Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/14/2004 03:30 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 297-BEAR HUNTING/DISPOSAL OF HIDE/SKULL
CHAIR SCOTT OGAN announced SB 297 to be up for consideration and
that they had adopted SSSB 297, version W, at the last meeting.
MR. MATT ROBUS, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
said:
We believe the sponsor substitute made some important
improvements to the original bill. Foremost of these
is the change in approach from an expansion of hunting
methods to the establishment of a bear predation
management program. We think that's an important
distinction to make. This avoids some of the ethical
issues involved in the original bill which you heard
about at previous hearings and it preserves hunting as
a fair chase activity, which the department feels is
very important.
The sponsor substitute limits the use of ordinary
additional methods for taking bears to specific
situations where the Board of Game has found that a
bear population needs to be reduced. The sponsor
substitute language would now serve as an umbrella
statute to the bear management policy in associated
regs that were recently adopted by the Board of Game
and do it in a way that is analogous to the structure
of wolf predation management laws that we already
have. The result of this would be to allow both wolf
and bear predation issues to be addressed together in
predation control plans formulated by the Board of
Game.
The Board of Game and department have agreed for quite
a while that the first step in reducing bear numbers
when necessary should be through liberalized hunting
regulations. Often, such attempts have been less
effective than hoped because liberalized hunting rules
did not result in higher hunter effort even though we
had more liberal bag limits and seasons. If you don't
have more hunters in the field, it really doesn't
result in any more bears being taken.
Allowing non-residents to hunt brown and grizzly bears
without a guide and treating first-year military
personnel as residents are innovative approaches to
increasing hunter effort in areas where we need to
have more bears taken. At the last meeting of this
committee, some members questioned why first year
military personnel were included in the exemption for
having a guide for taking brown bear and grizzly bear.
Concerns are expressed that this might provide an
opportunity to challenge the guide requirement based
on safety issues. When this concept was first
discussed, we in the department suggested that
allowing first-year military residents to hunt without
a guide would be something to look at because we
thought it would likely provide the increase in the
number of hunters that we were looking for to increase
the harvest in the game management unit (GMU) 13 while
having a minimal impact on the guiding industry
through legal challenges. We would require all first-
year military personnel obtaining a permit to attend a
training course where we would emphasize safety and we
thought that would reduce the exposure to the safety
argument. This could be done rather easily because the
military population is a closed group of people that
we would have relatively easy access to. Since the
bill has been expanded now to allow other non-resident
hunters to qualify for permits, it would probably not
be necessary to deal with military people separately.
However, whatever the permittee pool ends up being, we
will consider requiring some level of training as a
permit condition. I think this could provide some
protection in case the statute is challenged along
safety lines.
MR. ROBUS said he had some suggested changes. First changing the
phrase "control of black and brown or grizzly bear" to something
like "bear predation management" in the title and elsewhere in
the statute. He thought it best to eliminate the connotation
that the state is trying to eradicate bears. "We're trying to
have a predation management tool when bears become part of the
predation equation that needs to be addressed."
Secondly, since the Legislature would be making a distinction
between hunting bears and taking them as a predation management
measure, he thought it appropriate to not require non-residents
to obtain a standard non-resident brown bear tag, because it's
hunting related. He did agree with charging some sort of
management or permit fee of about $500 rather than $50 - because
of the importance of funding the division's management programs.
Even with the $500 fee, this program would be the only
time in North America that a person could hunt a brown
or grizzly bear, with very limited exceptions, without
engaging the services of a guide, which costs from
$5,000 up to $8,000 for a hunt. The limited exception
would be the second degree of kindred possibility that
is presently in state regulation.
The department believes that the main purpose of the
statute should be to establish the authority under
which bear predation can be managed and should contain
general sideboards for such programs. We believe that
including detailed methods and means descriptions at
this level is unwise. As the sponsor substitute is
written, all of the described methods and means would
be authorized in all cases where bear predation
management is in effect under a program established by
the Board of Game. Since every wildlife management
situation is unique and has different challenges, we
believe the different bear predation management
programs in different areas should be custom tuned and
managers and the Board of Game should have the
flexibility to choose the methods and means that would
be most effective and most appropriate. I'm speaking
in general here and have a short list of specific
places in the present language where we believe
specific methods and means should be removed from the
statute language and taken care of at the Board of
Game level.
In our opinion, a better way to approach all of this
would be to have the Board of Game develop the details
for each bear predation program and include them in a
predation management plan that would be adopted in
regulation. This is the way that wolf control is
presently done. We think this would mesh nicely with
it. This would allow the board to authorize measures
appropriate and justifiable for the specific situation
without including methods that are not necessary and
probably very controversial.
The Board of Game developed the regulatory framework
for conducting bear predation management at its March
meeting and it did so because the members recognized
the need to reduce bear predation in certain areas in
order to reach regulatory management guidelines. The
board adopted a bear management policy, which included
provisions for reducing bear numbers when certain
conditions are met. They adopted regulations to allow
issuance of permits for bear population reduction. So,
the regulatory structure for bear predation management
is substantially in place already. The committee
should note that in constructing its bear management
policy, the Board of Game has already included most of
the methods and means included in the sponsor
substitute as potential ways to implement a bear
reduction program. Methods and means included in the
sponsor substitute that are not already in the
regulation could be referred to the board for its
consideration in mounting future bear predation
programs.
Section 2 has two basic components, the first of which
is to allow a qualified organization to accept
donations of bear hides and skulls - auction or raffle
those off and return at least 50 percent of the net
proceeds to the fish and game fund, which is the state
money that funds the Division of Wildlife
Conservation's management programs. It's the only
money we have to match federal monies that are
available to us....
The only concern we have here is an administration
overhead to process and work these hides through some
sort of a system of raffles or sales or auctions. We
can make that work. I do have one request, though, and
that is that the department be given the discretion to
accept hides, because from our experience with dealing
with defense of life and property hides or other types
of bear hides that we come in possession of through
enforcement actions, for instance, we could run up
some very large disposal fees in getting rid of hides
that really aren't worth anything - because of the
time of year they are taken or the hair has slipped or
whatever. So, we would appreciate some discretion
there in picking ones that are worth taking through
the sale process.... That concludes my testimony and
would try to answer any questions the committee has.
SENATOR SEEKINS pointed out that section 2 says the department
"may" accept a donation, not "shall".
MR. ROBUS replied, "The intent is noted and appreciated."
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if there was anything in Alaska law that
would keep him from selling a bear skin from Alaska in
Washington.
MR. ROBUS said he knew that was allowed in the state of Montana.
Once the hide gets out of state, he turns that situation over to
enforcement people.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he is trying to allow the sale of those
things in the state on somewhat the same basis that they are
sold outside the state - to provide some means of revenue.
LIEUTENANT GARY FOLGER, Alaska State Troopers, said troopers
don't have jurisdiction over those actions, but if that is the
Legislature's intent, it could be addressed instate.
SENATOR SEEKINS agreed that the title change would be
appropriate because he wants it to be a bear predation
management bill. He asked if the training course would be a
Board of Game decision.
MR. ROBUS answered that he mentioned it as a potential condition
of the permit, which he thought was within his division's
authority. "It would be something we would discuss with the
board before we implemented it."
SENATOR SEEKINS said it wasn't the intent of the Legislature to
allow a permit that would be authorized by the Board of Game to
have administrative discretion attached to it. He didn't have a
problem with people who have never hunted big game being
required to take a safety course. Some states require it to hunt
any game.
CHAIR OGAN noted that bow hunters have to be certified by
statute.
MR. ROBUS replied that he thought that requirement was
associated with a Board of Game regulation. In reference to
Senator Seekins' comment, he could also think of moose permits
for an antler-restricted hunt where people are required to watch
a short movie clip on distinguishing a legal moose from an
illegal moose.
I believe that is done under our discretionary
authority, which is given to us in regulation....
There are several examples where, as part of a permit
process, you're required to upload some information
before going in the field.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he didn't have a problem with there being
reasonable training or a safety course provided that it's
readily available. Since he couldn't find that authority in
statute, he thought the Board of Game gave him that authority.
MR. ROBUS assured him if he was given one or more of those
programs to run, he would figure out ways to provide what is
necessary to people who were willing to provide the extra
harvest pressure on a population the board had designated to be
reduced. "I think we're fairly successful in providing the types
of training I mentioned earlier...."
SENATOR SEEKINS said he would be very reluctant if the
department with its permit issuing process would be able to
trump a decision made by either the Legislature or the Board of
Game to implement a predator control program. "That's my
concern." He asked Mr. Robus why the board hadn't come up with a
bear predation program before their last meeting in March."
MR. ROBUS replied:
My perception is that for years we and the board have
been involved in trying to get appropriate wolf
predation control started - when we had a fairly
wholesale change. A large portion of the board changed
soon after this administration came on board. At the
spring meeting in '03, some of the members approached
us, on the record, asked us to start putting together
some sort of bear predation approach. That resulted in
us putting a draft before them at the next board
meeting in November and they asked for it to be on the
agenda this spring so they could take action. So, it
took a year. Why it didn't happen prior to that is
probably a combination of it not being as high a
priority for the previous board. That previous board
and we were fully involved, in addition to managing
all the hunts around the state, were trying to get 19D
started. That was the primary effort and in the wake
of that, Unit 13.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked how soon the board, under the department's
bear management policy would be able to consider implementation
of a bear predation management plan in Unit 13.
MR. ROBUS replied the next regular meeting for the Southcentral
region occurs next March and it would require that some findings
be made. Those findings could be put on the November agenda. If
something were put on the books at the March meeting, it could
be implemented on July 1, when regulations are normally
implemented.
SENATOR SEEKINS bemoaned the fact that two fall hunting seasons
would be lost before anything would be done.
MR. ROBUS said that is correct unless emergency measures are
taken.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if other areas where bears are an emerging
problem would have to go through the intensive management
process and then go through the bear management process.
MR. ROBUS replied that the intensive management process has
already been gone through statewide up to a certain point.
We've got about six predation management plans already
in effect in regulation with primarily aimed at
wolves, but where bears could certainly be spliced in
relatively easily. Yes, normally you go around the
two-year cycle that's presently in effect for board
meetings and new areas would be added or areas taken
off the books at those meetings unless some sort of
special action was taken by the board.
SENATOR SEEKINS surmised that it could take up to four years to
get a bear management plan in effect.
MR. ROBUS replied that is correct. However, a recent survey in
unit 13 indicates that liberalized hunting regulations there may
have had an effect.
We're seeing lower bear densities out there in our
surveys. We're going to be doing more work in the next
month - surveying bear there with the latest technique
that we have. Yes, the bear predation management
timeline is off in the future. I can say it's not like
no progress has been made in 13. It looks like we may
have reduced brown bear densities there.
SENATOR SEEKINS noted that Mr. Robus was monitoring the process
and asked if he recalled what the dot points were for revising
methods and means.
MR. ROBUS replied:
I was not there at the meeting during the final
iteration of that. I know that a pool of methods and
means that could be used was either specifically
included at the bottom of that document or was
referenced and included in the array of things from
same day airborne access, which is in your sponsor
substitute here, use of vehicles, baiting. There was a
whole variety and it was not meant to be a closed box.
It was a starting list of things that could be used
depending on what was appropriate and effective in the
situation. If and when it was determined by the board
that either black or brown bear populations needed to
be reduced.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the department made recommendations to
the board on unit 13, would it pick out a couple of methods and
wait for two years to see what happens or would it advise using
all of the methods at once - to solve the problem expeditiously.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS arrived at 5:15 p.m.
MR. ROBUS replied:
I think it's only honest to say that the department
and the board have spirited discussion sometimes from
different points of view and while both the board and
department are interested in getting into solving some
of these problems, we are highly aware of the fact
that whatever we mount, it needs to be a sustainable
program - because these ungulate populations didn't
get into the situations they are in instantly - and
it's going to take more than an instant for things to
return to a higher abundance - and we may urge some
caution in these situations and it may be related to a
particular technique. It may regard which area or the
extent of the area. When that happens, it's going to
basically be a judgment on how can we proceed with a
program that's effective while not going so far and in
a manner that might cause the whole thing to come to a
halt. As I say, it may be judgment - there may be
differences of opinion.
SENATOR SEEKINS said the reason he asked that question is
because it's been his experience that a solution is applied
slowly and, as a result, ineffectively. He wanted to hear
specifics on methods and means.
CHAIR OGAN said he was concerned about the Legislature setting
methods and means.
I agree we need to strike the bear control permits
with bear predation management and I think we should
work on some methods and means - maybe giving express
authority for methods and means - require them to
consider alternative methods and means beyond normal
or standard hunting practices including, but not
limited to, same day airborne, because that's probably
one of the most effective ways....to hunt.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he wanted to solve the problem and if
nothing else, this bill has moved the board toward a
comprehensive bear management plan.
We didn't have that before in the State of Alaska....
That alone makes me very pleased.... Secondly, there
are some things that absolutely have to be changed in
statute if we're going to be able to address getting
more hunters into the field. Because we have statutes
that prohibit things, now we have to loosen those
statutes....
I think, as Mr. Robus has suggested, that a safety
training course for someone in these paragraphs that
loosen up their ability to be able to participate in
this bear predation management plan is a worthwhile
suggestion.... I think beyond that if this committee
believes that it may be wise for the time being to
allow some discretion on the Board of Game to be able
to implement methods and means over and above the
ordinary, I have no objection to that.
CHAIR OGAN asserted that, "shall" should be used instead of
"will" to "incorporate methods and means beyond seasons and bag
limits."
SENATOR SEEKINS agreed that it shouldn't be a regular hunting
license or tag and that there should be a ceiling fee that goes
along with this type of program. He wouldn't change anything in
(e) or (k). He had no problem with eliminating (f), (g) and (i)
as long as he felt comfortable that those would be methods and
means that would be considered by the Board of Game.
CHAIR OGAN said they would continue to work on this issue and
adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|