Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/07/1997 03:40 PM Senate RES
| 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 WILDLIFE RESOURCES
VICE CHAIRMAN GREEN called the Senate Resources Committee meeting
to order at 3:40 p.m. and announced SCR 2 to be up for
consideration.
MR. JOE AMBROSE, Staff to Senator Taylor, sponsor of SCR 2,
explained that if it were implemented the State of Alaska would go
a long way toward solving the subsistence dilemma by managing
wildlife for abundance. The shortage of wildlife will not be
solved by determining who may have the preference regarding
harvest.
Article 8, Section 3 of the Constitution explicitly states wherever
occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are
reserved for the people for common use. Our Constitution also
mandates that fish and game resources be managed on a sustained
yield principle. The current administration has failed to
implement an intensive management program that would insure an
abundance of wildlife. Attempting to manage complex wildlife
populations by only addressing human use will not work. Alaskans
currently harvest less than 3% of the harvestable surplus. An
abundance of fish and wildlife for all Alaskans is the only
practical solution to the subsistence impasse. Present policies
only perpetuate shortages.
SENATOR LEMAN said he didn't believe there was an impasse over
subsistence, but over subsistence priority. MR. AMBROSE agreed
that's what he meant.
Number 78
MR. NEIL PLESTED , Alaska Environmental Lobby, said at first the
legislation looks good, but there are ambiguities which create a
document that they can't support.
One of the phrases that's vague is "biological basis for
abundance." He asked if the sponsor applies the term equally to
predator species and prey species. He asked if there are two
species competing for the same habitat, like black tail deer and
elk, that may be introduced, which species is given preference for
abundance.
He also felt that it restricted management options. Wildlife
issues frequently must be examined on a case specific basis.
Factors to consider are constantly changing, and new studies offer
fresh data to evaluation. The formulation and coordination of
plans of action for management of a given population require that
complex decisions be made with the public forum. To restrict
biologists at ADF&G and members of the Boards of Game and Fisheries
to decisions based solely on the concept of biological abundance is
to deny the reality of the realm in which these people must
function.
SENATOR LEMAN gave an example of moose eating trees and if they
were managed for abundance, their numbers would increase in the
urban areas as well and asked if there would be a harvest season
for those because of their impact on people. MR. PLESTED replied
that's what he meant. There are several things that have to be
considered and urban sprawl is one of them, another is clear-cut
logging which has a big effect on wildlife habitat.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that this is a resolution which essentially is
a letter from the legislature stating their intent. It may be
implemented by legislation or regulation.
MR. PLESTED said he didn't think they disagreed on the abundance
issue, at all, but the point is that the resolution suggests that
regulatory agencies deal only on a biological basis.
Number 201
SENATOR LINCOLN said she was glad he didn't take it too lightly
that this is just a resolution, because it is more than a letter.
It requests the Governor and everybody to do everything in their
power to manage solely on a biological basis. She asked if by
saying biological use only, it meant disregarding other uses of the
area, like timber sales, etc. MR. PLESTED replied that that was one
of the difficult things to understand about it.
SENATOR SHARP said he thought a reasonable person would think
manage for abundance would be the opposite of managing for scarcity
and there are vast areas of perpetual scarcity out there in the
last 25 years compared to what the historical numbers in various
populations have been. He said Commissioner Rue stressed the
importance of continuing to spend tens of millions of dollars to
maintain biological scientific data so they could make management
decisions. He asked if that biological data should not be the
driving factor. MR. PLESTED replied that he wasn't saying that at
all. He thought data already in the files could be outdated and a
new study may be required and it might not be totally biological.
He said it is wrong to restrict agencies that have to deal with
these major problems. They need a broad spectrum of methods and
tools to work with in order to carry out their function.
SENATOR SHARP said he looked at this as setting goals for
management, not as a specific directive to use certain techniques.
Number 324
MR. DICK BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council,
supported SCR 2 as an important reminder that the opportunities we
all share in relation to wildlife uses do depend on sound,
sustained yield management. Through prudent management we can
contribute to the biological basis for abundant populations of
wildlife which will benefit all user groups.
He said it is important to remember that 60% of Alaska is in
federal hands and there is no management directive to manage for
uses of wildlife. It is simply a caretaker status, so there is no
opportunity on those lands for active management in order to meet
the needs of people be they hunters or viewers. He thought that
only 10 - 15% of the State was available for active management
because of legal restrictions under federal or State law and
because of ecological limitations.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked, if managing solely on a biological basis,
how he would respond to those people who want to develop the
Tongass, ANWR, etc. Does that mean that development cannot take
place, if there is any indication that the abundance factor would
be in jeopardy, she asked. MR. BISHOP replied that he didn't think
it meant that. For instance a development project is not inimical
to the well-being of wildlife and there can be management
techniques that mitigate the effects, if they are anticipated.
Also, the term "abundance" is a relative term.
Number 414
MR. KEN TAYLOR, Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
said he thought most everyone on his staff and the people they
interact with on a daily basis would concur that managing for
abundant wildlife in Alaska is the way to go. Many of the
Division's programs and those of the Commercial Fisheries are aimed
at doing just that. It sounds to him as though the scope of the
legislation is narrowed by the phrase "solely on a biological
basis." Management of wildlife uses not just biological
information, but economic impacts.
He said the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game manage within
a biological framework, but they listen to public testimony
balancing various public needs.
Number 435
SENATOR LEMAN thought it might work to delete "solely on a
biological basis." MR. TAYLOR said that sounded better than the
original bill. MR. AMBROSE said he thought deleting "solely" would
solve the problem.
SENATOR LEMAN moved to amend lines 2 and 6 to delete "solely."
There were no objections and it was adopted.
MR. OLIVER BURRIS , Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association and the
Tanana Valley Sportsman's Association, supported SCR 2. He said
ever since the Sheffield administration the major impediment to
progressive wildlife management has been the administration
especially in response to the intensive management law. ADF&G
proposes that the Nelchina caribou herd be reduced from 55,000 to
40,000 and the harvest reduced proportionally. They also propose
to maintain the moose herd at its lowest population level since the
early 1950s. This is not managing for abundance. There is no
incentive within the administration to manage for abundance and no
planning for the future of hunting or the health and diversity of
our wildlife population.
MR. NOEL PUTMAN, Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club, strongly
supported SCR 2 and would like to see the State game statutes
enforced. He said they have one predominant game animal there -
Sitka black tail deer. They have a lot of wolves that have been
fictitiously put into a subspecies classification by word of mouth
which goes against any kind of biological information that has been
produced on the wolves.
MR. JIM RAMSDELL, Environmental Action Association, said the wild
in the wildlife of Alaska seems to be increasingly tailored to a
select group of the population. This proposal by Senator Taylor
would solely benefit the consumptive users, he said. It is a
minority of people who purchase hunting licenses and if we continue
to manage wildlife towards that minority, rather than trying to
understand the natural cycles which produce knee jerk reactions to
fluctuation in the form of wolf, brown bear, and other predator
control, an imbalance could come back to haunt them.
Number 500
SENATOR SHARP agreed that regulation of hunter harvest was part of
the management techniques that have always been used by the
Department, but there are large areas north of the Brooks Range
where there has been no hunter harvest what-so-ever and the
population is still declining in spite of good winters. This is
only because of the 365 day-a-year harvest by predators, not the
human element.
MR. MICHAEL TETREAU testified he thought the issued looked like it
boiled down to an abundance versus lack of abundance management
philosophy which was pretty much a no-brainer. He didn't think
there was anyone in the State who would disagree that we want to
have wildlife. He said that Senator Taylor was focusing in on the
biological aspect and there was nothing biological about the
predator control programs he has supported in the past.
MR. TETREAU said the last sentence of the resolution mentions
restoring the abundance of wildlife in Alaska and asked to what
levels - pre sport hunting levels, pre-European levels, or what.
Number 559
MR. MARK LUTTRELL, Director, East River Kenai Peninsula
Environmental Action Association, opposed SCR 2 because it ignores
the best of 100 years of advancement in the natural sciences while
favoring the worst of a hundred years of short-sighted ignorance.
The fifth "Whereas" he didn't think was logically possible. An
abundance of wolves in the same place where there's an abundance of
caribou cannot benefit all user groups. This legislation hurts
Alaska's image and makes us look silly. It's ambiguous, much too
simple, and should be discarded.
MR. ERIC COUFAL said he owned a recreational tourism business and
he shuddered to think of what kind of impressions we were making on
the rest of the country. He mentioned the time when people were
boycotting our State over the wolf control issue and asked if it
referred to both predator and prey stocks.
Number 580
SENATOR LINCOLN said she has absolutely no problem with the State
of Alaska having good biological data in which to make decisions.
She also was not pleased with our fish and game populations.
NUMBER 97-16, SIDE B
However, there is too much ambiguity within the resolution for her
to vote it out of committee. As an example she didn't understand
the legislature requesting the Governor, the Boards of Fisheries
and Game, etc. to use their significant powers and influence and
implement regulations, policies, and programs to restore these
things when for years we had seen the restricted funding to the
Division of Habitat and there have been reductions to the ADF&G.
She thought they would ask what is meant by the biological basis
for abundance, restoring programs, or developing new programs.
There are too many questions. She said she supported having
scientific data for healthy growth of our fish and game, but she
didn't think this was the way to do it. She thought they needed to
look at funding ADF&G to the point where they could manage our
resources for everyone who has testified today and written to them
over the years.
SENATOR SHARP said he agreed with some of her statements, but
disagreed that the ADF&G, now in excess of $95 million, has gone
down. He thought the funding has been close to what the Governor
has submitted to the legislature. He noted that the Division of
Habitat has nothing to do with enhancing habitat. They are a
permitting and regulation division.
Number 559
SENATOR LEMAN moved to pass CSSCR 2(RES) from committee with
individual recommendations. SENATOR LINCOLN objected. SENATORS
LEMAN, SHARP, TORGERSON, AND GREEN voted yea ; SENATOR LINCOLN vot
no; and the motion passed.
VICE CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the meeting at 4:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|