Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
02/18/2008 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB253 | |
| HB165 | |
| SB176 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 165 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | SB 253 | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 176-ACTIVE GAME MANAGEMENT/AIRBORNE SHOOTING
CHAIR HUGGINS announced the consideration of SB 176.
4:30:45 PM
DOUG LARSON, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, said he was present for questions
on SB 176.
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Department of
Law, said he has been assigned to the Board of Game since 1992.
The bill was produced to keep a commitment to a number of
interested legislators back in the Murkowski administration to
harmonize the existing intensive management law and same-day
airborne law. The two laws are contradictory. It has been
suggested that the bill is an attempt to circumvent current
litigation, and that is not true. The bill predated the current
litigation, but the ongoing legal challenges since 2003 have
highlighted the weakness in these two statutes, and how
difficult it is for game managers to follow both laws. This is
the first comprehensive effort submitted to the legislature from
the people who have to obey these two statutory mandates.
4:33:11 PM
MR. SAXBY said Sections 1 and 2 don't make any substantive
changes. Sections 3 to 5 are substantive. They rewrite the
intensive management law. "We are simplifying what is currently
a relatively complex and circuitous process down to its bare
essentials - down to essentially three steps."
He said the first step is that the board must identify the game
populations to be managed intensively and set harvest and
population objectives. The second is to meet those objectives at
all times, and to continue to manage it intensively for
abundance. The third step is if the objectives are not being
met, the board must take positive action, including active
management if it becomes necessary.
Section 3 sets up the obligation to identify the deer, caribou,
and moose populations that are important to manage for a high
level of human use. It requires the board to set the objectives.
This is already required under existing law, but this bill was
"putting it front and center." He expects that the
identifications that the board has already made over the years
would be ratified if this bill passes.
He said that Section 4 requires the department to manage for
abundance, and if objectives are not being met, the board must
take action.
4:35:46 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that Sections (e), (f) and (j) were
deleted and asked if that was changed a couple of years ago.
MR. SAXBY replied that the original versions of (e), (f) and (j)
were adapted in 1994/95 and amended in 1998. What they are
looking at is the 1998 version.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said the current law talks about the Board
of Game adopting regulations to provide for intensive management
programs and sets out three scientific principles and asked in
what situations those scientific principles would not be
utilized.
4:37:11 PM
MR. SAXBY replied that Senator Wielechowski over-simplified a
little bit. Sections (e) and (f) have two separate triggers
under existing law for intensive management; the first trigger
is if the game population is depleted.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he understood that and asked what is
wrong with the current statute that lays out three things the
board has to look at relying on science. What's wrong with the
current principles that we have?
MR. SAXBY replied that those goals are not scientific principles
- science is only one of the criteria under (f). It also has
whether it would be detrimental to subsistence uses.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said you are taking that out.
MR. SAXBY said this mandates intensive management unless one of
those three criteria are met. Those aren't standards to be met
to allow intensive management; those are the only grounds under
which you can avoid intensive management.
4:38:35 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked why Alaska wouldn't want a program
that is achievable as in current statute. Why get rid of that
provision?
MR. SAXBY replied they don't want a check list, because every
time you create a checklist, "you create an opportunity for
people to argue that you haven't jumped through proper hoops."
The simplification language simply says that the board has to
take whatever action it deems appropriate, and there is no
scientific standard in the existing law; it's just a checklist.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked him for an example of when they would
not want feasibly achievable utilizing recognized and prudent
management techniques. Give an example.
MR. SAXBY said, "You're not quite reading it right."
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he is reading exactly from the
statute.
MR. SAXBY said the statute requires adopting intensive
management unless it is not scientifically achievable. It is
very difficult to prove something is not scientifically
achievable; so that obligates mandatory intensive management in
virtually every situation. They are actually reducing that
standard, but not the scientific standard. That standard doesn't
say: you may do it if it's scientifically achievable; it says:
you must do it unless it's not scientifically achievable.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he would rephrase the question.
Section 3 deletes from the intensive management statute the
provision that intensive management programs apply only to
depleted moose and caribou populations or those with low
productivity. He asked, "Why would you want to apply intensive
management programs, like predator control, to populations that
are not depleted or those with high productivity?"
4:40:56 PM
MR. SAXBY replied, "Because if it's a population that's
important to manage for high levels of human harvest, it is
always important to do so." A good example would be Unit 20a
moose; those moose are not depleted, but they are over their
objectives. But it is necessary to reduce the population in
order to avoid overgrazing the range. Even though it isn't
depleted it is still important to management it intensively or
actively.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said Section 3 also deletes the provision
that intensive management programs must be feasibly achievable
utilizing recognized and prudent active management techniques
and asked why that is taken out.
4:41:46 PM
MR. SAXBY answered, "We're not removing any... all we're doing
is simplifying it down to its bare essentials. And that's only
one of the two triggers." The trigger if it's depletion is in
Section (e); Section (f) has another trigger which is when the
board acts to significantly reduce the taking of the species -
then it is obligated to undertake intensive management as well.
There is no requirement in that case for it to be scientifically
achievable. The two are being meshed into a single trigger -
that being if objectives aren't being met, then the board has to
take action.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it would be possible under these
changes, that there would be an imprudent active management
technique. In other words, current law requires that it be
feasibly achievable and utilizing recognized and prudent active
management techniques. Would it be a violation of this proposed
language to use imprudent or unrecognized active management
techniques.
4:43:17 PM
MR. SAXBY replied "I don't think so."
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if they would then be giving the
board unfettered discretion to do imprudent active management
techniques.
MR. SAXBY replied that he didn't think the board has ever used
its discretion to do that.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that they were giving the board
unfettered discretion.
MR. SAXBY responded that this law gives the board more
discretion, but not in the area that Senator Wielechowski was
positing. They are getting more discretion to take a broader
approach to active management rather than being forced into it
every time they reduce a season or a bag limit. "Now they won't
be forced into it." They will be able to look at a broader range
of activities. That is the whole underlying intent here.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said as he reads this, the board will be
able to do anything it wants, even if it is not scientifically
based.
MR. SAXBY replied that they should understand that the board
already had all that authority to do intensive management. The
law was adopted to force the board to do it in specific
instances because it hadn't been active enough. The broad's
authority to conduct intensive management in any situation where
it thinks it's warranted. The standards are being changed for
when the board is absolutely obligated to do it.
4:45:22 PM
SENATOR GREEN said she thought they were overlooking the broad
authority of the Board of Game and what it is charged to do
overall. "You would not repeat that you will act sensibly,
reasonably, prudent, good management, good biological material
in each and every chapter. That's the overriding principle of
what they do." That is why the members are reviewed,
interviewed, voted upon and then can be removed.
CHAIR HUGGINS said that is an excellent point.
4:46:02 PM
MR. SAXBY added that the board does a number of very
controversial things like adopt Tier 2 hunts when there is not a
harvestable surplus to provide for all subsistence uses. None of
those other statutes have a check list like the intensive
management law. "Apparently the legislature trusts the board to
make very controversial decisions in other situations about
this."
4:46:38 PM
SENATOR GREEN asked on page 2, line 20, Section 4, about
populations not meeting established objectives and the board
shall adopt regulations. She asked if the adoption is delayed
until after the disaster occurs, so that it can be tailored to
that particular hunt area versus a statewide policy on
identifying low objectives on meeting the guidelines and
population figures.
4:47:19 PM
MR. SAXBY replied each set of regulations will be tailored. The
very first step is to identify the specific populations that
this law requires intensive management of. That is only a subset
of moose and caribou populations. The board has only identified
half of the moose deer and caribou populations in the state as
being important to manage for high levels of use. Do the
objectives are set for each of those populations and if those
are not being met (either over or below), you would be required
to take steps under this bill.
He said:
For the first time we're applying the mandate
throughout the lifespan or the lifecycle of the herd
in question. In other words, it isn't just when it is
depleted that you act to meet your objectives. It's
also when it's overpopulated that you have to meet
your objectives. If it is important to manage it for
high levels of human use, it is always important to
manage it for high levels of human use.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI referred to deleting section (f) which says
"this subsection does not apply if the board determines that
intensive management would be ineffective based on scientific
information, inappropriate due to land ownership patterns, or
against the best interests of subsistence uses." He asked if
they aren't giving the Board of Game unfettered discretion to
create an intensive management program that is ineffective based
on scientific information, or inappropriate or against
subsistence uses.
MR. SAXBY replied that the board is being given the discretion
to find that it isn't appropriate for more than those three
listed reasons. He reminded them that the intensive management
law requires intensive management unless one of those three
conditions is met. By taking those conditions out, the board is
required to do something, but it isn't necessarily required to,
for example, adopt a wolf control program unless it can find one
of those three conditions is met. Instead it has more discretion
to decide when or what action is appropriate. It isn't limited
to only three reasons to avoid intensive management.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said the constitution requires that
wildlife be managed on the sustained yield principle. The
legislature is the body that has the constitutional obligation
to oversee the management of Alaska's wildlife. This turns all
of that responsibility over to a board saying go ahead and do
what you want. It doesn't have to be based on science, or the
best interest of subsistence uses. It can be based on
inappropriate use of land ownership patterns. What concerned him
is that it is a drastic change to give the board unfettered
discretion and going away from scientific principles. There is
no accountability. He asked if any other board has that same
discretion.
4:51:01 PM
MR. SAXBY replied that the board already has the discretion he
is talking about. The intensive management law does not limit
the board's ability to conduct intensive management. It only
limits the occasions when it is required to do intensive
management. The board has the authority under general
authorities to adopt laws that include predator control, for
example (before Sections (e),(f), (g) and (j). The Board of
Fisheries has the same broad authority.
MR. SAXBY said the intensive management law is not a grant of
authority and this bill isn't a grant of authority either. That
authority exists elsewhere in statutes. The underlying
assumption of this bill is that the legislature still intends to
require the board in certain circumstances to adopt intensive
management programs. That being the case, they are trying to
meet that requirement and make it a more defensible requirement.
"This is not an additional grant of authority."
MR. SAXBY said Section 5 reduces the definitions to just two. It
eliminates the problematic ones. There was problematic
"harvestable surplus" and "sustained yield" definitions. Both of
which were contradictory with current governing principle of
game management or with existing case law. The term "intensive
management" is being changed to "active management", because
active management is generally viewed by game managers as a
broader term encompassing more than predator control or habitat
manipulation. The current definition has "intensive management"
defined as active management anyway, so the middle term is just
being cut out.
They are retaining the definition of "providing for a high level
of human harvest," because that is the core of the mandate.
Sections 6 and 7 are just conforming changes, but Sections 8 -10
are the same-day airborne law.
4:54:05 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if under Section 4 the board will be
required to make written findings justifying its decisions.
MR. SAXBY answered when the board adopts a predator control
implementation plan, it adopts written findings; but if it sets
objectives under Section 3, those go into regulations, so they
are in writing, too. When the board identifies populations those
go into regulations, so those are in writing.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if those determinations in Sections 3
and 4 would be required to be based findings must be based on
science.
MR. SAXBY replied that it will be required to base those on the
total record before it, just like all other decisions. Every
time a proposal comes before the board, the department presents
the best available data and the best available science that it
has. Members of the public testify and opposition groups
testify. The board is required to consider all of that
information under the Administrative Procedures Act and then
make a reasoned decision based on all of that information. That
requirement won't change.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if they will be required to use
science.
4:55:34 PM
Mr. Saxby said they will be required to use whatever information
comes to them. They need to use all.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that Section 5 defines providing for
high level of human harvest by hunter demand and asked if that
includes hunter demand from outside hunters or just residents or
both.
MR. SAXBY replied that it includes all hunter demand as is
required under existing law.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said if you get 12,000 requests for the
Nelchina herd which is obviously more demand than supply, does
that mean you eliminate all the predators.
MR. SAXBY answered no, because of carrying capacity and a great
many other factors matter as well the board has to set both
population and harvest objectives. The definition just lists the
factors that the board needs to consider when doing that. It
doesn't mean that hunter demand is the only controlling factor.
Biological capabilities of the herd and habitat and historic
hunter demand are important, too.
4:56:53 PM
MR. SAXBY said Section 8 takes the existing same-day airborne
law and for the first time meshes it with the intensive
management law. As historically worded, they have been at cross
purposes. It adds brown bears to the class of protected animals.
Currently there is no prohibition against hunting brown bears
the same day as airborne. They have been added to that
prohibition because they are slow breeders and deserving of that
protection. Wolverines and brown bears are added into the
exceptions if it is necessary.
MR. SAXBY explained, "I guess our thinking has been that the
essence of the same-day airborne law has always been a general
prohibition on same-day airborne hunting, coupled with an
exception for predator control when necessary." The standards
have varied over the years. The exception for when it is
necessary to mesh with the intensive management law is being
changed. So if the board determines that its objectives aren't
being met and active management is necessary, it may then adopt
a predator control program. The other exception is if it is
conducive to the health of a predator population, for instance,
the lice infestations in moose.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he said this law will protect
brown bears.
MR. SAXBY replied yes, for the first time.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if a person can aerial shoot brown
bears now.
MR. SAXBY answered no, because there is a regulation that
forbids it, but it is not in statute.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said you can't aerial-shoot brown bears now
and asked if you could under the proposal.
MR. SAXBY replied only in the case of a predator control
program.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said let's be realistic with the public.
You are not protecting brown bears with this. You're
putting it in statute that they are protected and then
in another section you're saying you can go out and
aerial shoot them. Let's be up front with the public
about what we're doing here.
5:00:06 PM
MR. SAXBY differed saying there is no statutory prohibition
against taking brown bears from the air for any reason.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said there are regulations against it, and
he was attempting to override those with a statute by allowing
them to be shot in another section. "That's not protecting brown
bears, Mr. Saxby."
MR. SAXBY responded that regulation currently allows brown bears
to be taken from the area in a predator control program. So, the
general prohibition is in regulation as well as the exception.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked him to continue with his testimony.
MR. SAXBY stated that Section 9 adds another exception and
explained that the general prohibition doesn't apply to a
department employee in taking wolves, wolverines or brown bears.
It includes taking nuisance wildlife and to protect public
safety. A public employee flying out to kill an animal would be
illegal. Section 10 makes it clear that dart guns are not
included. The remaining sections are transition dates.
5:01:54 PM
WADE WILLIS, representing himself, said he is amazed that the
Department of Law thinks this will help the Board of Game
institute predator control programs. "That's just a stunning
twist and an obvious smoke screen." Meshing regulations into a
single trigger reduces game management to the opinions of the
members of the Board of Game; they would need science or proof
to verify predator control is needed.
The department, for the first time, will be allowed to kill
bears for the first time. Arial shooting of bears has never been
in the law or available to the Board of Game. This issue is the
most highly contentious issue in Alaska where it has been voted
on three times. He said 57,000 people signed the last
initiative. Further he said, the Board of Game represents 15
percent of Alaska residents, 85 percent of which do not hunt.
Not one representative on the Board of Game is from that 85
percent that doesn't hunt.
MR. WILLIS accused, "You are giving unfettered access to this
contentious issue to a special interest group, the hunters.) You
cannot protect the wildlife of this state or manage it in that
way. This bill is not a simplification of the regulations, but
an attempt to remove all the essential elements of the public,
the courts and scientific community's ability to require that
intensive management techniques, especially aerial predator
control are carefully supported by scientific data and the
public.
5:05:06 PM
VIC VANBALLENBERGHE, Wildlife Biologist, Anchorage, said he is a
former three-term Board of Game member and that he strongly
disagreed with the notion that SB 176 is an improvement to
current intensive management and the same-day air-borne hunting
statutes. The guidelines that would be deleted by this bill were
placed in statute by previous legislators after a good deal of
input from biologists, DOL, and interested parties. This bill
deletes those in one fell swoop. Those guidelines have been
characterized as a checklist to guide the board in adopting
intensive management programs.
He suggested if they are going to amend existing statute, the
state should add to the checklist, not delete it or subtract
from it. It is not as if the board has been restrained in
adopting intensive management programs by those guidelines. He
said the state already has five active programs to reduce bears
and wolves to increase prey.
MR. VANBALLENBERGHE said the most objectionable thing he finds
is SB 176 is the provision in Section 8 that modifies the
airborne shooting act such that the board would no longer need
information from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. It is
important language and should be restored. He added, "Of course
we would want to document that reducing predation would solve
the problem."
5:08:29 PM
ANDREA VEACH, representing herself, said Alaskans have twice
voted in 1996 and 2000 against aerial shooting of wolves by the
public. The voters have been disregarded by the legislature and
the board. Native subsistence hunters did not traditionally
depend on aerial elimination of their competition to gain an
advantage and she asked why they think that is necessary now. If
anything has changed, it's that there are more hunters expecting
more than the land can provide.
MS. VEACH said historically the predator most dangerous to the
environment in the balance of nature is man, and we need to be
managed. The human population is now 6.5 billion; wolves and
bears can be counted in the thousands. Where will the wolves go
when the human population reaches 9.3 billion, she asked and
said "This is our challenge and that should be our priority."
Most of the world has decimated their wildlife and it is now
time to accommodate it. The Board of Game sees the animals as
something to kill and consume and the state needs a Board of
Wildlife to mitigate that single narrow view. In Denali, seeing
human visitors appreciating this smallest opportunity to see
animals.
5:11:33 PM
MS. VEACH concluded that SB 176 could be called appeasing
outside hunters.
5:12:08 PM
PAUL JOSLIN, retired Wildlife Biologist, Anchorage, said he
strongly opposes SB 176, because it would make legal the same-
day shooting of wolves, bears, and wolverines on a whim. Looking
at ADF&G information would no longer be required and department
employees wouldn't be able to adhere to a management plan.
Airborne shooting is highly controversial, so common sense would
be to make sure you have a solid case before you do it. This
bill will do the opposite. It will allow the Board of Game to
engage in predator control with only flimsy justification, and
the key words are "conducive to achieving the objectives."
Reasonable certainty is not needed, just a mere hunch.
VAL GLOOSCHECNKO, Biologist, federal agency, said she is on her
own time and backs up previous testimony in opposition to SB
176. The changes proposed are not housekeeping items; they are
drastic. It would open the door to increase killing wolves,
wolverines and bears statewide without necessity or science.
This is outside the pale of any wildlife management principles.
5:15:48 PM
MS. GLOOSCHECNKO said the Wildlife Society met recent and had
several presentations unanimously against this. She concluded
that this bill is not scientifically defensible. Wildlife
belongs to all Alaskans.
JERRY McCUTCHEON said he has watched this "stuff" for 60 years.
Gone are the days of bands of sheep and herds of caribou roaming
the foothills of Mt. McKinley - sheep so numerous and thick they
would not move out of the way of oncoming dog teams of the
trappers and miners. Sheep in front of the dogs would jump up on
the backs of other sheep and fill back in as the dogs passed.
Imagine a dog team totally surrounded by sheep. It was
spectacular, but he never got to see it. No one else will.
Every time he met up with Carl Logsfeld, who was a dog team
driver and later a miner, in a bar, he would insist on telling
him the trail on which the dog races were held was not the real
Iditarod. The real one went through McKinley Park. The Park
Service took man out of the hunting and trapping equation and
wolves slowly destroyed those great bands of sheep and herds of
caribou to the point that there is little or nothing left. The
wolves then resorted to killing and eating each other or left
the park to go where there was still game. Because the state
killed wolves from airplanes, there were more wolves and more
game when the wolves were aerially hunted. He is a firm believer
in aerial wolf hunting and "none of this land-and-shoot crap."
MR. McCUTCHEON said, "It's not about fair chase; it's about
predator control. No wolf hunting or bear hunting by ADF&G. Just
raise the bounty until the state has an active community of
aerial hunters."
5:19:21 PM
JOHN TOPPENBERG, Alaska Wildlife Alliance, Soldotna, said he
wanted to address one aspect of this bill, the application of
any requirement that biological science be a part of the
decision-making process. He disagreed with Mr. Saxby's
interpretation and characterizations saying the Board of Game
often gives minimal deference to available science. It has
implemented programs that have caused mainstream scientists
serious concern. The research data compiled by ADF&G is
available to any interested scientist. Scientific organizations
opposed to the existing programs include the National Research
Council and the American Society of Mammalogists; others
scientists are against these extreme programs as well.
MR. TOPPENBERG said this bill would not only eliminate the need
to consider the inadequate scientific standards the board must
now give passing consideration to, but it would also eliminate
any requirement that predators are the cause of the decline or
low prey numbers. This regressive legislation should be opposed
by anyone supporting moderate scientific wildlife management
concepts and that recognize that healthy populations of both
predator and prey are necessary for healthy ecosystems.
5:20:56 PM
JOEL BENNETT, former Board of Game member for over 12 years,
Juneau, said he has been an active licensed hunter for the 39
years he has lived in Alaska. He was the organizer and sponsor
of each of the initiatives in 1996 and 2000 and he is presently
co-sponsoring the third ballot initiative on the same subject
that has been certified for a vote next August.
MR. BENNETT said he wanted to focus on what he considers the
guts of the bill in Section 8. It makes large scale changes and
the current airborne hunting laws the state has been operating
with. He was very surprised that Mr. Saxby didn't describe what
was being deleted from that statute, and that is the whole key.
He said the plan has to be based on information provided by the
ADF&G and has to tie in a causal way predation either by wolves
or bears as an important reason the objectives aren't achieved.
If they don't know that wolves or bears are causing the problem,
why would they be shooting them? Maybe habitat is the problem,
not bears or wolves.
His initiative has 57,000 signatures and the common thread is
that the board needs some kind of minimal standard so that the
department bases its predation control, especially through
airborne methods, on bona-fide serious biological problems. The
initiative uses the same language that passed in 1996 by almost
60 percent of Alaskans. It also says it has to be based on
adequate scientific data, a key element. It also says it has to
be conducted by department personnel, because that is the most
responsible humane and efficient way to do these programs. They
also say it should be confined to the smallest geographic area
as possible. "We think that's what the public really would
support and go along with in terms of predator control."
MR. BENNETT said this bill actually takes that standard and
modifies to the point that there is no standard at all.
5:24:48 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI directed his question to the Department of
law and asked if it's the administration perspective that if
Section 8 or any part of this bill passes that it will have an
impact on the ballot initiate.
MR. SAXBY replied the administration wants this bill to stand or
fall on its own merit whether it impacts the ballot initiative
or not.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked if the governor supports these changes.
MR. LARSON replied yes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the constitutional provision on
sustained yield applies to predators.
MR. LARSON answered yes.
5:26:35 PM
SENATOR WAGONER said he has been told that black bears kill more
new born moose calves on the Kenai Peninsula than any other
predator and the second highest predators are feral dogs. He
didn't think the bill went far enough in listing the predators
that are really to blame for the decrease in the moose
population.
MR. LARSON responded the current law as well as the proposal
allows black bears to fall within those species that could be
managed by predator control activities.
5:27:54 PM
MR. LARSON also noted that the effective date of July 2007
should say July 2008.
CHAIR HUGGINS announced conceptual Amendment 1 that corrected
the effective date on page 5, line 25. There were no objections
and it so ordered.
SENATOR STEDMAN moved to report CSSB 176(RES) from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
There being no objection, CSSB 176(RES) was moved out of the
Senate Resources Standing Committee.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he wanted to hear more about removing
the scientific aspects of this issue in the next committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|