Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/20/1994 08:15 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Number 615
SB 46 - Authorize Moose Farming
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated this is the fourth committee
meeting on SB 46 and at the last meeting a subcommittee was
appointed. He said although the subcommittee never met,
Representative Carney, Chair of the subcommittee did submit
a suggested draft revision of the bill. Since the last
meeting on SB 46, the commissioners of the three affected
state departments, DNR, the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), and ADF&G met and developed a whittled
down list of what they considered to be their bottom line
amendments needed to make the bill acceptable to the
Administration.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he had a CS drafted to add those
seven suggested amendments to the draft CS previously before
the committee. It is that version which will be before the
committee. He stated the committee has spent considerable
time on SB 46 and he hoped the committee could reach a
decision and take action on the bill.
Number 650
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to ADOPT HCS CSSB
46(RES).
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
REPRESENTATIVES MULDER and FINKELSTEIN OBJECTED.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated before the committee
adopts this version, he would like to hear ADF&G describe
what is in it.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said if a CS is adopted, then the
committee can use it as a working draft.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated as a member of the subcommittee
which worked on SB 46, he would rather adopt the report the
subcommittee developed.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested that ADF&G outline what is
contained in the House CS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated he would like to adopt the House CS
and work from the document.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said if there are no objections, the
MOTION PASSED.
TAPE 94-59, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON requested that ADF&G be invited to the
table to explain their strong recommendations of changes to
be made to SB 46.
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY asked if ADF&G's recommendations
are in the House CS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied they are.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY stressed there is no resemblance
between the House CS and what the subcommittee did.
Number 029
DAVID KELLEYHOUSE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE, ADF&G,
stated the amendments the Administration put forward were
agreed upon by the commissioners of DNR, DEC, and ADF&G. He
said the first two amendments will relieve animals held
under an experimental animal husbandry permit from the
authority of DNR and put them under the authority of ADF&G.
Animals held under these permits are not yet game farm
animals and are not domestic animals, but rather are wild
animals. The intent of the experimental animal husbandry
permit is to allow an individual to experiment with these
animals to determine if they are suitable as domestic or
game farm animals. He said those amendments appear on page
2, lines 15-16 and lines 22-23. The amendment deletes the
words "and animals subject to an experimental animal
husbandry permit under AS 16.40.010."
MR. KELLEYHOUSE said on page 4, lines 11-12, the words
"caribou, moose, Sitka black-tailed deer" are deleted. He
stated caribou, moose and Sitka black-tailed deer should not
be defined as game farm animals until they have been
successfully bred and raised as livestock under the terms of
an experimental animal husbandry permits. On page 5, lines
30-31, the words "or to an experimental animal husbandry
permit under AS 16.40.010" are deleted. He stated animals
held under a Title 16 experimental animal husbandry permit
should not be defined as domestic, and removed from
department and fish and game oversight, until they are
actually held under a game farming license.
Number 062
MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated on page 7, lines 28-29, following the
word "The", the words "possession and utilization of animals
acquired under this section for commercial purposes and" are
deleted. He said Title 3 statutes and regulations adopted
under Title 3 should apply only to game farm animals, not to
animals held under Title 16 permits or used for commercial
purposes other than game farming. On page 8, line 10, the
words "and sell the meat from" are deleted. He said the
sale of meat from animals held under Title 16 experimental
animal husbandry permits is inappropriate and could
compromise wildlife enforcement regulations adopted by the
Board of Game. At such time as ownership of animals held
under these permits is transferred to the permittee under
Title 3 game farming licenses, the sale will become legal.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE said on page 8, lines 11-17, following the
word "animals", the words ", and may charge a fee to the
public for viewing of the animals. The preparation and sale
of meat or other products under this subsection for human
consumption are subject to AS 03 and regulations adopted
under AS 03. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
subsection, the possession of animals for experimental
animal husbandry purposes is subject to AS 03 and
regulations adopted under AS 03 in the same manner as the
possession of game farm animals" are deleted. He stated
regulation of animals held under Title 16 permits should be
by ADF&G. Experimental animal husbandry permits are
intended to test the feasibility of using surplus wildlife
for game farming, not for zoological exhibition. Exhibition
is currently regulated under Title 16 scientific/educational
permits.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated on page 9, lines 8-16, all material
related to surplusing is deleted. He said criteria for
declaring game as surplus can best be achieved in
regulations adopted under AS 16.40.010(a) Section 15. Some
of the criteria listed in this draft are allocation matters
that should be considered by the Board of Game such as
declaring animals in proximity to highways, railroads, and
urban areas as surplus. He pointed out these are also the
animals most in demand by the public for subsistence, sport
hunting, viewing, etc. He also pointed out that most of the
state's roads, railroads, and towns happen to be in valley
bottoms. When winter arrives and the animals are forced
down into the bottom, any animal could be declared surplus.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE said ADF&G feels SB 46 can be a good bill
and provide a very necessary function in the regulation of
game farming. ADF&G feels there is a chance for success in
game farming in Alaska, particularly with elk, bison, musk
ox and reindeer. These animals have a proven history of
utility. ADF&G hopes the committee will proceed cautiously
on the addition of new species and do it under the
experimental animal husbandry permit under ADF&G control.
Number 116
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY noted caribou was included in the
species which are not currently considered a domestic
animal.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded he is aware of the federal
definition of a reindeer--as soon as a caribou is in
possession, federal law considers it to be a reindeer. When
wild deer were being herded in, occasionally caribou were
mixed in with the herd. Therefore, the reason for the
inclusion was so the federal government did not have to ask
a Native herder to differentiate between the two. He
stressed caribou are definitely not reindeer.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY said he has been led to believe that
including caribou as a domestic animal will give the state
an advantage on getting access to the use of those animals
in lieu of reindeer.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE said unless there is a change in federal law
regulating reindeer herding in Alaska, he is not sure that
is a correct interpretation.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN thought at the department's
suggestion, caribou is included in the House CS on page 6,
line 30.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded in that section, any of those
animals can be considered for possession under the
experimental animal husbandry permit, which ADF&G will
regulate. Those animals will not be game farm animals until
farming of the those animals is tested for feasibility.
Number 160
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said in Section 4, game farm animals
are identified as bison, elk, reindeer, and musk ox and does
not include moose. He clarified there is a difference
between game animals and game farm animals.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied game animals are all animals.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked where in the House CS does it say
that moose are available for experimental licensing.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied at the bottom of page 6. He stated
moose will be available for possession under the terms of an
experimental animal husbandry permit. ADF&G has stated in
the past that moose are not a suitable animal for game
farming. However, if someone wants to try moose farming, it
is provided for in the House CS under the terms of an
experimental animal husbandry permit.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if a person has a game farm
license for moose, what can that person do with the moose.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied under the House CS for CSSB 46, a
person will not be able to have a game farm license to hold
a moose. Under a game farm license, a person can hold elk,
bison, musk ox, or reindeer. He explained if a person wants
to hold a moose, caribou, or black-tailed deer, they will
have to do that under the terms of an experimental animal
husbandry permit. That permit will be issued for the
purpose of propagating, determining if the animals can be
bred, raised and kept in a healthy condition and in a manner
that will promise to have economic opportunities. He said
the animal can be eaten, it can be milked, etc., but it
cannot be commercially sold.
Number 223
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there is a section in the
House CS which defines experimental animal husbandry.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE said ADF&G will issue the experimental
animal husbandry permits and the department will monitor the
health of the animal and the operation. He stated any
animal under the permit will belong to the state and be
regulated by ADF&G, as opposed to the game farm animals
which are handled by the commissioner of DNR.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he understands that, but is
wondering if the House CS says that.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied the explanation begins on page 6,
line 28 and continues down on page 7. He said there is no
definition of experimental animal husbandry included because
no regulations have been developed since the legislation has
also not been developed.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated on page 7, line 1, it says
"under regulations adopted by it,"...
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON told committee members to look at page
8, line 3 on down.
Number 279
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that experimental animal
husbandry means slaughtering and selling the antlers, horn,
etc. He felt it sounds more like a slaughtering-type of
operation.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE pointed out page 8, line 2, which says
"intends to raise and breed..." He said if there is proof
to the satisfaction of ADF&G that the person intends to
raise and breed the animal, which is basically husbandry,
then below that line are the allowable uses that a person
may make of an animal held under an experimental permit.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said the slaughtering is for personal
consumption, not for commercial sale.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified if a person has had the
experimental animal husbandry permit for five years, then
they can request title to the animal.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied that is correct.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated the subcommittee's work draft is
being distributed and asked Representative Mulder to brief
the committee on that draft.
Number 338
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER explained the subcommittee made
changes to version X. The first recommendation placed
regulatory authority over the experimental animal husbandry
permit with DNR. The second recommendation shortened the
duration of the experimental animal husbandry permit to two
years. He said the five year provision in version X was an
arbitrary number chosen by the drafting attorney because a
specific time period had not been provided at the time of
drafting. The third recommendation was to remove Sitka
black-tailed deer from the entire bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said the subcommittee recommended a
penalty clause for tampering with game farm fences in a
manner that would allow animals to escape or be stolen. The
subcommittee did discuss the issue of surplus and the
definition was retained.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the subcommittee recommended
retaining the fee which can be charged for public viewing of
the animals.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that was in the original bill and
the subcommittee recommended to retain it. However, ADF&G
recommends deleting that provision.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referring to page 8, lines 15-16, asked
if moose fall into the category of a game farm animal.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied to be classified as a game farm
animal, an animal has to be designated as such by the
commissioners of DNR and ADF&G. If after five years of
captivity and husbandry the animal proves to be farmable,
then the commissioners can designate it as a game farm
animal, even though it is not defined as such. He said
there is a provision in all of the drafts that the
commissioners can, at any time, jointly designate another
species as a game farm animal. He stressed the goal is to
not rush and call a wild animal a domestic animal and cause
problems with the management of the wild stocks.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern in that he has a
friend who had a young moose bed down by his house, they fed
it and it stayed all winter long without any fence. He felt
that particular animal could qualify as a game farm animal
because it was young, hand fed, and used to humans.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated he understands how a young animal
acts in the winter. He recalled an experience of taking
care of a buck black-tailed deer that had been received as a
fawn and bottle fed. He said when that buck came into rut
the first time, the animal was super aggressive. He
stressed there is a distinct difference between wild animals
who are acting in a certain manner at a certain time of year
and that same animal at a different part of its lifecycle
and the ability to domesticate these animals.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated moose held in captivity die at seven
years old, yet a moose out in the woods lives up to 18 years
old and nobody knows why.
Number 502
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she is not comfortable with
having the departments determine, after a certain length of
time, that a certain animal is a game farm animal. She felt
that if the committee has the option to make that
determination in regulation, it should be included in the
bill.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded if the committee wants the
legislature to make that decision, he has no objections. He
stressed that as SB 46 progressed, there were many trade-
offs and some people felt it would be more expeditious for
the commissioners to jointly make that determination, rather
than having to come to the legislature to add each species
to the law.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked ADF&G's position if the
committee adopts the subcommittee's recommendations.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied he would recommend to the
commissioner, that he recommend to the Governor a veto. He
felt the state of Alaska should not forge ahead too fast in
this endeavor because of the experiences in other states.
He stressed the version that the three departments agreed on
is a measured step in the right direction, allowing the
industry to be regulated and problems be looked at before
they become ingrained problems with property rights
instilled. He said a lot of effort was required to get the
three departments to agree.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON thought the committee had decided that
Sitka black-tailed deer should not be included in SB 46.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded there is no future in farming
Sitka black-tailed deer.
Number 594
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated the other only real difference
between the subcommittee's version and the department's
version is that the subcommittee's version shortens the
duration of the experimental animal husbandry permit from
five years to two years. She expressed support for five
years.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated his concern with the
subcommittee's version is the placing of the regulatory
authority over the experimental animal husbandry permit with
DNR, instead of ADF&G. He felt as long as an animal is
classified as a wild animal, ADF&G should have the
regulatory authority. He expressed support for version I.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES still felt uncomfortable with the
departments making the determination on adding a species to
the definition of a game farm animal. She would like to
have language in the bill instructing what happens when a
moose goes from an experimental to a game farm animal.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said there is already language in the
bill which does that. He referred to page 8, lines 15-21.
Number 685
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated a farmer has done fine for five
years and animal A becomes a game farm animal. If the
person is going to game farm, a female animal is needed. He
wondered where the farmer will get the female since he
cannot import it or trap it in the wild.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded if a person is involved in the
experimental animal husbandry permit, that person should
have a him and a her early on in the operation. He said
obtaining moose is a problem. He stated page 8, line 15
says "The department shall grant title to the animals if the
person has..." He said if that was rewritten to say, "The
department shall grant title to the animals if they are
defined as game farm animals under Title 3 and the person
has..." He pointed out that change will allow the animal to
continue under the experimental animal husbandry permit
until either the legislature or the commissioners classify
the species as a game farm animal.
TAPE 94-59, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN felt if a person is going to get into a
farming mode, that person cannot depend on orphan moose for
a supply. He thought just four or five animals does not
make a successful farm.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated that was the crux of the department's
testimony in both the Senate and House. ADF&G surveyed over
125 different farms that had moose, and the department could
not find a single farm that was raising moose as a game farm
animal--they were just kept as oddities.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the way SB 46 will work
conceptually is logical. First, the department will set up
regulations to define certain kinds of animals as surplus
and then can authorize a person to take portions of the
surplus for the purpose of raising and breeding the animals
as domestic stock for commercial purposes or for
experimental animal husbandry purposes, resulting in
possibly a small herd. He said page 8, beginning on line
12, says a person who holds the experimental permit, has
possessed animals under the permit and intends to raise the
animals for commercial purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if Representative Davies was
talking about a herd of moose. He maintained there are not
a lot of surplus moose. He stressed a person cannot go into
the wild and pick up moose.
Number 042
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to ADOPT HCS CSSB
46(RES).
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 46(RES)
deleting any reference to Sitka black-tailed deer.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked Mr. Kelleyhouse why the
reference to the definition of surplus was deleted.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE said ADF&G recommended deleting the section
on surplus because it falls into the allocation lap of the
Board of Game.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER clarified ADF&G would rather do the
determination of a surplus by regulation.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied ADF&G does not like doing things in
direct opposition to the Board of Game, but the commissioner
does have the authority to declare the surplus. He said it
is much better for the department to go the Board of Game
and outline the situation and get their concurrence. He
felt the definition of surplus which the subcommittee
offered contains inherent problems. He told the committee
if their fear is ADF&G will not declare a surplus, and
thereby veto the legislature, he would rather do it up-front
and recommend the Governor veto the entire legislation. He
pledged that if SB 46 passes, the department will take
actions conducive to putting the legislation into effect.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated his fear is that when the
commissioner is given that type of sweeping authority, he
does what he wants to as opposed to any kind of intent or
desire. He said there is potential in game farming but that
potential will never be realized if there is never a surplus
designated by the commissioner.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said many times orphan moose calves are
surplus in that there are no zoos, etc., which will take
them.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied that is his thought also. He
pointed out that not only did the commissioner of ADF&G
declare the bison herd on (indiscernible) Island as surplus,
but also recommended to the Board of Game that the
department be able to surplus some musk ox. The Board of
Game rejected the musk ox recommendation and the department
did not push it.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked why the bill precludes someone
from having an animal viewing area and charging a fee.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied that activity is already permitted
under a Title 16 permit. He said ADF&G's fear is a
situation like the dilapidated roadside viewing areas in the
Midwest and West.
Number 165
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN offered an amendment on page 1, line 1
the words "moose farming and relating to" be deleted and on
all pages the word moose be removed.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated the committee is not allowed to
make a title change without a concurrent resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out there is a provision in
the bill that moose can become a game farm animal.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said the sponsor of SB 46 does not want
moose taken out of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he does not understand why
retaining the definition of surplus in the bill will not
work. He asked Mr. Kelleyhouse to go through the list of
surplus animals and tell the committee what the problems
are.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded 1) unnecessary to the sustained
yield management of a game population--would this mean only
out of parks if the population was not being harvested. He
said if the surplus is from a harvested population, the
Board of Game has already set a policy, regarding
consumptive use of game, and has generally listed uses for
commercial agriculture last. He cannot envision where a
surplus animal would be unnecessary to the sustained yield
management of a game population.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wondered about a situation where a cow
had been hit by the Alaska Railroad and there are two calves
sitting by the side of the road. He thought the department
could find, in that case, that those two calves are
unnecessary to the sustained yield management of a game
population.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded that would be true. He added
there is competition for these calves from zoos, scientific
education permit holders that are exhibiting animals, etc.
He continued: 2) Members of a game population that
currently exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat--he
said carrying capacity is a good concept much like sustained
yield. He stated putting a definition on carrying capacity
is difficult. He did not feel one could ever demonstrate
that a population is indeed in excess of its carrying
capacity. 3) Members of a game population for which there
is no closed season on the take of animals from the game
population. ADF&G fears that any animal which comes near a
road or any animal that anybody wants could point back to a
statute to obtain that animal and circumvent the Board of
Game process. He said if the fear is that there will be no
animals made available for the experimental animal husbandry
permits, he stressed once the statute is passed, ADF&G will
do what they can to see if it will work and declare that
surplus.
Number 270
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a MOTION to MOVE HCS CSSB 46(RES)
as amended with attached fiscal notes out of committee with
INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN OBJECTED.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in
favor of the motion were REPRESENTATIVES FINKELSTEIN, BUNDE,
HUDSON, DAVIES, JAMES, MULDER, AND WILLIAMS. Voting against
the motion was REPRESENTATIVE GREEN. The MOTION PASSED 7-1.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will meet on
Friday, April 22 at 8:15 a.m. to hear SB 215 and SB 310.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting
at 6:24 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|