Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
04/06/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): | |
| HB186 | |
| HJR20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 186-WOOD BISON
1:46:08 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 186, "An Act relating to the authority of the
commissioner of fish and game with regard to the importation or
relocation of wood bison in the state."
1:46:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK, speaking as prime sponsor of HB 186, stated
has lived for 44 years in the area that the bison would be re-
introduced. He advised that he is specifically familiar with
the villages of Holy Cross, Anvik, Shageluk, and Grayling. He
explained HB 186 does not prohibit the reintroduction of bison
but restricts re-locating bison until more information and
understanding of the impact in doing so is considered. He
affirmed his trust in the current governor, but remarked that in
the past some administrations have promoted policies which have
been devastating to the country.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK recalled opposition to the bill cautioning
that anyone should make the decision except for the legislature.
He remarked that a legislator will represent and have extensive
knowledge of any specific area of proposed relocation of bison.
Thus, the legislator is the one who would have a familiarity of
the situation at hand. He reiterated that his bill, HB 186 does
not oppose relocating bison, but the department must only do so
with appropriate knowledge. He remarked on the range of wood
bison, noting that two wood bison wandered from Canada about
1,000 miles to the border between Alaska and Canada so the
animals have an extensive range. Further, the proposed
relocation of bison would occur within 50 miles of Donlin Creek,
which provides the source of the only major resource available
to the Calista Corporation. The proposed location also lies
within 50 miles of the inactive Kako gold mine. He further
advised members that numerous pilot projects exist to consider
peat as a resource, and one place in particular lies near
McGrath. He expressed further concern over re-introduction of
bison in the area along the Yukon River since substantial peat
exists in the area. Since fuel prices are astronomical,
villages have been looking for alternative fuel sources, he
said. He cautioned members that changing the bison status could
"lock up" the peat resources in his district. He reported that
he has received numerous e-mails and while some resources might
not be located in his legislative district, the Roads to
Resources program could be affected since the bison have the
ability to roam so far.
1:49:37 PM
PAUL VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, reviewed some
documents in members' packets. He referred to the first
document titled, "Endangered Species law and Policy," which
details the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services consideration of
lowering or "down listing" the wood bison from an endangered to
a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). He
next referred to a copy of the Federal Register dated February
8, 2011, which substantiates the potential to reclassify or
downlist the wood bison from endangered to threatened species.
He highlighted a quote from the Wood Bison News which noted one
rumor was that the wood bison would be removed from the
threatened species status. Instead, the ruling was reversed and
wood bison was added to the Endangered Species Act list, he
said.
MR. VERHAGEN then referred to a constituent blog dated 3/28/2011
that points out, in terms of federal categories of threatened or
endangered species, the similarity between wood bison and polar
bears. The polar bear has been designated as being on the
threatened species list by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
which has had the effect of "locking up" 120 million acres in
Alaska. He expressed concern that this type of action could
occur in Interior Alaska if wood bison are re-introduced and if
a federal judge issued a ruling under the "10(j)" provision of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
1:51:52 PM
MR. VERHAGEN referenced a blog titled, "FWS Reclassifies Wood
Bison as Threatened Not Endangered, Species." He said the blog
demonstrates that this is an emotional issue, noting the title
misleads readers from what actually happened. The second page
of the blog provides a five-factor analysis that shows threats
to wood bison are still present. The information also indicates
that tougher regulations may be employed against existing
business in areas near threatened species. He turned to
information on the Endangered Species Law and Policy website
which indicates a Section 4(f) recovery plan under the ESA has
not been issued because a wild population does not currently
exists in the U.S. He expressed concern that once wood bison
were re-introduced in the U.S. the 4 (f) recovery plan could be
developed and issued. He surmised any restrictions would be
imposed at the time the 4 (f) recovery plan is issued.
1:53:19 PM
MR. VERHAGEN referred to the Delta Bison Working Group
recommendations following its January 11, 2011 meeting. He
commented that the Delta bison are not designated as threatened
or endangered by the ESA, but the report demonstrates the amount
of effort necessary to try to resolve the conflicts in Delta
Junction. He suggested the conflicts have been ongoing for 30
years. Still, the state has not found any solution to the
issues. He referred to the "fallout" of introducing Delta Bison
resulted in unintended consequences, which he thought could have
been avoided if the legislature had considered the issues.
MR. VERHAGEN pointed to a report in members' packets titled
"Estimated Bison Damage to Delta Agricultural Fields - 2010
Charles Knight." This report details the 2010 estimated costs.
He suggested similar unintended consequences could occur from
the release of wood bison. He predicted the potential years it
might take perhaps without resolution.
1:54:29 PM
MR. VERHAGEN turned to a document titled "Intentional or
Unintended Consequences?" He stated that the bill sponsor
presented this information to his constituents to give them
additional commentary on intentional or unintended consequences.
The next document titled "Wood Bison" provides information to
constituents specifically on wood bison. The last articles in
members' packets are copies of Wood Bison News which are
informative articles that detail the efforts made to re-
introduce wood bison into the wild in Alaska. He concluded that
the sponsor supports introduction of wood bison, but only in the
event that wood bison are removed from the ESA and are not just
reclassified from an endangered to a threatened species.
1:55:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether other areas are also being
considered for the wood bison relocation.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK answered first encountered the plan for
relocating bison in the Minto Flats area. He related that when
he heard the phrase "Trojan Bison" used since the Minto Flats
residents warned him of resource development issues that could
result from the relocation of bison. He was not aware of any
third location under consideration.
1:56:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ requested an explanation of the difference
between wood and plains bison.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK explained that these wood bison are the only
wood bison in North America except for the herds located in
Canada. The plains bison are not endangered and a number of
herds exist in the Lower 48. He advised that these are the only
bison in all of the U.S. He reiterated his belief it would be
unwise to introduce wood bison in the communities of Holy Cross,
Anvik, Shageluk, and Grayling.
1:57:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the wood bison are native to
the U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK responded that historically, between 100 to
500 years ago wood bison existed in the area. He reiterated the
DNR is limited to relocating the animals to an area in which
they previously existed.
1:57:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether the wood and plains bison
in the Delta area could interbreed given that both are capable
of traveling thousands of miles.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK answered he did not have scientific data to
base his answer, but offered his belief that mobility provides
yet another reason why this needs to be "brought to light" and
should be scrutinized.
1:58:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said he appreciated Representative
Dick's sounding of the alarm given the possibility of unintended
consequences. He offered his belief HB 186 would delay the
relocation for at least a year. He asked what the sponsor
envisioned would occur during that time, such as whether any
hearings would be held.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK predicted that as soon as the people of Holy
Cross, Anvik, Shageluk, and Grayling heard both sides of the
issue, the entire matter may come to a "screeching halt." He
further stated that if his constituents were made fully aware of
all of the issues and still decided to move forward with re-
introduction of wood bison he would support the relocation of
wood bison.
2:00:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said it appeared that the state Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has been working on this
issue. She inquired as to whether the department has acquired a
"10(j)" exemption from the ESA.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK understood that the "10(j)" exemption is
being crafted in a way that might speak specifically to the wood
bison. He still questioned what "piece of paper" could be
signed in Washington D.C. that could be trusted in Alaska.
2:01:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to the timeline for this
project.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK answered that the anticipated date for re-
introduction of wood bison has been scheduled for the spring
2012. This bill might delay that action by a year, he said. He
offered the possibility that HB 186 would not delay the re-
introduction of wood bison. He suggested that people may wish
to re-introduce bison due to moose or caribou herd reductions
and just suffer the unintended consequences.
2:02:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked for clarification with respect to
regard the "10(j)."
REPRESENTATIVE DICK responded that because the proposed re-
location of the wood bison is experimental the bison would be
exempt from the ESA under the "10(j)" provision of the act. In
further response to Representative Herron, he agreed that
experimental equates to non-essential, which is the reason for
the proposed exemption.
2:03:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related his understanding that currently
the department could stock game in other areas of the state. He
asked whether the department has followed its priorities based
upon habitat requirements, population of native game, animal
presence and other factors that would affect the successful
establishment of this species.
MR. VERHAGEN acknowledged those answers are yet unknown and is
one reason the sponsor introduced the bill.
2:04:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether he has asked ADF&G to
specifically address the statutes that pertain to re-
introduction.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK answered he has held conversations with
ADF&G, but has not written any letters the department.
2:05:07 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON recalled a similar situation arose with musk
oxen. He asked for the availability of any correspondence that
relates to introducing musk oxen.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said he did not know.
CO-CHAIR SEATON offered his view that reviewing what happened
with respect to musk oxen might lead the committee to
discussions of what might be applicable since an extinct
population was studied prior to being re-introduced.
2:06:10 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to whether anything would prevent an
entity from suing once the wood bison were in place.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK recalled prior testimony that some
environmental groups said they did not intend to file against
the "10(j)" exemption due to the absence of potential resources
for resource development in the area. He acknowledged lawsuits
could happen but he was unsure if any would. He further
recalled correspondence in opposition to the bill that suggested
the bill was based on paranoia. He said, "Just because you're
paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." He
acknowledged that even if the federal government does not renege
on the "10(j)" exemption, the subsistence residents could
potentially end up being the litigants rather than hunters. He
concluded, "It's hard enough to live in that country."
2:07:58 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON recalled that the musk oxen had been classified
as domestic animals before their re-introduction in Alaska. He
inquired as to whether the sponsor could investigate that matter
to perhaps find solutions to the issues with re-introducing wood
bison.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK acknowledged that was a brilliant
observation.
2:09:15 PM
EDWARD GRASSER, Lobbyist, Safari Club International, pointed out
the distinction that the Safari Club International (SCI) is a
conservation group and not a preservation group. Both chapters
of the SCI support the re-introduction of the wood buffalo. He
offered one tenet of the SCI is to recognize the North American
model for wildlife management. The SCI believes that this
project fits under the model, he said. He referred to
[President] Roosevelt's idea that hunters and fishermen would
pay a fee to support the conservation of species. He offered
his belief this approach has been much more effective than has
been the ESA's restrictions.
MR. GRASSER offered his view that this is not an "us versus
them" issue. As conservationists, the SCI believes the
introduction of wood bison would be an economic boon to the
villages in the area and would enhance their subsistence
economies. The SCI believes multiple activities can occur and
should not negate one in favor of another.
2:11:48 PM
MR. GRASSER referred to questions about the ESA's "10(j)" rule.
He reported that the SCI's attorneys in Washington, D.C. have
been in court for 10 years with respect to the wolf de-listing
process and re-introduction of wolves in the Lower 48 in the
Northern Rocky Mountains and along the Great Lakes. He
explained the "10(j)" rule, which is a process under the ESA
that allows for an exemption of that status involving
introduction of a species. The "10(j)" process represents a
rulemaking process that includes non-government entities (NGOs)
as well as state agencies. He characterized the process as a
very involved process. He offered his belief that once
established under the "10(j)" rule the wood bison would not
impact any other activity. He acknowledged questions exist on
whether the federal government could unilaterally rescind the
"10(j)" rule. He said, "It's never happened and it's never been
overturned in court as far as our researchers can find." He
reiterated that the SCI has available some of the best
litigators in the world in its Washington D.C. office yet has
not discovered any instance in which the court ruling has been
overturned. He related that if the federal government wanted to
rescind the rule after the wood bison were re-introduced, the
agency must use the same rulemaking process to overturn the rule
as it used to establish the rule. He reiterated the federal
government could not unilaterally make the decision to rescind
the "10(j)" rule. He said he thought that represented a
significant point in this equation.
2:13:34 PM
MR. GRASSER recalled a similar instance in which the SCI was
approached seven years ago by some of the principals in the
movement to ban the Pebble Mine. He provided his involvement as
serving on the national Board of Directors of the national SCI.
He also served as the field representative of the National Rifle
Association (NRA) at the time. He held extensive conversations
with these groups, but neither one has opposed the Pebble Mine.
He affirmed the SCI's view that the Pebble Mine process should
go forward and the same should hold true for the wood bison
project. The SCI has been involved in the wood bison issue
since the 1980s. He explained that the SCI has worked with the
ADF&G and has invested a significant amount of money into the
project. Thus, the SCI has had a stake in this and has wanted
the project to move forward. He acknowledged problems that the
ESA has caused for Alaska on issues. Therefore, the SCI has
laid groundwork to reform the ESA. He offered his belief that
some structural portions of the act could be amended.
2:15:18 PM
MR. GRASSER provided some historical information on introduction
of the musk oxen into Alaska, which happened prior to enactment
of the ESA. He reported that re-introduction of wood bison has
been put off until the spring 2013 due to some state actions.
MR. GRASSER concluded that the SCI does not believe HB 186 is
necessary and is simply reactionary. The SCI also does not
support inclusion of legislative approval as part of the wood
bison re-introduction since it would make it much harder to move
forward. He offered his belief that some people would use the
bill to block re-introduction of the wood bison, whether the
rationale was based on fact or not. The SCI opposes the bill
since the SCI does not support the wood bison project being tied
to the Delta bison project, he said. He offered his belief that
the SCI has invested over $300,000 thus far on the wood bison
project.
2:17:26 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, with respect to his research on "10(j)" waivers,
asked whether an injunction has ever been granted to temporarily
stop a project while the lawsuit was evaluated.
MR. GRASSER was unsure but offered to research this and get back
to the committee.
2:17:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired as to whether he was a member of
the Alaska Bar Association.
MR. GRASSER answered no.
2:18:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, based on Mr. Grasser's expertise, asked
whether the wood bison could survive wolves in the wild.
MR. GRASSER said he was unsure they would be able to survive
wolves. He reported that in his experience wolves are very
efficient predators and can take down any animal they want. He
deferred to the ADF&G to more definitively answer the question.
2:18:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked him to elaborate on the factors
slowing down the "10(j)" exemption.
MR. GRASSER related his understanding of the original agreement
which included that once the wood bison population was restored
general hunting would be allowed. The SCI has stated it would
not support a "10(j)" rule that did not contain a specific
provision to allow hunting. He said that the current version of
the "10(j)" rule does not address hunting so the SCI and ADF&G
do not support the proposed changes.
2:19:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the "10(j)" exemption were granted
it is possible that hunting would not be allowed.
MR. GRASSER answered that if the "10(j)" rule passed with an
allowable hunting provision, then hunting definitely would be
allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled his earlier testimony that the
federal government has been considering not allowing hunting.
MR. GRASSER responded that the USFWS did not add in the hunting
provision. He clarified that the federal government cannot just
"willy-nilly" rescind the "10(j)" rule, but must adhere to the
process.
2:20:55 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, with respect to general hunting, asked whether
the "10(j)" rule would need to include specific language to
allow general hunting and not just subsistence hunting.
MR. GRASSER agreed. He reiterated that currently the "10(j)"
rule does not include specific language to allow hunting which
is why the SCI opposes the current rule-making process.
2:21:49 PM
MIKE SATRE, Executive Director, Council of Alaska Producers
(CAP), on behalf of the CAP, explained the CAP is a non-profit
trade association representing the producing large metal mines
and major resource development in Alaska. He spoke in support
of HB 186, which would require the legislature to approve the
importation or relocation of wood bison in the State of Alaska.
He pointed out several things the bill does not do, including
that it does not prevent the introduction of wood bison in what
appears to be its natural habitat. This bill would not
interfere with the management of the wood bison into a
sustainable herd that may provide meat or hunting revenues into
rural Alaska. He acknowledged that HB 186 would require the
legislature to approve of the actions of the commissioner with
respect to the importation or relocation of wood bison in the
state. The CAP does not have any project in the vicinity of the
proposed wood bison project, but would like to be certain the
full ramifications of such a re-introduction will be considered.
He understood a detailed process has ensued. He hoped that
passing this bill would only be limited to adding time to the
approval process and would allow the legislature time to
consider any potential negative effects it may have on rural
Alaska with respect to application of the federal ESA. He
pointed to similar issues with respect to polar bears, Beluga
whales, and Steller sea lions.
2:23:53 PM
MR. SATRE answered that the currently proposal may be covered by
exemption to the ESA as mentioned in earlier testimony.
However, that may not always be the case as the herd gets bigger
and broadens its range. A petition exists to remove the "10(j)"
exemption and cover the herd as a threatened or endangered
species in the future. He acknowledged the possibility possible
that type of listing could limit developmental activity. He
expressed the CAP's concern about any action that would limit
access activities in rural Alaska for development. He supported
passage of HB 186 to allow legislature time to ensure that
"10(j)" exemption is in place to protect Alaskans ability to
live and recreate in rural Alaska and to consider any impacts
the ESA may have, with respect to the wood bison. He said,
"Rural Alaskans and their way of life is a truly endangered or
threatened species and we want to make sure we aren't doing
anything to affect them," he said. In response to Co-Chair
Seaton, he offered to compile and submit written testimony.
2:26:39 PM
BRYCE WRIGLEY stated while he is unconcerned with wood bison
being re-introduced, but expressed concern that the re-
introduction of wood bison could limit other development. He
related he has held numerous conversations with ADF&G. He also
expressed concern with regard to the 133,000 acres in Minto
Flats area since it lies within traveling distance for the wood
buffalo in the Nenana-Tochaket area. He reiterated his concern
that re-introduction of wood bison could potentially jeopardize
development of the Minto Flats area. He recalled, under the
"10(j)" rule, that in the event the wood bison population
diminished it would not affect game management. However, he
said he was not convinced the ADF&G would exert effort to remove
any obstacles that could impact the herd. He feared that if
ADF&G did not take action the federal government would do so.
He recalled when wolves were re-introduced in the Lower 48 in
the Yellowstone Park area. He indicated Montana and Idaho took
game management actions with respect to wolves but had been
overruled by the federal government. He felt similar actions
could ensue with respect to the wood bison even with the "10(j)"
rule.
2:29:18 PM
MR. WRIGLEY reported that almost all legal challenges to the
"10(j)" rules tended to be taken up on more obscure species. He
thought anything as iconic and American as a bison would
generate emotional support and efforts would be taken to ensure
the wood bison's' survival. He suggested in his research the
only challenges that approximate the wood bison were challenges
to the whooping crane and the California condor.
MR. WRIGLEY referred to the belief that the federal agencies
would not exert any pressure since the federal rule under the
ESA only requires consultation on endangered species. He
offered his belief that view represents a naïve assumption by
ADF&G. He suggested a number of ways exist for the federal
government to exert pressure on state agencies, including
withholding matching funds or by "bullying."
2:31:12 PM
Mr. WRIGLEY summarized three challenges to re-introduction of
the wood bison: the legal challenges to the "10(j)" rule and
whether the rule could be upheld; the federal interference in
the management of the wood bison herd, which could "lock up"
resources; and the amount of land necessary for agriculture,
which could limit other uses.
2:32:16 PM
DON QUARBERG stated he has resided in Delta Junction for 35
years. He has served on the Delta Working Group since its
inception. He related that the DWG is a management group for
the Delta bison. Additionally, he has served on the local Fish
and Game Advisory Committee but is representing himself today.
He took exception with Representative Dick's statement that
ADF&G has done nothing to resolve the Delta bison herd
conflicts. He related that ADF&G has done the following:
cleared and developed several thousand acres of bison range,
planted grasses and small grains as forage for the bison,
developed a supply of fresh water, placed salt blocks to attract
bison to the range, conducted forage trials to improve forage
quality and to identify new and better forages. Additionally,
the ADF&G has worked with the University of Alaska to develop
native grasses on the range, worked with the U.S. Army to create
additional forage on military land. Further, the ADF&G has
developed hunting regulations to improve hunter success of in
harvesting bison. He commented that hunters supported doubling
their fees to provide additional funding to enhance the bison
range. He remarked that regulations changes have changed
hunting seasons to better manage the bison hunts, established an
early hunt on private lands to better manage the bison movement
off private lands, and have allowed the use of ground-based
communication such as cell phones and satellite phones to
enhance the harvest.
2:34:33 PM
MR. QUARBERG related that ADF&G has unsuccessfully attempted to
work with land owners to allow bison hunting on all farm land.
Thus, some farms essentially have essentially become bison
sanctuaries and that makes game management difficult.
Additionally, the ADF&G has been unsuccessful in creating a
share-cropping program to increase forage production on bison
range. He recalled criticism on the location of the Delta bison
range in close proximity to farms. He suggested that when the
land was designated as the bison range it was land considered
unsuitable for farming by the Agriculture Action Council during
Governor Hammond's administration. He further recalled the
legislature passed the proposal which became the bison range.
2:35:36 PM
MR. QUARBERG spoke to his written comments on HB 186, which had
been forwarded to the committee. Many people believe that
wildlife should be allowed to be re-introduced and re-
introducing wood bison would create a wildlife asset for the
State of Alaska, he said. He related his understanding that
commissioners must undergo confirmation by the legislature and
are charged with managing wildlife for Alaskans. He supported
the sponsor's concern on the court action on the "10(j)" ruling
as a valid concern. He remarked that everything Alaska does is
ultimately subject to a judge's ruling. He expressed his view
that HB 186 is unnecessary. He encouraged members to oppose the
bill.
2:37:33 PM
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association
(AMA), on behalf of the AMA, referred to a letter in members'
packets, which read [original punctuation provided]:
My name is Steve Borell, I am Executive Director of
the Alaska Miners Association and I am testifying on
behalf of the Association.
I believe you have our letter to Rep Dick in your
packets so I will not read that but will make a few
additional comments. We applaud the ongoing efforts
of ADF&G to find a way to make this work while still
protecting the State from the untended consequences of
a listing under the Endangered Species Act.
If the Wood Bison can be excluded from being listed as
"Endangered" or "Threatened" by use of ESA Sec. 10(j)
as "non-essential experimental population" would be a
good step but we feel that the requirement for the
Alaska State Legislature to approve this is important,
at a minimum.
We are aware that some officials within the US Fish &
Wildlife Service have stated that the Wood Bison would
not be listed as "endangered", but as "threatened" and
that they can provide a promise under Sec. 10(j). We
appreciate that if Sec. 10(j) was changed to exempt
the Wood Bison, a second rulemaking would be required
to later change Sec. 10(j) and eliminate that
exemption.
However, we would point out that this is the same
agency that listed the Beluga Whale based on bad
science and the Polar Bear based on political science.
These examples have shown that the USF&WS can no
longer be considered a credible independent science-
based voice. Also, the USF&WS cannot ensure the
outcome of a suit that will inevitably come from some
environmental NGO.
Regarding the bill, we recommend that the Legislature
consider amending the bill to state that re-
introduction of Wood Bison not be allowed until the
U.S. Congress passes legislation that makes it certain
that the Wood Bison cannot be listed as "endangered"
or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, and
that such re-introduction must then subsequently be
authorized by passage of an act by the Alaska State
Legislature.
It would be wonderful if Wood Bison could be released
but danger of ESA listing is just too great.
MR. BORELL asked to make a few additional comments. He
applauded the ongoing efforts taken by ADF&G to try to make this
work given the possible unintended consequences of the ESA
listing. The AMA views excluding the wood bison from the
endangered or threatened by using the ESA's exemption under
"10(j)" as non-essential experimental population as a step in
the right direction. However, the AMA believes the legislature
should also be a part of the approval process. He recalled some
officials within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have
indicated that the wood bison would be listed as a threatened
species. Additionally, the USFWS indicated that promise could
be issued under the ESA's "10(j)" rule. However, the AMA has
seen recent rule-making processes in which the agency has simply
decided it will do something and then takes action. He pointed
out that the USFWS is the same agency which listed the Beluga
whale and the polar bear using incorrect science and politics to
do so. Thus, the AMA does not believe the USFWS can be
considered an independent science-based voice, he said.
2:39:59 PM
MR. BORELL suggested that HB 186 should be amended to include
approval from the U.S. Congress prior to re-introduction of the
wood bison to ensure the wood bison could not be listed as
endangered or threatened under the ESA. He offered his belief
that the danger of an ESA listing is too great to allow re-
introduction of the wood bison until all the necessary pieces
are in place.
2:40:45 PM
EUGENE PAUL, Holy Cross Tribal Council (HCTC), stated that he is
a member of the HCTC and has been a tribal chief for over ten
years. He has participated in numerous meeting with ADF&G and
locally in Grayling and Holy Cross. He recalled the ADF&G has
plans to build a corral in Shageluk to hold the wood bison for
at least six months to acclimate the bison to the habitat. He
spoke in opposition to HB 186 because of fear that the delay
could devastate the communities. He understood that it could
take years for the herd to build up. He did not believe than
any roaming by the wood bison would impact any of the
subsistence species that the villages harvest, such as moose.
Additionally, the ADF&G has advised the communities that the
wood bison would not be competing with other game resources. He
understood that the regional corporation, Doyon, Limited, fully
supports the re-introduction of the wood bison. He pointed out
the regional corporation has already studied the matter and
supports it. He related that ADF&G has actively kept the
villages informed. He reported that the four villages fully
support the re-introduction of the wood bison. In response to
Representative Dick, he answered that he has not seen the video.
2:43:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK urged Mr. Paul to watch the video which
would illustrate what he is attempting to do. He highlighted
his concern that residents have only heard one viewpoint. He
cautioned that viewpoint was made by people who will benefit the
most from the wood bison's re-introduction. He simply would
like the people to be aware of all implications, including the
possibility that the ESA could be invoked. He said, "My concern
is the bison are going to be free roaming and the people are
going to get penned up." He urged Mr. Paul and other residents
to view the video. He reiterated his earlier commitment that if
people still want the bison after hearing the other side of the
argument, he will support their decision.
2:46:05 PM
STEVEN MENDIVE stated that he has been affiliated with the
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center, but is speaking today on
his own behalf. He explained that the U.S. has been involved in
bison restoration for over 100 years. He related that the wood
bison was discovered in Canada approximately 60 years ago. He
offered his belief that science and sound biological review has
helped to ensure a sustainable wood bison resource. Over the
course of time several areas demonstrate strong success in re-
introduction of wood bison. He noted how fortunate it is that
Alaska has habitat distinctly needed for wood bison. He
applauded the extent that ADF&G has undergone to ensure a
disease-free herd could be imported into the state from Elk
Island, Canada, in particular, into Alaska's habitat. He also
noted the tremendous challenges a restoration process takes,
especially given the number of concerns. He offered his view
that this process has been well orchestrated and does not need
further oversight. He said that he appreciates the sponsor's
concern, but the oversight is already in place with the
commissioner's supervision, as well as seasoned staff who have
been on this project for over 20 years. He also said he was
surprised such strong opposition would arise amongst Alaskans
when the resource is poised to serve all of Alaska's residents,
not just certain areas.
2:49:16 PM
MR. MENDIVE reported that Canada currently has six different
herds exceeding well over 6,000 animals in the wild. He
acknowledged that some pocketed areas have experienced
challenges, but the herd on the western edge of Canada has an
over-the-counter purchase of hunting permits for bison so it has
worked well. He concluded this demonstrates the biodiversity
and ability to expand and remain predator resistant. He
suggested that so long as the herds remain under 100 animals the
species would be considered sustainable and would not be subject
to bear and wolf predation. He related the ADF&G has extended
itself to rural Alaskans in an open process that demonstrates
both sides and defines the advantages of re-introduction of wood
bison. He remarked on the need to move forward without adding
another layer of oversight that could delay the process.
2:50:05 PM
[HB 186 was held over.]