Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/14/1996 03:45 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 24 REESTABLISH ADFG DIVISION OF GAME
CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:45 p.m. and announced SCR 24 to be up for consideration.
MARILYN WILSON, Legislative Aide to Senator Sharp, said that SCR 24
is a request by the legislature to the Governor to change the name
Division of Wildlife Conservation back to the division's former
name, Division of Game. This change in name has fragmented the
Division's mission into many sections, many with opposing goals.
The Division's resources have been redirected toward benefiting
non-hunters, gathering and manipulation of public opinion for non-
users benefits, and virtually abandoning Alaska's game resource for
abundance.
MR. KEN TAYLOR, Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife, said his
Division has a constitutional and statutory responsibility for
managing 521 wildlife species in Alaska. Of these, about 70 are
classified as game and their name was changed in 1989 to better
reflect their responsibility. During the past seven years the
Division developed its first mission statement which is to conserve
and enhance Alaska's wildlife and to provide for a wide range of
uses for the greatest benefit of current and future generations of
people. They believe this statement accurately reflects their
responsibility to the Alaskan public.
Contrary to this resolution, he said, there is nothing fragmented
about their objectives and goals or their development process.
Their Division budget is spent primarily on management of hunted
species. They also track federal actions related to access,
easements, unwarranted closures, and numerous other issues that
have not been in the best interests of Alaska's hunters and
trappers and filing countless protests and appeals when federal
actions violate their own laws.
Only about 4.5 percent of their budget is spent on programs that
might be perceived as not directly benefiting hunters such as
viewing programs or a non-game program which focuses chiefly on
conservation of endangered species for which they have statutory
mandates.
Out of their 180 employees in the Division, there are five that
work on non-consumptive use programs. Until very recently these
programs were funded through the general fund and they are
currently working on a national initiative sponsored by the
international association of fish and wildlife agencies to draft
and introduce legislation to Congress which would establish
alternative federal funding sources for these programs for which
there is a great deal of support in Alaska.
Many hunters and trappers do not feel it is fair that they should
foot the entire bill for the Division of Wildlife Conservation or
for wildlife conservation programs in Alaska and support taxing
other user groups in an equitable manner.
The Department's opposition to this resolution is directed
primarily to the numerous inaccuracies found the preamble
statements that, if it were to pass the legislature, would be
devastating to the self esteem and moral of Division personnel and
would not further the interests of consumptive users in Alaska. In
the greater scheme of things, their name doesn't make much
difference. Their constitutional mandates aren't going to change.
Number 127
SENATOR LEMAN asked him if he could identify the inaccuracies. MR.
TAYLOR said the second, third, and fifth WHEREAS' were inaccurate
and untrue. He believed all of their programs in one way or another
do benefit hunters, trappers, and sport fishermen with the
exception, possibly being the Marine Mammals Program which was
funded under general funds for many years, but was recently
changed. Alaska has a very strong interest in how marine mammals
are managed. He did not think Alaskans would want the federal
government to represent Alaska's interest in the management of
marine mammals, particularly with sea lions being so close to being
listed on the endangered species list.
SENATOR HALFORD admitted that probably a much smaller number of
dollars than millions was used for purposes other than what was
mandated. He also thought the mission of the ADF&G had been not
blurred, but redefined, because that's really what happened.
MR. TAYLOR replied that their constitutional mandate is to manage
Alaska's wildlife, not just game. While there has been more
development of viewing areas and other non-consumptive uses over
the past several years, that's been in response to public demand.
It has changed, but he didn't think it had blurred their mission as
a division.
SENATOR HALFORD said he thought there was a conflict in the
statutes, because on one hand their obligation is to all species
and on the other hand their funding mechanism is limited to the
funds generated by the consumptive uses. There is still something
wrong and if the resolution can more accurately reflect that, it
should do that. The message is that the people who are paying the
bill are not satisfied with the allocation of their resource
dollars.
Number 222
MR. TAYLOR agreed that there was a conflict, but they have been
struggling to deal with that ever since they lost their general
funds which was after FY95.
SENATOR LEMAN said he hoped they could work together to have the
resolution more accurate reflect the issues by next Monday and set
it aside.
ED GRASSER, Alaska Outdoor Council, supported the resolution,
although he agreed with the Department on the accuracy in some of
the WHEREAS clauses. He believed that management goals within the
Division had been redefined. He thought there was a lack of
professionalism in certain areas, like the McNeil River Refuge.
Hunting took place for years along side the viewing opportunity and
then all of a sudden it became a problem; not a biological problem
or a conflict between two user groups.
One of the statements in support of closing the refuge that the
Department made was that it could do nothing to correct the public
perception of tame bears being shot. Their perception is that
while wildlife conservation may be what the Division does, and
their is a constitutional mandate for them to manage wildlife, but
the intent of the meaning of sustained yield is explicit in the
constitution. It says that the sustained yield concept meant high
human harvest.
SENATOR HALFORD commented that they might have two Divisions, the
Division of Game and the Division of Wildlife Conservation, one of
which is funded by the support of consumptive users, the other of
which has no money.
MR. GRASSER said his group voted to oppose the diversity funding
initiative, because they are concerned about the increased amount
of money that will come out of their pockets, because most of the
items they are targeting for taxation are items that hunters and
fishermen purchase and its going to be used for the other category
of users.
Number 307
PETER SHEPERD supported SCR 24. He said he worked as an ADF&G
biologist in 1960 and retired in 1981 and he had years of
experience in Alaska with the Fish and Wildlife Service. He tried
to do his best for the resource and for the hunting public. At the
same time, he realized that with a proactive management program
including environmental factors, their efforts would benefit the
non-consumptive public. He agrees that the Division of Wildlife's
mission has distinctly changed from one of active management to a
biocentric oriented passive mode. Most people associated
conservation with preservation with the concept that the best way
to preserve nature is to leave it alone. Most scientists believe
that to leave nature alone, is to invite a torrent of change.
Nature cannot manage animal populations, but we can by the most
scientific means possible.
Number 352
BUD BURRIS, Fairbanks, said he graduated from college with a degree
in game management and in 1961 he worked as a biologist for ADF&G.
He worked with enlarging bag limits and lengthening hunting season
and did things like transplant game populations and managed
wildlife populations in many areas. He disagreed with Mr. Taylor
in that the Department is currently effectively managing any of the
more than 500 species of wildlife.
To correct that the federal government has regained management
authority over waterfowl, dinky birds, marine mammals, seabirds,
eagles, hawks, owls, ravens, crows, and many others. The federal
government has usurped State management authority on all species in
parks and monuments.
SENATOR LEMAN thanked everyone for their testimony and said SCR 24
would be held in Committee for further work.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|