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 |
---|