Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/29/2000 02:00 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 349
"An Act relating to powers of the Board of Game, means
of access for hunting, trapping, and fishing, the
definition of 'means' and 'methods,' and hunting safety
education and game conservation education programs;
relating to the purposes of game refuges, fish and game
critical habitat areas, and public use areas."
EDDIE GRASSER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MASEK spoke in support
of HB 349. He observed that HB 349 was introduced as a
result of Representative Masek's discussion with long time
Alaskans who have witnessed the steady erosion of hunting
and trapping opportunities throughout the state. He
maintained that since statehood, millions of acres of land
have been closed to hunting and trapping, and millions more
restricted from being managed under the sustained yield
principle due to federal management prerogatives.
Mr. Grasser observed that HB 349 does not require any other
uses to be restricted or in any way infringed upon. He
asserted that the legislation would protect hunting, fishing
and trapping on lands belonging to the state as a legitimate
use of fish and wildlife. He observed that federal
legislation clarifying hunting, fishing and trapping as
legitimate uses on National Wildlife Refuge Lands was passed
and explained that HB 349 would do the same thing on state
refuges, state wildlife ranges, critical habitat areas and
public use areas.
Mr. Grasser reviewed the legislation by section:
Section one and two amends AS 16.05.221 and 16.05.255
by adding the term enhancement to current statute. By
doing so it is hoped past efforts of the Legislature to
make clear the desire to manage for sustained yield is
followed. Currently the Board of Game has attempted to
follow the Legislature's policies on sustained yield
only to be thwarted by administrative problems. By
adding the term enhancement we hope to make Clear that
wildlife populations should be managed for the benefit
of
all Alaskans, not just those who for personal reasons
oppose legitimate human uses of those common property
resources.
Section three creates new language clarifying the
Boards authority to close areas to access.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 89, SIDE 1)
Mr. Grasser continued with his sectional analysis of the
legislation:
The board may continue to close areas to certain
methods and means for a variety of reasons without any
legislative oversight. However, in cases where a
biological concern is not addressed, the Board is
required to adhere to advisory committee oversight in
that an AC with jurisdiction in the affected GMU may
object in writing. This language will protect fishers,
hunters and trappers from unnecessary closures in their
area by giving them more of a voice in the process
through their local advisory committees. We would like
to note that each GMU currently has a listing of AC's
with jurisdiction under 5 AAC 97.005 For instance, GMU
13 includes the following AC's -Paxson, Copper Basin,
Middle Nenana, Tok Cutoff/Nabesna, Denali, Anchorage,
Mat Valley, Copper River/Prince William Sound.
Section 4 - Defines means and methods. Example of need
is meat on bone. Section 5 - Amends language relating
to state refuges to ensure hunting, fishing and
trapping are protected uses.
Section 6 - page 4, line 6. Amends language relating to
critical habitat areas to insure hunting, fishing and
trapping are protected uses. Also the new language "and
traditional uses of fish and wildlife" may have the
desired effect of helping the Division of Habitat
exclude troublesome new uses that may have a damaging
affect on an area.
Sections 7,8 & 9 - Pages 4 & 5. Section 7 has been
amended to clarify that it is clear the Dept. may
continue providing hunter education but also should
cooperate with other groups who are interested to
providing those services as long as they meet state
standards.
Section 8 was amended to clarify that the Dept. should
assist nonprofits who are supportive of hunting,
fishing and trapping in developing shooting ranges and
associated educational programs.
Section 9 was amended to delineate that nonprofits
supportive of hunting, fishing and trapping may receive
grants to provide for hunter safety training and
wildlife conservation education training.
Sections 10 - 15. These sections were amended to
further protect hunting, fishing and trapping as
legitimate uses on Public Use lands.
With these changes, Representative Masek feels this
legislation meets the needs of both those Alaskans whose
cultural heritage is being jeopardized by an
increasingly urbanized society. The reasons for this
legislation should be apparent to most Alaskans
supportive of traditional Alaskan values. As further
evidence that traditional uses of wildlife to feed one's
family need this extra consideration, we would like to
point out a couple of items.
First, there appears to be a growing sentiment in the
environmental community that their views and their
economic well being deserves the highest level of
protection. Environmentalists and their supporters
rarely acknowledge the lands that have already been set
aside for their exclusive use; there are no lands set
aside for hunting, fishing and trapping. It is not
enough that viewing, photography and other non-
consumptive uses have huge areas of Alaska already set
aside; they would like more areas set aside. He noted
that under the game regulations viewing is the first
priority in almost every instance on every species, by
virtue of limits on hunting, fishing bag limits and
seasons. He noted that on unit 9, which is a prime bear
hunting area, hunting is only allowed every other year.
Mr. Grasser asked: "In short, where is the equity, or the
balance in further attacks on legitimate human uses of
wildlife when we have already done so much to give a
priority to nonconsumptive uses?"
Mr. Grasser conclude by stating that:
HB 349 provides a solution to a flagging question. "Are
we going to allow further attacks on the Alaskan Way of
Life, the way of life that many of you in this room
grew up with?" By providing protection for those
cultural and spiritual values associated with ancient
uses of wildlife by Native and non-natives alike we
will insure that the diversity of Alaska's peoples
continues.
In response to a comment by Representative Foster, Mr.
Grasser observed that he found numerous sites on the
Internet that attack hunting, fishing and trapping. The
concern is that there is a movement in society to move away
from the traditional uses of wildlife. He noted that federal
legislation was passed to protect hunting, fishing and
trapping on federal land and added that the legislation
would do the same on state lands. He acknowledged that there
might be amendments but emphasized that the goal is to
assure some protections for consumption uses.
Representative Austerman referred to section 6. Mr. Grasser
explained that the language on section 6, line 9 "and
traditional uses of fish and wildlife in the critical
habitat area" would provide statutory authority to regulate
or restrict the use of jet skis in Katchemak Bay.
Representative Austerman felt that the language "and to
restrict all other uses not compatible with that primary
purpose" would do the job. Mr. Grasser explained that newer
uses like jet skis would not fall under the traditional use
category.
MATT ROBUS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME testified on HB 349. He
expressed concerns by the department. He noted that several
of the issues that were identified in testimony before other
committees have been resolved. For example, reinsertion of
the word "development" in Section 1 emphasizes the
importance of human utilization as a resource use.
Mr. Robus noted that there are still several areas of
concern to the department. Section 3 of the bill would limit
the Board of Game's authority to restrict the means of
access for the purpose of taking fish or game. Access
restrictions could be authorized only in the six specific
ways outlined in this section. Management of access is and
has been one of the most useful tools available to the Board
of Game for reducing conflicts between user groups while
still allowing maximum opportunity to harvest wildlife
populations. Without the ability to craft appropriate
mixtures of access methods and timing, the Board will be
faced with the need to shorten hunts and reduce bag limits
in order to scale back harvests that would climb in some
areas due to unrestricted access.
Changes made to the bill have done away with several of the
problems that were originally identified in this section by
simplifying the process by which advisory committees would
be involved in access issues considered by the Board and
grandfathering existing access rules where they are in
effect. However, according to the department's
interpretation, the current version would allow a single
fish and game advisory committee to veto an access-related
proposal. He acknowledged that there are few wildlife
management measures that are universally beloved and stated
that it is unwise to instill this degree of power in a
single advisory committee. He maintained that one committee
could prevent an access rule that had general support
within the region and across the state.
In response to a question by Representative J. Davies, Mr.
Robus expressed concern is in regards to subsection 2, on
page 3, lines 6 - 9.
Mr. Robus continued review of the legislation. Section 4 of
the bill would define "methods and means" in statute to mean
"tools, implements, devices, or vehicles" used to take fish
or game. Methods and means are not currently defined in
either statute or regulation, but an entire section of the
fish and game regulations deal with methods and means. This
section addresses issues such as shooting off of highways,
definition of bait, prohibiting the use of poison, wanton
waste, same day airborne restrictions, and many other rules
that are necessary for good wildlife management. The way the
bill is structured it would limit the use of methods and
means only to tools, implements, and vehicles. All other
methods and means regulations would conflict with the
statute and would probably go away. He emphasized that the
section would need to be changed if it is not the intent to
delete regulations that are currently being used.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if some of the examples given
would be included as a tool or device. Mr. Robus observed
that "tools, implements, devices, or vehicles" are concrete
items and explained that the concern is that the definition
could restrict the regulation of things that are not tools.
He explained that if methods and means are defined in a
narrow fashion that the ability to regulate other things
could be lost. Items of concern include wanton waste,
definition of bait, same day airborne restrictions,
prohibiting the use of poison, or shooting off or across of
highways.
Mr. Robus noted that section 5 expands the purposes for
state game refuges to include enhancement of fish and game,
fish and game habitat, and traditional public uses of fish
and game. The department's concern is that section 5 makes
public recreational use coequal to protection of habitat and
wildlife. He explained that there could be a situation such
as in Potter's Marsh where the department might not be able
to prohibit kayaking in the springtime when it would
displace birds that are trying to establish nests. The value
of the refuge as bird habitat would be effected by the
prominence of protecting human use. He explained that the
Department of Fish and Game has managed refuges and other
special areas to primarily protect habitat and to promote
use of the habitat by animals and to then manage it as a
multiple use human area to the extent that human use fits
with the original purpose of the refuge. He felt that
conflict and degradation of the purpose of the refuge would
result.
Section 7 of the bill addresses the department's authority
for hunter education and wildlife conservation education
programs. The change made to subsection (2) in this version
answered earlier concerns expressed by the department. Mr.
Robus pointed out that the department would take a broad
interpretation of the term "wildlife conservation education
program." He noted that there are other areas such as
Potter's Marsh where the department is working with private
non-profits and other agencies to establish a visitor
center. The department feels that this would be part of a
wildlife conservation program and should be included.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if there have been objections.
Mr. Robus stated that the motivation is to make sure that
the understanding is clear.
SUE SCHRADER, ALASKA CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, JUNEAU stated
that the Alliance was pleased that the term "development"
was added back into the bill. She noted that they continue
to have problems with the inclusion of "enhancement" in
sections 1 and 2. She estimated that the changes would
increase conflict (between the user groups).
Ms. Schrader stated that the Alliance has concern with
language in section 3 that would make it more difficult to
regulate access. She spoke in opposition to removing
authority from the Board of Game and biologists of the
Department of Fish and Game to deal with access issues, by
allowing advisory committees veto power over regulations on
access.
Ms. Schrader noted that section 5 is a major area of
concern. She maintained conflict will arise over placing
hunting and trapping interests at the same level as
protection of the habitat and wildlife in refuges such as:
Creamers Field, McNeil River, Anchorage Coastal, and
Mendenhall Wetlands. She stressed that the legislation is
confusing and emphasized that it is not going to help with
the debate over hunting and trapping.
CAROL CARROLL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SUPPORT SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES addressed sections 10 - 19.
She noted that the Department of Natural Resources manages
the public use areas. The Department of Natural Resources
considers public use areas as multiple-use areas. She noted
that public use areas are open to oil and gas leasing,
mining, and other types of development. In the past the
department has paid attention to the habitat, as required by
statute. She expressed concerns that the bill would make
public use areas more like refuges. The department would
have additional authority to develop, preserve and protect
fish and the wildlife that use the habitat. She emphasized
that this would be outside of the normal purview of the
Department of Fish and Game. She felt that the balance would
be upset toward creating more of a refuge for fish and game
within a habitat.
DICK BISHOP, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL spoke in support of the
legislation. He agreed with the emphasis on protecting the
traditional means of access and traditional uses of fish and
wildlife in state special use areas. He maintained that
preserving fish and wildlife habitat in state public use
areas institutionalizes a purpose that many thought was
already there. He asserted that the bill does not reduce the
multiple use opportunities in public use areas. He noted
that they would still be open to development. He spoke in
support of the broadening of the Department of Fish and
Game's contact and support of private organizations
dedicated to perpetuating traditional fishing, hunting and
trapping uses of fish and wildlife. These pursuits are basic
to the values of rural and urban Alaskans that rely on and
enjoy participating in Alaska's ecosystems as consumptive
users.
Mr. Bishop stated that he had some concern with language on
page 4, lines 2 and 3: general public recreation on refuges.
He questioned the addition of the language as part of the
purpose of the refuge. He recommended that the language be
deleted and added that it goes beyond the recreational
opportunities associated with fish and wildlife refuges.
Representative J. Davies referenced section 5, which defines
the purposes of the wildlife refuges. He asked for Mr.
Bishop's understanding of the inclusion of "enhance". He
noted that the general concept of wildlife refuge is a place
that is a preserve, in as close a way as possible, as a
natural habitat. He questioned what is meant by: "enhancing
a natural habitat".
Mr. Bishop responded that there is nothing in the national
or state refuge system that suggests or implies that it
needs to be maintained in the status quo. He asserted that
there are active efforts to enhance habitat on many refuges.
He noted that there have been controlled burns on Creamers
Field refuge. An enhancement would be to improve the
habitat conditions to the benefit of the fish and wildlife
species that normally reside there.
Representative J. Davies asked specifically about predator
control. Mr. Bishop stated that predator control would not
be included under sections 1 or 2. Predator control is a
management technique that might apply under some
circumstances, but would not be considered as a traditional
use.
Representative Phillips referred to section 4, page 3, line
23. She expressed concerns about the elimination of
management tools by the Department of Fish and Game.
Mr. Bishop acknowledged that it is a legitimate concern that
those types of regulations not be lost. He felt that it was
only a matter of labeling.
Representative Phillips pointed out that the word "tools"
could be interpreted to mean many different things. She
maintained that it is a dangerous thing to use "tools" if
other concepts are not included. Mr. Bishop maintained that
the matter could be addressed by including the kinds of
regulations that Mr. Robus discussed under a different label
of methods and means.
Co-Chair Mulder expressed concern if the statutory language
would led disputes to court. Mr. Bishop stressed that the
regulations should be sufficiently clear to avoid problems.
Representative Austerman commented that true Alaskans,
understand that the habitat must be protected or there is no
resource. He referred to section 5. He expressed concern
that the protection of traditional public use would be
brought to the same plane as protection of habitat. He
suggested that other traditional uses should be one step
beneath the protection of the habitat.
Mr. Bishop responded that there would be two ways to look at
the issue. It could be looked at in relationship to the
order of the purposes: the order in which the purposes are
listed. The first listed purpose would be the most
important. He maintained that logical administration of the
law would follow that public uses could not be protected if
the habitat and resource are not protected.
Vice Chair Bunde noted that he shared the concern voiced by
Ms. Schrader regarding increasing the volatility between
hunter and non-hunter.
Mr. Bishop acknowledged the concern. He stated that in most
cases when hunters, trappers and fishermen have tried to
reduce the level of controversy through compromising some of
their interest that they have lost their interest and have
been asked to give up more. He maintained that it is
important for hunters, trappers and fishers to assert their
rights, to assert the ecological correctness of their
pursuits. In the context of other legislation it is
important that the resources be managed on the sustained
yield principle. He stressed that consumptive use is part of
the sustained yield principle. He concluded that the
pursuits of hunting, fishing, and trapping are protected and
recognized as the foundation for the management of natural
resources on the sustained yield principle. Resources can be
conserved and used into perpetuity. It is essential for
public officials to state that (hunting, fishing and
trapping) are legitimate uses and should be accommodated and
protected with other uses.
Vice Chair Bunde stated that it comes down to issues of
power and control. Mr. Bishop responded that it is implicit
that "you can not have the use unless you have taken care of
the resource".
Representative Austerman referred to section 6, page 4. He
asked why the language was not included and asked how its
deletion would affect the bill.
(TAPE CHANGE, HFC 00 - 89, SIDE 2)
Mr. Bishop stated that the language institutionalizes the
concept that critical habitat areas are important to
traditional uses of fish and wildlife, which includes
fishing, hunting, trapping and viewing. He stressed that if
the language was deleted that the impact would be to
identify by omission that compared to the others items
identified, critical habitat areas are not considered as
important for traditional uses. He felt that such an
interpretation would be illogical and inconsistent with the
direction and purpose of the legislation in regards to other
areas such as refuges. He concluded that deletion of the
language would detract from the effectiveness of the
legislation in terms of institutionalizing and recognizing
the importance of fishing, hunting, trapping uses and
diminish it's effectiveness.
HB 349 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|