Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/08/1999 05:09 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SCR 2 - MANAGEMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
Number 2172
CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the next order of business to be SCR 2,
relating to management of Alaska's wildlife and fish resources. He
called on Mel Krogseng, staff to Senator Robin Taylor who is
sponsor of SCR 2, to present the sponsor statement.
MEL KROGSENG, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, Alaska
State Legislature, read the following sponsor statement into the
record on behalf of Senator Taylor:
Mr. Chairman, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 2 is similar to
the resolution passed by the legislature last year, which,
incidently, bore the same number. It is intended to send a
strong message to the governor, the Board of Fisheries, the
Board of Game, and the Department of Fish and Game, that you,
the legislature, want the wildlife and fish resources of our
state to be aggressively biologically managed on a
sustained-yield basis for abundance.
Mr. Chairman, over the past few years, we have seen a decline
in several of our wildlife and fish stocks in certain areas.
This decline has continued to the point where serious
shortages currently exist and are continuing unabated. Last
year, before the House Resources Committee, there was
testimony about moose shortages from an Angie Morgan of Aniak;
also from a William Miller of Dot Lake who testified that
there were moose and caribou shortages in his area.
There are ongoing shortages in fish stocks in several areas as
well. Bristol Bay has been considered a disaster area for the
last two years. In 1997, the Kenai River had only a few coho
salmon, and just this past year the Kenai was closed down June
5th to catch-and-release for Chinook salmon. The Mat-Su
streams have had ongoing shortages in coho, sockeye, chum and
Chinook stocks. Cook Inlet commercial fishing was closed
early this past year due to a low sockeye run.
Management of these resources was delegated to the Board of
Fisheries, the Board of Game and the Department of Fish and
Game by the legislature. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the
legislature to tell these agencies the management philosophy
that you want followed. This resolution will send that
message, and it is a crystal clear message, Mr. Chairman, that
the legislature wants these resources biologically managed on
a sustained-yield basis for abundance.
Sustained-yield, Mr. Chairman, but what do we really mean? I
would like to quote from the Alaska Constitutional Convention
Proceedings, page 2451: "We have in mind no narrow definition
of 'sustained yield' as is used, for example, in forestry, but
the broad premise that insofar as possible, a principle of
sustained yield shall be used with respect to administration
of those resources which are susceptible of sustained yield,
and where it is desirable. For example, predators would not
be maintained on a sustained-yield basis." Mr. Chairman, if
we had an abundance of wildlife and fish resources in our
state, that would go a long way towards help[ing] solving the
ongoing subsistence issue, as there would be enough of these
resources for all user groups.
Number 2346
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if it was the sponsor's intent to
state that the subsistence dilemma is based on current shortage of
resources.
MS. KROGSENG replied, "It is the Senator's feeling that if we had
an abundance of resources we might not be faced with this issue at
this time."
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER indicated it was her understanding that
subsistence users only use about three percent of the current
resource, whether it is abundant or not.
MS. KROGSENG stated she could not respond to that since she did not
know those figures, but she reiterated her previous statement that
an abundance of fish and wildlife resources in the state would go
a long way in helping resolve the subsistence issue.
Number 2404
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if the bill before the committee was still
the original SCR No. 2.
MS. KROGSENG confirmed that it was the original draft and that
there have been no revisions to it.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON questioned whether the sponsor statement was
revised.
MS. KROGSENG confirmed the sponsor statement was revised. She
explained this was done because the original sponsor statement
included a comment regarding fish escapement, and there was some
concern that the Bristol Bay situation was being blamed on
inadequate escapement. In order to eliminate any confusion,
therefore, the sponsor statement was rewritten by simply taking
that reference out.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON sought clarification that this change in the
sponsor statement did not require any modification of the
resolution itself.
MS. KROGSENG indicated that she did not believe the change in the
sponsor statement affected the resolution at all.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if there were any audience members present
from ADF&G who wished to comment on SCR 2.
Number 2480
MR. BRUCE from ADF&G again came forward. He stated he was not
prepared to make any specific testimony on SCR 2; however, he
referred to a graph that he had previously provided the committee
showing commercial salmon harvest in the state from 1878 to 1998.
He felt that the graph illustrated the difficulty in talking about
exactly what abundance means, because, even with the recent
downturns in 1997 and 1998, Alaska's commercial salmon harvest are
still enjoying all-time high production levels. He admitted that
specific stocks in some regions of the state are weak, and ADF&G is
concerned about those. Western Alaska, the Yukon River and
Kuskokwin River are areas of specific concern. He confirmed the
previous statement that sometimes fluctuations in population are
not due to management. For example, escapement goals were achieved
in Bristol Bay; however, that did not result in the survivals that
were expected. Many complex factors can affect the survival of
fish and wildlife in the natural environment, he added, and these
factors cannot always be predicted.
MR. BRUCE reported that salmon is the most important and abundant
fish species to recreational, subsistence and commercial users, and
that populations are generally large. There are, however, notable
exceptions in some areas, for which ADF&G has implemented very
severe conservation measures, often resulting in difficulty for the
people in those areas. He explained that ADF&G is trying to get
the assistance of the federal government to focus research on the
Bering Sea, as there are indications that environmental conditions
there are changing and may not be as conducive to salmon survival
and production now as it was in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Number 2634
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN commented that he noticed from the graph that
the number of catches keeps going up until it hits a peak. He
pointed out that people have become experts at getting fish due to
increased technology: bigger and faster boats, sonar, planes with
spotters, and bigger nets. He cautioned that record numbers cannot
continue to be taken, and that a time will come when the state will
have to realize that they are harvesting too many fish. He
acknowledged that record numbers looks good for the economy of the
state of Alaska, but he expressed concern that there were no
reports of record numbers of escapement. He questioned whether
simply reaching escapement was biologically sound.
MR. BRUCE agreed, and stated that escapement is the most important
factor and the basis of ADF&G's approach to managing salmon. He
reported that every system does not have use of the same tools to
determine escapement; for example, Bristol Bay has a better set of
tools than others. Achieving escapement goals is the aim of the
salmon management program, he added, and is one of the few things
that can be controlled. Due to the size of the state, however, it
is very expensive to get all the information.
Number 2768
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN called attention to the fact that no one
really knows what is a "safe level" of escapement. He said, "When
we leave it to Mother Nature, she tends to rebound, but when we
leave it to us and we overtake, we usually hurt it beyond a point
that Mother Nature is hurt, and I don't want to get to that stage.
I want to be at the safe level that we always have a fishery which
helps all users (subsistence, commercial, sports) and have
everybody happy, and I think we better start looking that way
seriously."
Number 2810
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER noted SCR 2 relates to the notion of
management for abundance. He explained that Alaska's Constitution
is very explicit in stating we must manage for attainment of the
goal of sustained yield. He asked Mr. Bruce if he could
differentiate his interpretation of those two concepts. He added,
"Are they one and same or are they different?"
MR. BRUCE indicated he interprets abundance to be a high level of
production, along the lines of a maximum sustained yield concept;
however, sustained yield has a wide range of interpretation. He
explained that it was possible to have sustained yield at a very
low level of production if the population is maintaining itself and
producing some yield. He referred to a term used in fisheries
management, optimum yield, which considers other things besides
biological factors, such as economic factors, in determining the
amount of yield desired. For example, a recreational fishery might
not be managed for maximum sustained yield, but rather optimum
sustained yield, by putting more fish into a river than actually
needed for spawning, in order to improve the opportunity for sport
fishermen to have a good experience. He defined sustained yield as
ranging all the way from a maximum level down to a low level
allowing the population to maintain itself but yield little
harvest.
Number 2902
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked for clarification. He said, "Correct
me if I'm hearing you wrongly -- that sustained yield does not
necessarily mean that there is a benefit for people. Did I hear
that correctly?"
MR. BRUCE explained it is possible to achieve a yield from a
population at a very low level, not anywhere near what it could be,
due to a very small or limited harvest. There might be some
surplus available for harvest, but it might be extremely small, and
it might be taken incidental to other fisheries. He said he did
not mean to imply that it was possible to have sustained yield
without any use.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER referred to the Alaska State Constitution,
Sections 8.1 and 8.2, which indicate that resources will be managed
for the maximum benefit of the people of the state of Alaska.
Tape 99-03, Side B
Number 0030
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Wayne Regelin, Director of the Division of
Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, to join
Mr. Bruce at the table. He then asked both gentlemen if they felt
ADF&G is managing both fish and game for abundance.
MR. BRUCE said yes, adding, "on the fish side."
Number 0060
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, stated he certainly would not argue
against managing for abundance; however, there are often several
species of wildlife in the same area that need to be balanced. He
gave the example of managing moose and caribou, and how the
department usually has to reduce the abundance of predators like
wolves and bears. The goal is to balance healthy populations of
predators with a yield for human harvest that meets the needs of
the people, he explained. He testified that there are some areas
in Alaska where there are problems, such as managing wolf predation
of caribou in the 40-mile area by sterilization and by working with
local trappers. This resulted in an increase of 30% in that
population last year.
MR. REGELIN also related that there was a prescribed burn of 52,000
acres in that same area last year to improve moose habitat, and
this is the largest prescribed burn that they know of in the
nation. He referred to the "moose problem" in Aniak; namely, a
small population of moose, a high level of need, and a high level
of predators. Most individuals, he related, would like wildlife
managed in a balanced way; however, most people also want to make
sure they get a moose and a caribou every year. He felt that, in
most cases, ADF&G succeeded in their goal to be balanced.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if the ADF&G had a position on SCR 2.
Number 0172
MR. BRUCE testified that ADF&G does not usually take positions on
resolutions, as they are the "legislature's opinion and its
expression of that opinion." He explained they were there to
provide information and a perspective on this issue, but they
really were not taking a position on it.
Number 0192
MR. REGELIN also stated he would not take a position, and he had
two additional comments. He reported that all of the wildlife
populations in Alaska are managed on a sustained-yield basis with
one exception. They are harvesting the brown bear population in
the Nelchina area beyond sustained yield, and they are doing so on
purpose in order to reduce the bear predation on moose and caribou.
He assured the committee that this is a planned and legal action.
There are other areas, he added, that are within sustained yield,
but admittedly low.
MR. REGELIN next called attention to specific wording in SCR 2 that
bothered him. He stated the resolution indicates ADF&G only did
passive monitoring of wildlife populations, and he disagreed with
this. He reported that collecting the needed data on population
size, productivity, mortality and hunter harvest is essential for
wildlife management and appropriate wildlife regulations. This
data, he added, needs to be collected on a scheduled basis; it is
done annually in many areas, and less frequently with some of the
caribou herds by census. With regard to moose populations, ADF&G
tries to do a census in key areas every three to four years, but
they do trend counts and look at calf production, calf mortality
and recruitment into the population on an annual basis. He
emphasized that this monitoring is key to wildlife and fisheries
management.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked for additional comments or concerns for the
two witnesses from ADF&G. Hearing none, he opened the meeting to
further testimony via teleconference.
Number 0307
MR. BONDURANT again addressed the committee via teleconference from
Soldatna, this time regarding SCR 2. He said, "I want to stay with
the fisheries mainly, because that's what I am more familiar with
and active in in the Cook Inlet area, and I think we have some real
problems there as far as the -- maintaining the optimum escapement
goal or the abundance of our fisheries in this area. If you go
back years ago, you'd find a lot different fishery management than
you do today. The management today is actually to maintain the
maximum sustained yield of one species or stocks in one river, and
that's the Kenai sockeye, and with that we've jeopardized the
Northern District fisheries." It was his understanding that
approximately 40% of the sockeye that came up the Cook Inlet in the
1940s were from Northern District stocks; however, in 1987 and
1992, 9 million sockeye were harvested with only 66,000 put back
into the river. He added, "I would say the new management yield
that they put out is merely a computerized reflection of what they
did before. So I think we have to manage the fisheries, especially
in the Cook Inlet area, on the optimum sustained yield for all the
different stocks and species there. One of the stocks that's
really bad there is the chum salmon. Some of those runs are
actually bordering on a fact that we're going to have a species
that is endangered there."
MR. BONDURANT concluded by stating it is his contention that the
fisheries are not being managed for optimum sustained yield for
abundance in every discreet stock that goes into the ecosystem. He
referred to Representative Morgan's concern about over-escapement.
He added, "I attended an American Fisheries Institute meeting in
Juneau about a year ago, and I brought up this over-escapement
deal, and they said, 'Are you from the damn Kenai Peninsula?' So
there's very few people that believe in this except in the Kenai
Peninsula."
Number 0492
MR. WESTLUND was still on line via teleconference from Ketchikan,
and he asked to speak in support of SCR 2. He agreed the state
should be managing for abundance instead of sustained yield. He
referred to the previous comment about smaller stocks, adding, "You
have small stocks that are doing fair, and you're managing on major
stocks." He felt extending fishery periods for maximum sustained
yield on larger stock could hurt other stocks. Managing for the
maximum sustained abundance of all stocks, he emphasized, is better
for subsistence users, fishermen and sports users of the resource.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON thanked the witnesses, and indicated his intention
entertain a motion to move SCR 2 from the committee.
Number 0590
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER made a motion to move SCR 2 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note. He asked unanimous consent. There being no
objection, SCR 2 was moved from the House Special Committee on
Fisheries.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|