Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/28/2000 01:17 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 349 - FISH AND GAME/REFUGES/HABITAT & USE AREAS CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business would be 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." Number 0108 EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Aide for Representative Beverly Masek, Alaska State Legislature, indicated Representative Masek had introduced HB 349 in response to the continuing problems with wildlife management and the legitimate human uses of wildlife resources. He explained that American culture has changed over the past century from being predominantly rural. The urban culture that now exists has moved away from the ties to the natural resources that more rural people have. He pointed out that several groups have arisen in the last half of the century that are either less than understanding of rural values or are outright against them. These groups have pursued agendas to close down trapping, and hunting and, in some instances, fishing; or they have tried to use strategies that limit human consumptive uses through the curtailment of management strategies, such as predator-prey relationship management. MR. GRASSER indicated that, for the most part, "environmental extremist groups" really do not care about conservation of wildlife. The history of their finances shows that the predominant share of their financial resources has gone into activities such as limiting or curtailing trapping, hunting and fishing or other resource uses. He pointed out that in direct contrast to that, trappers, hunters and fisherman have pushed for legislation on the national scene to promote responsible conservation of wildlife and the continued uses of wildlife; they have also contributed billions of dollars out of their own pockets to groups like Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep and other groups. Mr. Grasser stated that the changing dynamic between rural versus urban culture in America has also begun to affect the philosophy of some personnel of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), where biologists support the anti-hunting movement. MR. GRASSER noted that HB 349 has several sections dealing with issues of importance to the hunting and trapping public. Section 1 attempts to direct ADF&G and the Board of Game to adhere to management philosophies which clearly support wildlife programs that include actual efforts by ADF&G to maintain and enhance game populations for human consumption. The current language in Section 1 and 2 directs ADF&G to develop wildlife resources. MR. GRASSER noted that a few years ago the Alaska State Legislature had strengthened Section 2 by including amendments that set forth rules for active management to take place. He said that regardless of actions by the Board of Game and other pleas by rural Alaskans, thus far ADF&G has been unable to act upon recommendations by the Board of Game. He explained that the change from "development" to "enhancement" is intended to add more strength to the intensive management rules that were put in place. MR. GRASSER turned attention to Section 3. It requires the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game to follow certain rules whenever contemplating further restrictions on access. In recent years, he noted, ADF&G and the boards have proposed increasing restrictions on access, but little evidence has demonstrated need in relation to biological concerns. He surmised that ADF&G will express opposition to Section 3 because of the need for flexibility to restrict access in order to better manage user groups; the department also may argue that biological concerns will arise if HB 349 passes. He noted that millions of acres in Alaska already are off-limits to motorized access. He further suggested that ADF&G would argue that there is little need, outside of biological reasons, to limit access further. As for the second concern, the language in Section 3 clearly allows for Board of Fisheries and Board of Game [to take] action where they find it necessary for sustained yield management that is needed for enhancement or protection of habitat, or that is necessary to protect the values within legislatively approved areas, such as wildlife refuges. MR. GRASSER explained that Section 4 defines "means" and "methods." The intent is to come up with some reasonable statutory parameters for the Board of Game to follow, rather than leaving a loophole. Section 5 amends the language creating refuges, so that it is clear that trapping, hunting and fishing are legitimate uses of those areas. Refuges were originally suggested and supported by hunters for a variety of reasons, Mr. Grasser asserted; however, the agenda of the environmentalist community has recently included action to eliminate hunting in these areas. He noted that Congress recently passed similar legislation protecting trapping, hunting and fishing on national refuges. MR. GRASSER noted that Sections 7, 8 and 9 relate to hunter education and wildlife conservation education. He surmised that ADF&G likely will have a problem with the mandatory language in Section 7, but he indicated that is something that should be able to be worked out. Sections 8 and 9 are permissive and do not require any grants to be made, nor do they allow any grants unless approved by the legislature; however, they restrict any grants to groups organized to support and protect trapping, hunting and fishing. Sections 8 and 9 are in direct response to materials put out by ADF&G that cast hunting and trapping in a bad light. MR. GRASSER explained that those educational materials have been amended and reissued; however, [ADF&G] is still weak on supporting human consumptive uses as legitimate. He said this is of great concern because many teachers in public education are less than supportive of hunting and trapping. He indicated it is also of great concern that ADF&G will not lend its very credible support of hunting and trapping when ballot initiatives dealing with wildlife uses arise. Sections 10 through 19 deal with public use areas; again, the new language is intended to protect human consumptive uses as legitimate in those areas. Mr. Grasser concluded that it is clear that anti-hunting groups, by their very nature, cannot work constructively with consumptive users. Number 0933 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY requested clarification as to whether Mr. Grasser was indicating that ADF&G has made false statements. MR. GRASSER clarified that he had said anti-hunting groups put false information on television. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered if ADF&G has always given straight answers. MR. GRASSER indicated that it would be a difficult question to answer. He stated that he believes, in his relationship with the department, that he has received good answers from the biologists. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE requested clarification on the reference Mr. Grasser had made to ballot initiatives with regard to aerial wolf hunting. MR. GRASSER said ADF&G was supposed to weigh in on the side of legitimate hunting and trapping with regard to the value of land- and-shoot methods that give some protection to the ungulate population, which [the department] refused to do, contending that it was a public matter that the voters needed to decide upon. Number 1136 RICK THOMPSON, Regional Manager, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He indicated that his testimony was primarily in reference to Sections 10 through 19, the public use areas. He informed members that the public use areas currently are under complete management of DNR, which is not shared with ADF&G. He expressed concern with the language in the bill; he suggested the changes regarding the purposes of the public use areas give more of a flavor of a refuge, as opposed to a public use area. He mentioned that DNR does not manage motorized access on general public-domain state land for fish and game purposes. Rather, [DNR] limits its scope and purpose to public access and the effect on the resources. MR. THOMPSON informed members that as the land manager for the Nelchina Public Use Area, he is unaware of any situation where DNR has considered or implemented any restrictions on motorized access. He mentioned that DNR has been contemplating resort development for many years, a part of which is in the Hatcher Pass Public Use Area, and he is not sure how the language in the bill will affect that. He noted that in general the department's main concern is the changing of the flavor of the purpose of the public use areas and what the management intent is there. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recalled there being considerable public debate relating to the use of off-road vehicles in the Nelchina Public Use Area, specifically, to closing the area to motorized use. MR. THOMPSON confirmed that the debate did take place, but indicated that, as far as he knows, that [closing] has not taken place. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to Mr. Thompson's testimony that DNR has not considered closing any areas to off-road use. She asked whether she had heard him correctly. MR. THOMPSON replied that he did say that. He indicated that [DNR] would consider anything that came up in the matter of public process. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she does not want committee members to be misled into believing something that is a falsehood. Number 1412 MR. GRASSER explained that the intent of HB 349 was to protect the traditional uses: hunting, fishing and trapping. He said it may create some tension with DNR, but he believes that ADF&G still retains the management authority over the wildlife on those lands. Number 1466 ROD ARNO testified via teleconference from Wasilla. He stated that he is in favor of HB 349, particularly when the number of Alaskans purchasing hunting licenses is approximately 15 percent of the total population. He said he understands the need to protect the minority. Number 1538 WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, agreed with many of the goals Mr. Grasser had pointed out for HB 349. However, he expressed concern with some of the specific language changes and the effect they might have on the management of wildlife in Alaska. He stated: Section 1 of the bill changes the reason for creating the Board of Game from conservation and development of Alaska's game resources to the conservation and enhancement of these resources - sounds like a simple change, to change something from development to enhancement, but this could have some ... serious unintended consequences. The supreme court has defined development of our natural resources to make them available for human use. Enhancement, however, relates to improving or increasing the size or the health of a wildlife population without regard to human utilization. And traditionally the Board of Game has adopted regulations providing for an allocation of wildlife resources for human use. This language change would change the emphasis in our management from the size of a population rather than its use. It could result in the curtailment of hunting opportunities in order to increase wildlife populations. The language we have now I don't see a problem with. At the least, I would say that you would want to have both enhancement and development, but certainly we should keep the [word] "development" in this section. Section 2 does the same thing, just in a different part of the statutes. Number 1670 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wondered how Section 1 would apply to a situation where there is predator control, for instance, in the McGrath area. He asked whether it would change how ADF&G would manage the moose resource. MR. REGELIN responded that he does not believe so. If it did anything, it would make it more difficult to do wolf control, because it would put the emphasis on the size of the population rather than on the use of the population. CO-CHAIR HUDSON wondered about the court decisions, which Mr. had Regelin referred to, that speak to development as it relates to the use of the game. He asked whether enhancement may conflict with those court decisions. MR REGELIN replied that he believes so. He indicated he has discussed it with the Department of Law at length, and there is a very specific ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court on what development means in relation to fish and wildlife resources. It means "to make them available for human use." MR. REGELIN noted that Section 3 would limit the boards' authority to restrict the methods of access for purposes of taking fish or game. The Board of Fisheries and Board of Game would only be able to limit access in a hunt, in an area that the legislature had designated, or if a majority of the local fish and game advisory committees from the area agreed to the restriction. For example, the Board of Game would no longer be able to use access restrictions to reduce conflicts among user groups unless the local advisory committees agreed. MR. REGELIN noted that there are many control use areas, to reduce conflicts among different user groups. Therefore, HB 349 would create a cumbersome and probably unworkable requirement that local fish and game advisory committees approve restrictions on traditional access, because most of these committees meet infrequently; achieving a consensus among the different groups could take years. Mr. Regelin indicated that he has always felt strongly that the advisory committee [system] is an excellent one, but it should be advisory and should not have veto authority over decisions made by the Board of Game. Number 1917 CO-CHAIR MASEK interjected that with regard to Section 3, the Board of Game had passed a measure asking the Administration to help out in the McGrath area, and apparently there is nothing happening with that. The Governor is not listening to the Board of Game's wishes, she maintained, which are to have ADF&G come in and help with the moose and wolf problem. She asked Mr. Regelin to continue with his testimony. MR. REGELIN said he understands the issue in McGrath, but he doesn't think access to the area is at issue there. He noted that Section 4 would define "method" and "means" in statute and restrict them to "tools, implements, devices or vehicles employed to take fish and game." He explained that although methods and means are not currently defined in statute or regulation, an entire section of the codified regulations deals with method and means. He pointed out that the method and means - or the rules in the regulations that are not specific to tools, implements, devices or vehicles - would go away, the way the bill is currently structured, or would have to be restructured somehow into another part of the regulation. He suggested that if that is not the intent, the [sponsor] needs to figure out a way to restructure Section 4 so that it doesn't have some of the rules go away that are essential for wildlife management. MR. REGELIN turned attention to Section 5. He noted that it expands the purposes of state game refuges to include enhancement of fish and game, fish and game habitat and traditional public uses of fish and game. It makes the perpetuation and enhancement of public recreation in a refuge or critical habitat area equal in value to the conservation, protection and enhancement of fish and game. The addition of the language "perpetuate and enhance general public recreation in a quality environment" is going to make it very difficult and probably more expensive to manage the ten state wildlife refuges. MR. REGELIN reiterated that what the bill is putting traditional access and recreation on the same level as protection of habitat, which could create some real problems. For instance, [ADF&G] needs to restrict certain types of access such as kayaks in Potter's Marsh so that they don't disturb the nesting waterfowl. He said that he is very proud of [the state's] ability to keep refuges open to all the traditional uses and to hunting. He does not see any reason to change that at this point, and he believes that it would be more detrimental than helpful. MR. REGELIN pointed out that Section 7 would eliminate ADF&G's authority to develop its hunter safety education program, and would only authorize the department to assist private nonprofit organizations in developing a hunter safety education program. He emphasized that ADF&G has an excellent hunter safety education program; it provides a coordinated delivery system that is consistent all across the state. If the bill were to pass, he would be concerned with the consistency in the course and whether it would be delivered statewide. Furthermore, losing the direct link from the department to the hunters could be detrimental. Number 2244 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked how long it has taken to develop the hunter safety education program. He also asked what kind of resources have been put into it, up to this point. MR. REGELIN explained that [ADF&G] has had a hunter safety education program since the mid-1960s. It is available mainly in the urban areas, but in the last year [the department] has worked on remote delivery systems through the Internet and videos so that they can deliver the course statewide. Five years ago, the budget was about $200,000 a year; however, that has increased in the last five years to $450,000 a year. He believes that the increased funding is an investment in the future of hunting. He referred to a comment made by Mr. Grasser about hunting being under attack; he said one way to respond to that is through a hunter safety education program, making sure that hunters are responsible users of the wildlife resources. CO-CHAIR HUDSON referred to the subsistence issue. He asked whether Mr. Regelin foresees any conflict with regard to access for hunting, trapping and fishing with the new regimen that is coming down in federal regulations. MR. REGELIN answered that he does not see any direct link right now. The state management system utilizes controlled-use areas in a variety of ways, which the federal agencies will probably never do because they have the mandate to provide an opportunity for subsistence hunting only to subsistence users based on where they live. CO-CHAIR HUDSON asked Mr. Regelin if he would look into that a little more. Number 2549 MR. REGELIN said he would. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether the bill, in its entirety, would help or hinder predator control. MR. REGELIN indicated that the bill would take the emphasis away from uses of a wildlife resource and place it on the size of a wildlife resource. He does not believe that action would be wise, because it could harm the efforts to provide opportunities for human uses of wildlife resources. He believes that enhancement and development are very different things, he said, and if the bill moves forward, he recommends that [the legislature] consider using both words. Number 2621 DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), indicated that the AOC is very interested in some of the concepts expressed in HB 349, such as the protection of traditional access for fishing, hunting and trapping; improving habitat maintenance in public use areas; and expanding support for hunter education and game conservation education. However, there is language in the bill that needs additional work. He said the AOC would be willing to work with the committee. CO-CHAIR MASEK responded that it is encouraging to know, because part of the process is making a good bill even better. NANCY HILLSTRAND testified via teleconference from Homer in opposition to HB 349. She said she agrees with what the testifiers from ADF&G and DNR had stated. She believes they have a good democratic process presently, which allows them to battle controversies, and it is a bad idea to have any knee-jerk reactions at this time. She pointed out that society is gaining recognition of what multiple-use means, and the need is to reduce conflict, not create conflict. She also noted the need to allow the Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries to work without a stranglehold. Number 2847 SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate, Alaska Conservation Voters (ACV), stated that the ACV is a nonprofit entity that currently represents over 40 Alaskan organizations, as well as some business members. Altogether, ACV represents more than 22,000 registered Alaskan voters; members can be found in all user groups of Alaska wildlife, including subsistence users, recreational hunters, wildlife viewers and photographers. The ACV respects and appreciates the long, rich tradition held by Alaskans, Native and non-Native alike, regarding the state's wildlife resources. The ACV also acknowledges that the opportunity to view and use the wildlife resources extends to all Americans and, indeed, to visitors from other countries. MS. SCHRADER indicated ACV supports wildlife management actions that are based on unbiased scientific studies which reflect the values of most Alaskans. Therefore, members have been greatly concerned about the continuing position taken by the Alaska State Legislature that fails to recognize the legislature's responsibilities under the Constitution of the State of Alaska and the Public Trust Doctrine to care of the wildlife for the benefit of all Alaskans. MS. SCHRADER explained that the first concern with the bill relates to the substitution of the word "enhancement" for "development." The ACV has great concern that "enhancement" clearly mandates principles that are single-mindedly aimed at increasing a population, whereas "development" embodies a full range of policies that address the long-term benefits of wildlife resources for all user groups. The ACV has always maintained that the Board of Game and ADF&G should not have any more restrictions placed on them as far as their ability to regulate access, particularly motorized access. TAPE 00-15, SIDE B Number 2952 MS. SCHRADER further stated that Section 5 is particularly disconcerting because it expands the management mandate of ADF&G over all of refuges in the state. Many of those refuges - such as Creamer's Field, McNeil River, "Anchorage Coastal" and the Mendenhall Wetlands - are highly prized by Alaskans and visitors to the state. To statutorily mandate that activities such as hunting, trapping and motorized recreation be permitted in all refuges clearly fails to recognize that some areas must be managed to avoid conflicting uses. MS. SCHRADER pointed out that in Section 9 the ACV's concern is with requiring that ADF&G restrict its grants to organizations that promote and advocate hunting and trapping. The ACV would suggest authorizing grants only to organizations that do educational work, not advocacy work. Members ACV join with other Alaskans who are calling for balanced, fair and farsighted wildlife management decisions based upon the best, most comprehensive, unbiased scientific data available. The ACV cannot support HB 349 in its current form, because so many provisions run counter to that approach. CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that testimony on HB 349 was concluded. She indicated that she intended to work on the bill with ADF&G and other parties who have concerns, and to take it up again as soon as possible. [HB 349 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|