Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
02/02/2010 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB281 | |
| HB276 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 276 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 281-BOARD OF GAME/FISH & GAME COMMISSIONER
8:06:06 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 281, "An Act relating to the duties of the
commissioner of fish and game and to the interest of the Board
of Game in public safety as it relates to game."
8:06:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
the prime sponsor, explained that HB 281 would change the focus
of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game's (ADF&G) management
style in urban Alaska to focus first on public safety versus
abundance. She related that one of the main issues she hears
about from constituents is the abundance of bears and the human
contact with them. She related her own experiences with bears
in the community and specified that the bears about which she
speaks are urbanized bears, that is bears that are third and
fourth generation bears in the city. These urbanized bears act
differently than they would in the wild and aren't afraid of
humans. The aforementioned creates a dangerous situation. With
the proposed change in the legislation, the Anchorage Police
Department (APD) would be allowed to take action if a bear is
deemed a threat. Although the aforementioned is already the
case, there is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between ADF&G
and APD that ADF&G would like for APD to call ADF&G and apprise
it of the situation. Representative Millet, however, didn't
believe there is too much to discuss when the situation is one
in which the bear is socialized and hanging out in a
neighborhood. Although she acknowledged that residents have a
responsibility to take better care [with their garbage and bird
feeders], she opined that the bears are conditioned to a point
that the bear and human interactions will continue.
8:10:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that HB 281
effectively only applies to Anchorage. She questioned why it
wouldn't apply statewide if it's good policy.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, as a legislator from Anchorage, said
that she is open to other communities joining this charge, but
wasn't familiar enough with other communities to include them.
8:11:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, in response to Co-Chair Munoz, informed
the committee that currently there are two ADF&G officers who
work in the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA). She recalled when
she couldn't get in her truck because bears were circling it.
When she called APD, APD told her they don't respond to bears
unless they are aggressive or it's an emergency situation. The
APD then offered to notify ADF&G. Therefore, changing the MOU
between ADF&G and APD in statute such that APD can respond will
result in a much different response, she opined.
8:13:32 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ asked if the communities in the Anchorage area
have addressed the issue of containing personal garbage.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT answered that although the municipality
hasn't addressed the aforementioned, some working groups have
worked with Waste Management on bear containers for various
areas in MOA. However, the only municipal ordinance related to
garbage collection is that garbage can't be out until 6:00 a.m.,
the morning of the collection day. She characterized Juneau as
a great example as it very aggressively made adjustments in the
municipal code to [address the bear situation]. However, in a
town of 360,000 it's a different dynamic when trying to address
something through the municipality. While Representative Millet
agreed that MOA should be more aggressive [with regard to
addressing the matter in municipal code], she opined that the
matter should be addressed now before anyone else is mauled.
8:15:07 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ recalled that she sat on the Juneau Assembly when
Juneau formulated its ordinance and she characterized it as a
difficult process that required much community buy-in. However,
she characterized the ordinance as an important first step in
addressing the problem and opined that in order to achieve
effective change, there has to be a change in behavior in the
community. Therefore, she expressed her desire to engage with
the Anchorage Assembly on this issue.
8:15:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA directed attention to the following
language on page 2, lines 2-4: "the board shall authorize the
police department of the municipality to take game when the
taking serves to protect human life from immediate harm from the
game." She then recalled riding along with police who are
having difficulty finding enough staff to address domestic
violence. She opined that if the seeing of bears is considered
immediate harm, then a lot of police would be involved. This
legislation seems to continue the current practice and doesn't
seem to be anything new.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT clarified that this legislation isn't
addressing one bear account in the summer; rather it's
addressing a situation in which a sow and three cubs are living
in a residential backyard. Furthermore, she opined that a sow
and cubs can't coexist with her lifestyle in urban Alaska. The
"immediate danger" is when the bears are born and raised in
urban settings and aren't afraid of humans.
8:19:48 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON inquired as to Representative Millett's
understanding of the current priority related to public safety.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT explained that the two ADF&G officers in
Anchorage are tasked with being responders to wildlife human
interaction. In a large area such as the MOA, those two ADF&G
officers have a tough job. This legislation merely removes the
restriction, included in the MOU, requiring that APD call ADF&G
prior to any action with wildlife. Therefore, this legislation
allows APD to use its discretion with cases involving wildlife.
8:21:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER opined that she wasn't sure the passage
of HB 281 would've changed the outcomes of the situations that
Representative Millett described earlier.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT clarified that she was merely one of many
phone calls made to ADF&G this past summer when parks were
closed and folks had to adjust their lives to be safe [because
bears were in the neighborhood]. While awareness is
appropriate, when children and families are afraid to be in
their backyard and neighborhood, the balance has shifted.
Representative Millett emphasized that she is seeking a sensible
solution and isn't advocating having an open hunt in Anchorage,
although the bears are being managed for abundance, as if there
is an open hunt. She reiterated the need for a sensible
solution and a way in which to have a public conversation
regarding what is public safety; what is an aggressive bear;
what are the appropriate actions. As it stands now, the bear
population is growing in urban Alaska and this legislation
offers a proactive approach by changing the management focus.
8:24:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER opined that she wasn't sure the proposed
language would've allowed APD to have responded differently to
the circumstances described by the sponsor. The situations
described by the sponsor don't pose "immediate harm".
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said that she would entertain any
suggestions to improve the legislation.
8:25:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired as to what actions the sponsor
would envision the municipality using to develop policy
regulations and memorandums per HB 281.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT explained that HB 281 would eliminate the
need for a MOU and allow APD to use its discretion without
calling ADF&G.
8:26:15 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if ADF&G has population ratios of bears in
[the MOA].
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said she didn't recall any specific
numbers from ADF&G. However, she recalled conversations in
which Rick Sinnott, Wildlife Biologist, ADF&G, relayed that the
encounters are up and bear numbers are relatively the same.
Therefore, she surmised that the bears are becoming more
urbanized and familiar with her neighborhood.
8:27:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her belief that garbage is the
problem, adding that there's a similar problem with moose in her
neighborhood. She questioned whether [the subject] of this
legislation would be more appropriate for the municipality to
address through its ordinances.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT opined that this legislation and
municipal ordinances could go hand-in-hand. However, first
changing ADF&G's management for abundance in urban Alaska to
manage for public safety would provide comfort that [the
department] isn't encouraging this species to grow in MOA.
Representative Millett related that managing wildlife for public
safety means to her that there will be less bears and more
proactive responses such that bears that have settled into the
community are removed. She did, however, agree that this is a
state issue regarding management of wildlife in urban settings
and is a personal responsibility as well. She restated her
agreement that the municipality should be more proactive on this
matter. Still, management for abundance assumes management for
hunting or subsistence, but wildlife isn't taken in Anchorage
for the aforementioned purposes.
8:29:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if the sponsor has evidence that APD
is thinking in terms of abundance.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT clarified that ADF&G manages for
abundance, per statute.
8:30:39 AM
JENNIFER YUHAS, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game, began by providing the committee with documentation
regarding the number of bear maulings in Anchorage and a
breakdown of the department's concerns with this legislation.
Ms. Yuhas informed the committee that ADF&G agrees that public
safety is a primary concern in managing wildlife. However, the
language in the proposed legislation is either unnecessary, as
the authority already exists, or poses unintended consequences.
With regard to abundance, there have been several misconceptions
at public meetings regarding the meaning of managing for
abundance. The state is divided into 26 game management units,
each of which is managed for its individual eco-system. Still,
ADF&G doesn't manage for an abundance of bears in urban
populations. At a meeting the sponsor held in Anchorage, ADF&G
provided testimony that the bear numbers were relatively the
same or a little bit lower in the Anchorage area.
MS. YUHAS then identified the major concern with the legislation
as the possibility of a significant increase in litigation.
Although the sponsor statement proposes to address bears, the
legislation actually addresses game. However, there are many
more moose encounters and there are several other wildlife
issues. Therefore, the department questions at what point it
will be litigated for not adhering to public safety issues were
this change in statute to occur. Furthermore, this legislation
would elevate public safety over subsistence as a use that
applies statewide for the department's management practices.
Ms. Yuhas explained that each game management unit is managed
through public testimony, the advisory committees, and the Board
of Game process. The department believes there are ways in
which to address this issue other than this legislation.
Therefore, she expressed the department's desire to work with
the sponsor in developing tangible solutions for the Anchorage
area. Ms. Yuhas then expressed concern that the legislation has
a constitutional conflict with the department's sustained yield
principle management. She pointed out that the sustained yield
principle doesn't necessarily translate to abundance. Sustained
yield, she explained, is similar to a bank account in that
there's the desire for interest to be produced from which one is
able to draw. Therefore, under the sustained yield principle
there's the desire to have interest of a species that can be
used. In rural areas where species are used as a food source,
the interest rate is high, which is considered abundance. The
department is not managing for an abundance of bears in an urban
area. She then pointed out that HB 281 would apply to the
Municipality of Anchorage as well as the Fairbanks North Star
Borough and likely the Mat-Su Borough. This legislation, she
opined, will likely open debate on rural/urban issues and
whether residents in Barrow who have polar bears walking through
their community deserve the same public safety as those in
Anchorage. Still, the department believes that the authority
given already provides the same degree of public safety to all
residents of the state. The department expects to be able to
work through its staff to address those situations in which sows
are camping out in a neighborhood, especially since this
legislation wouldn't fix that.
8:35:46 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ inquired as to any tangible solutions Ms. Yuhas
may have.
MS. YUHAS noted that ADF&G has an ongoing dialogue with MOA
regarding possible revisions to the MOU. In fact, last year
there was a proposal to increase the number of staff to address
urban bears. However, that proposal didn't make it through one
of the [Finance Subcommittees]. The department has had some
focus groups in Anchorage to discuss some of the sensible
solutions and what people would characterize as an aggressive
bear.
8:37:35 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if the Anchorage Advisory Committee is
basically the boundaries of the municipality. He then recalled
that Ms. Yuhas had commented that "game" includes many animals,
and inquired as to the proper definition for bears, wolves, and
coyotes if it replaced the term game in the legislation.
MS. YUHAS confirmed that the Anchorage Advisory Committee
represents basically the boundaries of MOA. In further response
to Co-Chair Herron, she related that ADF&G refers to predators,
large predators, and fur bearers. She said that she would have
to research her definition on "coyote" in order to determine
whether wolves, coyotes, and bears would be lumped together in
one of the aforementioned categories.
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if the department has thought about
[what's proposed in HB 281] prior to this legislation.
MS. YUHAS replied no, adding that when a predator population is
decreased an undulate population is increased. She pointed out
that moose in Anchorage cause more traffic accidents and attack
more humans [than bears]. In fact, there is a group that would
like to transport moose outside of Anchorage.
CO-CHAIR HERRON surmised then that moose are urbanized, and yet
they're something that residents like to have in their
community. However, he questioned whether predators are
different than moose.
MS. YUHAS noted her agreement that predators are a totally
different class of animals that pose a different set of
problems. The original question, she recalled, was regarding
whether ADF&G had reviewed managing for public safety as a
mandate rather than the existing practice that takes public
safety into consideration. She reiterated concern over the
unintended consequences that managing for public safety could
cause in the form of litigation.
8:40:53 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON inquired as to the department's priority as
related to public safety.
MS. YUHAS clarified that public safety is a response not a
management [practice].
8:41:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if ADF&G would've been more
responsive to some of the situations that the sponsor described
had the past effort to add more staff occurred.
MS. YUHAS specified that although she's not advocating for a
program, increasing responders increases response. In further
response to Representative Gardner, Ms. Yuhas said she would be
speculating regarding whether a larger staff could've had a
greater response rate.
8:42:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed interest in knowing what kinds
of incidents have been reported to ADF&G. She then highlighted
that Anchorage is trying to return its streams to fish streams,
which attract bears. Therefore, there needs to be a discussion
regarding the impacts of different management schemes. To that
end, the legislature should consider legislation that increases
ADF&G personnel in Anchorage for educational and discussion
purposes.
8:45:02 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced the intent of the co-chairs to hold HB
281. He then requested that Ms. Yuhas work with the sponsor to
narrow the term "game" to refer to predators and further explore
public safety as a response protocol.
MS. YUHAS stated that the legislation definitely refers to a
public safety response. With regard to whether public safety is
a management tool, Ms. Yuhas explained that public safety is
incorporated into the discussions. However, to change ADF&G's
statute to prioritize public safety in terms of management
doesn't meet the constitutional needs of the rest of the system.
CO-CHAIR HERRON opined that the management of this type of
animal and the population levels on the Alaska Peninsula is very
different than those same animals between Lake Otis and Service
High School.
8:47:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if Ms. Yuhas believes HB 281, as
currently written, is unconstitutional.
MS. YUHAS replied yes.
8:47:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER returned to the scenario presented by the
sponsor, and inquired as to ADF&G's response if the bear had
shown aggression and was shot by the individual in the
situation.
MS. YUHAS deferred to Mr. Saxby, but added that the main concern
is that managing for all public safety would pose litigation for
any animal in Anchorage that caused a problem.
8:48:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if HB 281, as proposed, is
unconstitutional.
8:48:54 AM
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural
Resources Section, Department of Law, clarified that he wouldn't
say that the legislation is unconstitutional, but said that it
raises significant constitutional issues, specifically related
to Article VII, Section 4, which in general mandates that all
wildlife be managed for sustained yield. However, there is an
allowance subject to preferences among beneficial uses. In
fact, there is a case before the Alaska Supreme Court, the
decision from which will specify the extent to which the
"subject to" clause allows the state to reduce predator
populations. The aforementioned will obviously have bearing on
what's being discussed today. Although the state has held the
position that it's constitutional to develop plans to reduce
predator populations, the language in HB 281 is not crafted in a
manner that's as protective of constitutional concerns. The
case before the Alaska Supreme Court is captioned under
Defenders of Wildlife et.al. v. State.
8:50:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired as to the scenario when an
Alaskan shoots game to protect him/herself.
MR. SAXBY informed the committee that many years ago the Board
of Game adopted a regulation authorizing shooting any game in
defense of life and property. However, if the game was taken
out of season and the citizen was not licensed, there would be
an investigation by ADF&G troopers. If the investigation
illustrated a genuine threat to life or property, there would be
no further consequences.
8:51:26 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ asked if HB 281 covers bears.
MR. SAXBY answered that it seems to cover all game.
8:52:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA referred to documentation in the committee
packet regarding bear maulings in Anchorage. She asked if there
is data or reporting on the human and bear incidents in
Anchorage over the last five years in order to determine the
immediacy of the problem.
MR. SAXBY said that based on the testimony he has heard in his
capacity as attorney for the Board of Game, he is confident that
ADF&G can produce data on the bear/human encounters.
8:55:08 AM
LARRY KANIUT commended the sponsor and opined that it's
appropriate to enact local or statewide legislation on this
issue. He then recalled that in the 1970s bear viewings were
scant, but from 2000-2008 there were three to five bears every
summer in his yard in the De'Armond area. Having spent decades
researching bears, bear attacks, and relationships between bears
and humans, Mr. Kaniut appreciated Representative Millett's
reference to urbanized bears. He then related that problems
with urbanized bears exist elsewhere as well. For example,
about a year ago in Indian Bird 12 bears were killed in defense
of life and the locals related that they had killed at least 20
bears. Therefore, there's a problem with vigilantism. With
regard to the language "immediate harm", he opined that any time
there's a bear there is immediate harm because the animal is
unpredictable. This urbanized bear is a new bear that hasn't
been seen before. He related that although residents of MOA are
being told to store their garbage and bird feeders, the main
attractants for bears in Anchorage is moose cows and the now
stocked fish streams, both of which aren't being addressed by
the department. Mr. Kaniut expressed hope for the introduction
of legislation enabling the Alaska Moose Federation to remove
some of the moose from Anchorage to other areas, which will
address bears to some degree.
9:02:32 AM
BRAD HERZOG characterized HB 281 as common sense legislation
because human life is sacred and thus human safety concerns
should be the priority over predatory animal safety concerns.
He reminded the committee that when bears are aggressive toward
humans when unprovoked, it's highly unnatural bear behavior that
should be remedied prior to the loss of human life or quality
human life. He related that he has interviewed individuals who
have lived in Anchorage since the 1950s, and those individuals
report that bear attitudes have changed over the years such that
bears in the area have became progressively more aggressive
toward humans in some areas. He opined that although there may
have been a smaller population in Anchorage in the
aforementioned timeframe, there was likely a similar bear
population. However, bears likely acted more natural when
encountering humans. Mr. Herzog opined that the animals
referred to in HB 281 are a renewable resource and not
endangered. This legislation, he surmised, is largely about
managing unnatural predator behavior of an abundant predator
urban bear population. He encouraged trying this proposal for
awhile in MOA and if the results are unsatisfactory, legislation
could be introduced to change it back. Mr. Herzog specified
that he is a proponent of HB 281.
MR. HERZOG then addressed some of the earlier comments in the
meeting. Concerning the phone calls that would be received by
dispatch at the police station, he supposed that it would be
correct to say that the number of phone calls would be higher
right after the legislation is passed. However, one must
remember it's left to the discretion of the dispatcher to make
the decision whether or not to dispatch an officer. Mr. Herzog
opined that although there may initially be an increase in
calls, it would eventually subside.
9:05:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if Mr. Herzog agreed with the
earlier comments regarding the attractants of bears being moose
and fish. If so, she asked whether those attractants should be
addressed in responding to problem bears.
MR. HERZOG suggested that problem bears could be tagged and
their behavior observed. He suggested addressing those bears
that are being taught unnatural behavior first. He said that in
deciding whether or not to address reintroducing fish into
Anchorage streams, there should be review of the numbers of fish
in the streams in the past and whether or not there were more
bear encounters and problems then than now.
9:08:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to APD's policy, specifically
regarding whether game is more important than human safety. She
asked if APD has records regarding the [bear] encounters for
which it has received calls and taken action.
9:09:17 AM
DEREK HSIEH, Sergeant, Anchorage Police Department, Municipality
of Anchorage, responded that Representative Cissna's question is
difficult to answer because generally speaking APD deals with
large animal problems, which would include predators, moose, and
some categories of domesticated animals. All those problems are
categorized as animal problems. In 2009 APD responded to 624
animal problems involving all types of animals; additionally,
APD responded to a number of traffic incidents that involved
animals that aren't coded as animal problems. Mr. Hsieh
estimated that annually APD receives 800-1,000 calls involving
an animal issue.
9:10:35 AM
MR. HSIEH, in further response to Representative Cissna,
explained that APD's current policy/practice is to attempt to
notify ADF&G or their troopers regarding their availability to
help manage the problem. If ADF&G or its troopers are
available, then they will have the primary authority and
response in the problem. However, if not, APD will most likely
dispatch an officer if the problem is acute and remedy the
situation based on APD's good judgment and training.
9:11:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to whether the call or safety
is considered first.
MR. HSIEH answered that public safety comes first no matter what
the situation. In regard to HB 281, APD is most interested in
the last half of the change in which the board authorizes the
municipal police department to take action without contacting
ADF&G, thereby allowing APD to have some degree of primary
response. He recalled earlier testimony regarding increasing
ADF&G staff, which he characterized as great. However,
ultimately it would be better for police officers in the field
to know that they have the authority and clarity to resolve
problems, regardless of the animal. He clarified that resolving
problems with animals doesn't necessarily mean destroying the
animal because in many causes the problem can be addressed by
other means. In further response to Representative Cissna, Mr.
Hsieh confirmed that APD officers do receive some training on
wildlife issues, although he characterized wildlife training as
hit or miss. He then told the committee that APD doesn't view
animal problems as distinct from other problems it's called to
address. In fact, officers are encouraged to resolve problems
in a way in which the solution addresses the highest degree of
safety. He offered that APD could mine its data, but would need
to know in what question the committee is interested. For
instance, APD could determine how many animals, of all species,
it has destroyed in a year. The APD could also break down the
animal problems geographically, but determining how many reports
were related to a specific animal would require reviewing every
police report.
9:15:10 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON related that the focus on the animal issues
would be on those that are predators.
MR. HSIEH agreed to inquire whether APD can easily provide such
data.
9:15:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA recommended that the committee develop the
question in order to obtain real data.
9:16:42 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON mentioned the desire to tighten the language of
HB 281, and then announced that the legislation will be held
over for further consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised that the vast majority of the
800-1,000 animal issues involve dogs.
MR. HSIEH related his assumption that dogs would be involved in
the vast majority of animal issues with moose following close
behind.
9:17:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that currently
APD would notify ADF&G when dispatch receives a call regarding
an animal. If available, APD would respond, sometimes even when
ADF&G is available. Furthermore, currently responding APD
police officers can remedy the problem, while keeping public
safety first, based on their training. She highlighted that the
February 1, 2010, letter from Mr. Hsieh says that HB 281 "gives
the APD the authority to take a bear if it is a known human
threat." However, the legislation says that the police
department would be authorized "to take game when the taking
serves to protect human life from immediate harm from the game",
which is different than a "known human threat." Therefore, she
questioned in what way HB 281 would change existing policy, save
APD not having to notify ADF&G first.
MR. HSIEH answered that it wouldn't [change existing policy];
the legislation merely clarifies and streamlines process.
9:19:09 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ asked if the current law lacks clarity and
authority for APD to act when public safety is in jeopardy.
MR. HSIEH replied no, adding that he hasn't heard of a problem
with officers addressing animal problems. The legislation, he
reiterated, provides for a quicker process by eliminating a
response step or two that may be time consuming and delay
response.
9:20:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised then that passage of HB 281
would allow a quicker process. Therefore, she questioned
whether it would be easier to change departmental policy to
accomplish the goal of HB 281. She questioned why statute that
applies to large cities is necessary.
MR. HSIEH related his understanding that APD is obligated by
statute to contact ADF&G as APD doesn't have the primary
authority to address these animal problems, which APD has
addressed through MOUs and practicality.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said that she would like to hear from the
sponsor regarding whether the aforementioned obligation to
contact ADF&G is in statute or an MOU.
9:22:44 AM
STACY SHUBERT, Intergovernmental Affairs Director, Municipality
of Anchorage, read the following statement in support of HB 281:
The Municipality of Anchorage recognizes the threat of
aggressive animals within the municipality and
appreciates the work of the bill sponsors,
particularly Representative Millett. When a
resident's safety is put in jeopardy, the Anchorage
Police Department does have the authority to take
game. However, we view this legislation as a
proactive step by the [Alaska] Department of Fish &
Game to manage for safety; eliminating the threat
before it is immediate, therefore prioritizing safety
over management for abundance. Furthermore, we
appreciate the language that requires the [Alaska]
Department of Fish & Game to be responsible for
removing and disposing of the carcass in the event
that the APD does, in fact, take the animal.
Therefore, again, we are in support of this bill and I
thank you for the opportunity to testify.
9:24:21 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ asked if MOA has undertaken an effort to address
the issue of containment of garbage to address bear problems.
MS. SHUBERT said that although she has only been on staff with
MOA for the last six months, she is aware that there are some
efforts. However, she said she would have to review the
specifics of those efforts and provide that information to the
committee.
9:25:12 AM
RONALD JORDAN, Taku/Campbell Community Council, testified in
support of HB 281, which he characterized as necessary
legislation. This legislation, he opined, will allow better
safety around schools. Mr. Jordan related his belief that HB
281 should be extended to apply to any locale with bear
problems.
9:26:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT stated that she is open to changing HB
281, which she characterized as a proactive step. She
emphasized that the extra steps sometimes can seem foolish when
reporting an animal issue, and therefore allowing APD to respond
without contacting ADF&G is necessary. In conclusion,
Representative Millett welcomed the committee's help in making
this legislation better.
9:27:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER restated her earlier question regarding
whether the process of calling ADF&G prior to APD responding is
in statute or part of APD's policy or MOU.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT related her belief that ADF&G manages
wildlife, and therefore would be the first responder, and that
the MOU came about because the statute is unclear. She offered
to research the matter further and provide information to
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed puzzlement because it seems
that APD can currently respond if it desires to do so,
particularly if the situation is deemed an immediate threat.
[HB 281 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB276-DOT&PF-CO-1-28-10.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB 276 Sponsor.docx |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB 281 sponsor statement1.doc |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |
| HB 276 Sitka Airport Property Boundary correction signed letter 1 28 2010.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB 276 Q & A.docx |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB 276 color map.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB281-DFG-BDS-02-01-10.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |
| HB281-DFG-WLF-02-01-10.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |
| HB 276 Committee Mins.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| CSHB 276 Proposal.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB 281 pro letter.PDF |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |
| HB 281 ACE ltr.PDF |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |
| HB281-DPS-AWT-02-01-10.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |