Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
04/01/2015 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB68 | |
| SB42 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 42 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 68-ANTLERLESS MOOSE SEASONS; CLOSURES
3:30:52 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SB 68 saying she
intends that this is a conversation-starter on creating a
working document.
VIVIAN STIVER, staff to Senator Giessel, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that SB 68 came about to
start a statewide conversation on the responsibilities of the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), the Board of Game
and the local advisory councils (AC) for antlerless moose hunts.
A meeting was held in Fairbanks in December 2013 regarding cow
hunts, because it had become very controversial in that area.
She explained that antlerless hunts are for cows, yearlings and
bulls that don't have antlers, and there have been ongoing
concerns about the use of antlerless hunts, the philosophy and
the science behind this management tool. Antlerless hunts
benefit Alaskans by enhancing public safety and they also allow
Alaskans to put moose meat on their tables.
3:32:53 PM
SENATOR COGHILL joined the committee.
3:33:30 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
MS. STIVER explained that currently when one applies for an
antlerless moose hunt, the hunt can be cancelled after
applications have been taken and fees received. This bill
prohibits the closure of an antlerless moose hunt by a local
advisory council (AC) once the applications and fees have been
accepted, but it would still allow for the commissioner or his
designee to close that hunt for an emergency. She said it is
only a $5 fee to apply for this drawing, but people still are
disenfranchised when a hunt is closed. So, the bill addresses
that while still allowing for the very important ability to
close it for an emergency.
SB 68 also removes the yearly requirement by local advisory
committees and the Board of Game for proof of the antlerless
moose hunts and the approval of yearly elimination of the
resident brown bear tag fee. These approvals were changed to
from annually to every three years at a Board of Game meeting.
SB 68 retains the right of local advisory committees to approve
these hunts but limits this approval to regularly scheduled
board meetings occurring every three years.
3:34:30 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN asked if language on page 3, lines 4-5, means
the season or area may not be closed until the next regular
scheduled Board of Game meeting.
3:34:51 PM
MS. STIVER answered that it means that once the area has been
opened and the applications have been sold for it, it cannot be
closed by the AC until the regular season of the following year.
She checked with the department to see if that biology is
prudent and found that leaving an area open for one year should
not have a big negative impact on an intensive management tool.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked her to elaborate more on the timing.
MS. STIVER answered that ACs will approve a hunt after the first
of the year, but a person can apply for these hunts from
November to December 15. But then the hunt can be cancelled. SB
68 says once the opportunity has been sold, an AC may close the
hunt but not until the following year. That means the following
November/December applications will not be collected and the
hunt will not occur in that unit or subunit.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if a regularly scheduled meeting for that
region would be within the next year.
MS. STIVER replied that the bill proposes having these meetings
with the Board of Game cycle at three-year intervals. So, they
would approve hunts on a three-year basis.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for examples of times when an AC had
closed an antlerless moose hunt and the reasons for it.
MS. STIVER said she couldn't give him an example, but folks on-
line could answer that question.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked what problem SB 68 is trying to fix.
MS. STIVER answered that the first part of the sponsor statement
talks about philosophy, especially about killing cows, but it is
one of the options under intensive management to keep the
biology at the best it can be.
3:38:33 PM
MIKE TINKER, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association, Ester,
Alaska, said the Interior had been involved in these issues for
a long time, and provided a brief history of changes to AS
16.05.780, the one title that prohibits taking of antlerless
moose. He said antlerless moose are only hunted by residents,
only hunted for meat, are used in most of Alaska's youth hunts
and are subject to either registration or drawing permits.
MR. TINKER explained said if the Board of Game changed to
authorizing antlerless moose hunts in cycle (every three years)
rather than annually, both time and energy would be saved.
Changing "chairmen" of the advisory committees to "chair" in AS
05.260 is not a problem, but additional language that was added
during drafting can change the intent of making things easier
for the board. New subsection (c) about fees is a totally
separate issue. If the legislature wants to take up the issue of
what happens to permits and/or permit fees when hunts are
cancelled, the field is much larger than for just antlerless
moose hunts. Such language should be considered elsewhere so
that it would encompass all permit hunts.
3:41:12 PM
MR. TINKER said the sponsor statement indicates that there are
always concerns around antlerless hunts not being good for
overall health of moose populations as evidenced by 1970 trials
on antlerless hunts. Those examples begot AS 16.05.780 in the
first place, and they made the local ACs key in the process of
antlerless moose hunting.
As Senator Giessel pointed out, he said there are multiple
benefits to Alaskan resident hunters when antlerless moose hunts
are planned and carried out successfully. Most important to the
big picture of healthy moose populations is use of this tool to
help balance the composition of the moose herd and bring the
total population for a unit or subunit down to the objective
population. Those population objectives are set by the board.
Antlerless moose hunts can be for a small number of moose like
nuisance moose or a large number because habitat can't provide
sufficient nutrition (an example that started the larger hunts
in Unit 20(a) in the Fairbanks area). The population objectives
set in regulation take all those things into consideration.
After a decade or more of careful management, Mr. Tinker said,
antlerless moose hunts are still not popular in some areas, and
the ACs work through some very contentious meetings to make the
recommendations and decisions that are needed.
3:43:15 PM
As an AC member, Mr. Tinker reviewed how the authorizing process
works. The department, through its regional staff, makes an
annual population and composition (number and percentage of
various sects and age classes) estimate. In intensive management
units, the biologists determine that the population is within
the objective range. They bring that information to the affected
ACs for discussion. If the analysis shows that the population is
above the objective and that the annual recruitment (number of
calves added to the population) is affecting the trend upward,
the department may recommend hunting some antlerless moose. He
explained that not all antlerless moose are females; late fall
and winter hunts include bulls that have shed their antlers
under the definition of "legally antlerless."
MR. TINKER said that commonly the department and ACs agree on
where and how many antlerless permits can be given. There is
often a huge amount of public participation in this decision.
The ACs then vote to approve the antlerless component of next
years' hunt in some form, and if they vote to approve, the ACs
and the department bring the proposal the hunt to the board for
final approval. This procedure keeps local hunters in the loop.
This annual review between the department and ACs will somewhat
continue no matter what is done to AS 16.05.780, and that is
because the same information is needed to inform the public on
what to expect in the next season. Even in uncomplicated hunting
situations, the public wants to know about the potential for
season changes, number of all kinds of moose permits, and other
changes to the annual hunt.
3:45:29 PM
ACs should never be taken out of the delegation to be able to
make emergency closures, Mr. Tinker stated. Draft language in AS
68.05.260 to exempt that authority is ill advised in his opinion
and totally unnecessary. The public needs to be kept as closely
involved in these decisions as possible.
MR. TINKER also said that the zero fiscal note from the
administration for SB 68 wasn't considered in enough detail. He
used the February 13-20 Wasilla Board of Game meeting as an
example of taking up these out of cycle antlerless
reauthorizations. The meeting was for Central and Southwest
Regions that has two reauthorizations; then there were five from
other regions not on the agenda. Those five required staff
support, travel, per diem, and at least a full day of the
board's time. (Board members are paid a stipend equal to a Range
20 state pay grade.) The ACs stayed longer than usual or came
extra to support the decisions. At just that one meeting, maybe
more than $15,000 was spent. That money could have been used for
AC communications or even an extra meeting, as some ACs only get
to meet once a year to go over hundreds of proposals.
MR. TINKER advocated for changing only the board's requirement
to take up the reauthorizations annually and leave the
department and AC functions alone.
He said last minute closures after the application process are
always based on biological considerations. The most common one
is that the moose census information is not available until
after the application period. Therefore, recommendations are
made to the board with the idea that the department will fill in
some number of permits when that information is needed. The
legislature should keep in mind accommodations for that late
information, seasonal weather affects and other issues - easy
access because of early freeze up, for example - and not limit
the ACs on when they can discuss the emergency concepts with the
department. The Board of Game doesn't need to get involved in
the emergency process, but it would be nice to keep the public
and department in the various regions talking about it.
3:48:53 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the department uses credible population
count methodology for counting moose.
MR. TINKER answered that the department uses several methods to
estimate the population of moose. The Interior commonly uses
areas that are divided into "UCU" units, which may only have 10
square miles in them, but other areas are much larger. A certain
percentage of the area is counted every year and is analyzed
based on consideration of how many units would be similar to
those counted. That data is compiled into a population estimate
and the probability of that estimate is very similar to the
calculus of how many units are counted. For example, if there
are 200 units and 30 get counted, that is a lower probability
estimate. If 110 units get counted, that is a high probability
estimate, and the population objective given to the ACs as a
range will always reflect that.
He explained that other methods are not as accurate as the area
by area counting and the probability range is bigger. So,
instead of having a range of 2,000 moose, there might be 5,000.
That can be a big consideration in composition counting of
bulls, cows and yearlings, because the numbers aren't exact. In
contrast, the department uses a "hotspot" counting method (GMU
13) where it counts the same few areas every year. As long as
the moose don't move around a lot, that is probably good enough,
but if the moose population starts expanding out or contracting
in, the probability range would be down.
SENATOR COGHILL commented that he learned that an early freeze
impacts access to certain populations so that count can be
dropped significantly.
3:52:53 PM
AL BARRETTE, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, said the
original problem was going from an annual reauthorization to a
three-year cycle (every region meets every three years). So,
instead of having to go through 18 reauthorizations of
antlerless moose annually, it would be more feasible to do it on
a regional basis on their scheduled three-year cycles.
He liked the bill, but the question was raised about conflicting
language on page 3, lines 2-5, that says an area may not be
closed until a regular scheduled meeting. What if something
happens with the population before the next meeting? The
commissioner can already close it by emergency order (EO). So,
there would be competing statutes.
3:55:39 PM
Also, language in sections 7-12 on page 3 appears to be taking
away the AC's jurisdiction to use EO authority. Language on page
2, line 6, should say the commissioner "may" delegate authority
to ACs for emergency closures instead of "shall." That would
match current Advisory Committee emergency closure regulation in
5 AAC 97.110. He added that no EOs have been initiated by ACs to
date.
3:57:01 PM
MR. BARRETTE said he didn't disagree with the tag fees in the
bill, but felt a clarification was needed. For example, this
year there were stranded musk ox on free floating ice on Nunivak
Island, and language on page 2, line 18, is written to say that
a musk ox floating on ice tag costs $500. However, the Board of
Game currently may, by regulation, reduce or eliminate the
resident big game tag fee for musk ox for all or a portion of a
game management unit. In his example of Nunivak Island one hunt
can be registered for and the fee has been reduced to $25, but
then a drawing hunting costs the winners $500. His point is that
Nunivak Island is a portion of Unit 18, yet there are two
different regimes for tag fees, and the statute doesn't seem to
justify the board being able to do that.
3:58:39 PM
DOUG VINCENT LANG, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
supported SB 68. He said he was a former director of the
Division of Wildlife Conservation within the ADF&G, but today he
is testifying as a private citizen. He recognized that
antlerless moose hunts have been controversial for many years.
The controversies center on whether hunters should be allowed to
harvest cow moose. Some believe philosophically that doing that
is wrong, while others believe it is biologically flawed,
because it removes the breeding stock. But many other hunters
believe that these hunts provide important hunting opportunities
for the surplus moose to be had.
Biologists believe the tool is necessary to ensure that moose
populations are properly managed for sustained yield and without
it preventing populations from exceeding their carrying capacity
is very difficult. If the carrying capacity is exceeded the
entire moose population can crash. In those cases, the very
moose you are trying to protect by not allowing cow moose hunts
are being sacrificed due to starvation.
MR. LANG said it may also be necessary to manage moose for
public safety or social concerns in many urban areas such as
Anchorage, and wildlife managers do allow female harvest in many
hunts across the state. To address public concerns regarding
these hunts, the Alaska legislature passed a law that allowed
local ACs to effectively veto them annually. While this sounds
good on the surface, it has created problems. Local ACs have
closed antlerless hunts after they have been approved by the BOG
and scheduled by the ADF&G. This has resulted in these hunts
being noticed in the annual drawing hunt pamphlet and hunters
putting in for them. If they are fortunate enough to be drawn,
they are often kicked out of other hunts because of the permit
limits. If these hunts are later canceled, the hunters cannot be
compensated for their loss as it is impossible for the
department to redraw. This is unfair to the hunters who are
often unaware that the approved hunts can be canceled up to
weeks before the hunts occur or the impact a canceled hunt can
have on their other moose hunt opportunities.
He said this bill aims to find a better compromise between
assuring local ACs have a voice in these hunts while minimizing
the impact to hunters. It allows a majority of local ACs to veto
these hunts at regularly scheduled board meetings for the area,
but prevents them from deleting them in other years. This
preserves their input, but lessens the impact vetoes can have on
unsuspecting hunters putting in for drawing permits. This
occurred this past year when a majority of local ACs failed to
provide the proposed antlerless moose hunts in Kincaid Park in
Anchorage. This veto resulted in the board not being able to
consider this proposal. However, if they had approved the
proposals, the ACs would have been prohibited under this
legislation from vetoing those hunts over the next three years
until the next regularly scheduled board meeting.
4:02:30 PM
Finally, he mentioned a graph that shows how one cow moose can
produce hundreds of moose, and while this is theoretically
possible, it's not realistic. These moose can only reproduce
when conditions are ideal including habitat. If moose exceed
their carrying capacity, the population can crash, killing the
very cows they try to save, through starvation. He supports
putting these moose in peoples' freezers rather than having them
die through starvation.
4:03:28 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked him for speaking to the committee and
opened public testimony.
STEVE VANEK, representing himself, Ninilchik, Alaska, said he
had been a secretary of the Central Peninsula Advisory Committee
in Ninilchik for 40 years. He supported SB 68, except he thought
the ACs should be involved annually to be able to close a cow
season and closures can only pertain to the next season. If
people already have their permits, they should be allowed to
hunt, he said.
4:04:47 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the committee.
CHAIR GIESSEL, finding no further comments, left public
testimony open and held SB 68 in committee.