified before in support
of SB 46, she asked him to confine his testimony to the
changes to SB 46.
DOUG WELTON, testifying for himself, said that for five
years he had been working on legislation to approve moose
farming. He felt a key to passing SB 46 was defining the
word "surplus." He said that all over Alaska moose were
being killed by cars and the railroad. He felt that if
individuals were allowed to salvage some of the "surplus" or
orphaned moose, and relocated them to a farm, it would
provide an opportunity for tourism and education. He was
grateful that DF&G, for the first time, had offered their
support to private moose enterprise. He felt DF&G had been
studying moose for years. Mr. Welton admitted that moose
had been found to be one of the most uneconomical animals to
raise because of their peculiarities and need for large
tracts of land. He agreed that anyone looking at moose
farming would have to have other financial support. His
idea was to develop a milk, yogurt and cheese market, and
hoped someday, to have a small moose herd to pass on to his
children. He said that raising moose gave him great
pleasure, and he saw advantages to moose farming other than
economical.
In answer to Senator Kelly, Mr. Welton said he would keep
his butchering operation separate from the tourist
attraction. Mr. Welton said he would keep all the cows, but
relocate any that he was unable to financially or physically
care for. He said bulls would be butchered at around 18
months. His experience showed that hand raised moose were
able to be bred at 18 months rather than three years. He
said he would raise some of the moose as pets and some as
livestock.
Co-chair Frank directed attention to amendment #1 for SB 46
which changed the language on page 5, line 18 and 19, that
said "on the same facility" to read "in the same fenced
area." Co-chair Frank then MOVED for adoption of amendment
ADOPTED for incorporation within a Finance Committee
Substitute for SB 46.
Senator Sharp directed attention to amendment #2 for SB 46
on page 3, which said that the moose farm would provide safe
facilities for the veterinarian and the animals when
required inspections were performed. Senator Sharp then
MOVED for adoption of amendment #2. No objection having
been raised, the amendment was ADOPTED for incorporation
within a Finance Committee Substitute for SB 46.
Co-Chair Pearce asked if Senator Miller's intent was to
define the word "surplus." Ms. Sager-Stancliff said that
Senator Miller had considered an amendment addressing orphan
moose. Discussion followed between Senator Kerttula and Ms.
Sager-Stancliff regarding orphan moose, and if orphan moose
could be considered "surplus." Co-chair Pearce announced
that CSSB 46(FIN) would be held in committee and heard again
on Wednesday, March 3, 1993.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|