Legislature(2011 - 2012)
04/08/2011 03:37 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR20 | |
| HB186 | |
| HB229 | |
| HB113 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 186-WOOD BISON
3:40:38 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."
3:41:45 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Special Assistant, to Commissioner Cora
Campbell; Acting Deputy Commissioner, Division of Wildlife and
Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), spoke
from the following written statement [original punctuation
provided]:
My name is Doug Vincent-Lang. I am a Special
Assistant to Commissioner Cora Campbell. One of my
duties is to coordinate ESA policy for the state.
I am also the acting Deputy Commissioner for Wildlife
and Subsistence.
As the state coordinator for ESA, I share many of Rep.
Dick's concerns regarding the misuse of the ESA in
Alaska. We are challenging several misapplications of
this act in Alaska from polar bears to beluga whales
to ice seals to Steller sea lions. So I have a
healthy skepticism regarding this act and its
misapplication in Alaska.
That said, let me try to explain what it is we are
trying to do in this case and how it differs from
these other issues. In short, we are attempting to
restore wood bison to select areas of Alaska in a
manner that will not allow the application of the
typical provisions of the ESA that the state has
concerns with to occur.
A little background on the ESA might be helpful to
place this effort in perspective. The original ESA
resulted in problems with convincing private
landowners to aid in the recovery of listed species.
In short, landowners were reluctant of allowing the
translocations of species onto their lands over
concerns that their lands would be tightly regulated
through designations of critical habitat, section 7
consultations, and incidental take restrictions.
This lead Congress to amend the act in 1982 to allow
listed species to be designated as experimental
populations, either as essential or non-essential.
The amendment further specified that for non-essential
experimental populations,
· Critical habitat could not be specified
· Section 7 consultations are not required on most
lands
· Special rules governing allowable take could be
developed that are less restrictive than
otherwise allowed.
3:43:43 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG continued, as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
So where are we with wood bison in Alaska.
· We are working with the USFWS on the designation
of wood bison as a non-essential experimental
population.
· We are also working on a special rule that
specifies allowable incidental take. In this
case we are working with the USFWS to allow
incidental take associated with activities such
as recreation (e.g., fishing, boating, trapping,
hiking, camping, shooting activities, or hunting
of other species), forestry, agriculture, oil and
gas exploration and development and associated
activities, construction and maintenance of roads
or railroads, buildings, facilities, energy
projects, pipelines and transmission lines of any
kind, mining, mineral exploration, travel by any
means including vehicles, watercraft,
snowmachines or aircraft, tourism, and other
activities that are in accordance with Federal,
State, and local laws and regulations and
specific authorizations.
· We are also working with the USFWS to designate
the geographic range where these rules would
apply.
We hope to have a draft rule developed in the next
several weeks that could be reviewed by all interested
parties.
We have targeted 2012 as a desired release date, but
are considering delaying this.
One question that has come up is how legally
defensible these rules are. We had DOL examine this
question and found these rules are very defensible.
Their vulnerabilities are associated with
· Range
· Overlap with wild stocks
Neither of these applies in this case.
3:45:22 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG continued, as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
In closing, we simply ask that we be given the
opportunity to develop the rule and let people decide
for themselves whether the rule is adequate to protect
their interests.
We have said that we will not release wood bison into
the wild until landowners, local people, state
agencies, and others are comfortable with the rule and
the release of these animals onto the landscape.
3:45:53 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG referred to questions raised during
Representative Dick's constituent hearings. One question that
arose about musk ox which Mr. Grasser answered correctly was
musk ox had been released into the wild long before the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted by the Congress. Thus,
it wasn't necessary to designate the musk ox as a non-essential
population or as a threatened or endangered species.
3:46:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired as to the process the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) would undergo prior to
allowing any species into an area.
MR. VINCENT-LANG responded that ADF&G has identified three areas
of compatible habitat that the department feels the wood bison
could be released into and survive in the wild. Additionally,
he related that the department has undergone a public process to
work with landowners of state, federal, or Native corporation
land, to address any concerns. He reiterated that the ADF&G
went through a very definitive process to identify concerns of
public and how the department could best address the concerns in
the special rule. Further, the department reviewed the impact
of wood bison on wild animals in those areas to avoid affecting
the natural flora and fauna.
3:47:56 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG reassured members that the ADF&G has advised
residents that unless the department can satisfy all concerns
the wood bison will not be released. He commented that the
department would have preferred to release wood bison in Minto
Flats. However, Doyon Limited requested the wood bison not be
introduced into the Minto Flats area and that is the reason the
department has moved to the Innoko area. In fact, Doyon,
Limited suggested the Innoko region. He pointed out the ADF&G
has held a series of public hearings and plans to meet with
Innoko residents next week. He hoped to spend time this summer
in the area to answer any questions local residents have about
the re-introduction of wood bison in the area.
3:48:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked what would happen to the 90 wood
bison currently located in Portage in the event that the
department exhausts its efforts to find an area, but fails to do
so.
MR. VINCENT-LANG related the department would work to control
the population. He offered that the department would hold them
indefinitely. He acknowledged that at some point in time the
ADF&G will need to take measures to control the wood bison
population since the area is limited.
3:49:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired as to whether the ADF&G has an
opinion on HB 186 and if the bill delays the implementation of
re-introduction to 2013.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that HB 186 could delay re-
introduction of the wood bison. He related a scenario in which
consensus was reached and the department obtained a special rule
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that could
satisfy landowners and the administration. The necessity to
come back to the legislature for approval would delay action
until 2013, he said. He characterized this rule as somewhat
redundant with ADF&G's commitment to people to resolve the
issues they have with the potential release of wood bison.
3:50:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the special rule he mentioned
was contingent on the "10(j)" exemption the department is
currently pursuing.
MR. VINCENT-LANG explained that the ESA process is complex.
Basically, the "10(j)" rule gives the state the ability to
designate the population as experimental. Next, the federal
agency would determine whether the re-introduction is essential
or non-essential populations (NEP) to the recovery of the wood
bison species. Once the determination was made through the
"10(j)" process, a special rule could be developed to regulate
the take of a non-essential population. He related that the
special rule could allow take that would not normally be allowed
if the species were listed as a threatened or endangered species
under the ESA. In this instance, the department has worked to
craft the language to allow takes of the NEP designated
populations with the kinds of activities that could potentially
occur in the landscape that would be confining to people,
including recreation, livestock grazing, oil and gas exploration
and development, mineral exploration and development, timber
harvesting, transportation, and other legal activities conducted
by state tribal, federal, state, and local laws and regulations
and specific authorizations.
3:52:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if all of that was established,
whether the people of the region would have a personal use
preference in hunting.
MR. VINCENT-LANG responded that automatically the Native people
would be allowed to hunt since an exemption currently exists in
the ESA to allow take by qualified Natives and residents of
Native villages. Once the wood bison population grew large
enough it would become regulated by either the Federal
Subsistence Board or the Alaska Board of Game, in which case a
general hunting provision would be allowed. He recalled
previous testimony by Mr. Grasser that identified the struggle
with USFWS on that rule. The ADF&G supports inclusion of a
general hunting provision in the rule and continues its efforts
to negotiate inclusion. He recapped that immediately upon
release, some hunting opportunities would be available to Alaska
Natives, but the department hopes to have a general hunting
provision once the wood bison reached a viable population.
3:53:27 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to whether the non-essential
experimental population (NEP) would happen if this is the only
wood bison stock in the U.S. He asked whether the wood bison in
Canada could be included as part of the consideration since the
Canadian stock is part of the same genetic stock.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered yes. He stated that in essence, when
working with USFWS, the department describes the population as
an experimental population in Alaska and as non-essential to the
overall recovery because there are thousands of wood bison in
Canada. Thus, even if the re-introduction of wood bison in
Alaska failed and they completely disappeared, it would not
jeopardize the overall wood bison population. Therefore, the
wood bison will be considered NEP, he said. Some people have
asked whether someone could later petition to designate the
population as a threatened or endangered population. He
reported that the Department of Law reviewed the matter and
determined that in every case the judge has upheld the NEP
designations, except in instances in which a mix of the
experimental with the wild population in the same range
occurred. He reported that is not the case here.
3:55:10 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to what population level the wood
bison herd would need to rise to in Alberta, Canada in order for
them to be "de-listed."
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that currently the USFWS has noticed
in the federal register the plan to downlist the U.S. species
from endangered to a threatened species. In Canada, the wood
bison is currently listed as threatened. The ADF&G believes the
population should be completely "downlisted" and will submit
comments to the USFWS to do so. He was unsure of the current
number of the wood bison population in Canada and was unaware of
any action to change its current endangered status.
3:56:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that the
"10(j)" rule would allow the department to designate the
population as experimental. She asked whether the special rule
would allow the taking of animals that are designated as NEP.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked how the wood bison status would
impact mining and other activities. She further asked for
clarification between the special rule and other resource
impacts, which she understood as one of the sponsor's concerns.
MR. VINCENT-LANG explained that when the Congress amended the
ESA in 1982, it allowed for the designation of experimental
populations to be further refined to essential or non-essential.
In this instance, the ADF&G has concluded with the USFWS that
the wood bison is a NEP. The federal act further allows for a
special rule with respect to the taking of NEP species not
otherwise allowed by the ESA. Further, taking has been broadly
defined in the ESA to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, capture, trap, collect, or attempt to engage in any such
conduct. In this instance, when the Congress amended the act
and allowed for a special rule, it considered that it was not
likely landowners would agree to introduction of animals if the
"take" provisions applied. Thus, the Congress allowed for a
special rule for the NEP. When the ADF&G prepared its list, it
asked the stakeholders to address any concerns over the "take"
provisions with respect to releasing wood bison. The list
included recreation, livestock grazing, oil and gas exploration
and development, mineral exploration and development, timber
harvesting, transportation, and other legal activities conducted
by state tribal, federal, state, and local laws and regulations
and specific authorizations. He offered his belief about the
only kind of "take" not allowable would be intentional poaching
of an animal, which would still be considered illegal.
3:58:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether the Congressional provision
in the ESA provides the ADF&G confidence that if the wood bison
were released that there would be not be any federal change or
impact not anticipated.
MR. VINCENT-LANG offered his belief that the department is
fairly confident from its legal review that the rules and
regulations are defensible in court. He commented that the
ADF&G would like to see the draft rule published and the final
rule after it has undergone public comment prior to determining
whether the rule adequately protects re-introduction of the wood
bison and also protects Alaska's interests.
4:00:00 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG, in response to Representative P. Wilson,
offered his belief that several of the wood bison rules have
been challenged in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. He
indicated that most commonly the experimental rules have
pertained to wolves in the Lower 48. In those instances,
problems occurred when wolves migrated off the NEP designated
range and entered other states and were protected under the full
ESA. The ADF&G has learned from that occurrence. It created a
geographic range associated with the rule to ensure any wood
bison that migrated would be covered by the NEP designation
despite any migratory movement.
4:01:18 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG pointed out that wolves have moved from Alaska
and have mixed with natural wolves from Canada. In those cases
the judge has stopped the rules to allow time to determine which
wolves were wild or NEP since the natural wolves protected by
the ESA mingled with the NEP wolves. He reiterated that type of
case would not apply with respect to the wood bison since the
species would not be subject to mixing with bison from other
areas. Additionally, in order to be able to challenge the
court, a person must demonstrate that he/she has been harmed.
4:02:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to whether wolves are
predators of wood bison.
MR. VINCENT-LANG acknowledged that some wolves will probably
take down some bison, but he offered his view the wolves would
not be able to eradicate the wood bison. He pointed out that
wolves and wood bison coexist in Canada.
4:03:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether local residents would be
able to hunt prior to the opening up hunts to the general
public.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that an Alaska Native exemption would
apply immediately upon wood bison re-introduction into the
landscape. However, once there is a harvestable surplus of
animals, the Federal Subsistence Board and the Alaska Board of
Game would regulate harvest. In both cases, the subsistence
priority exists over general hunts. He said the ADF&G hopes to
grow the herd to accommodate subsistence and general hunting
provisions in the area. In further response to Representative
P. Wilson, he answered that the decisions with respect to
allocation of resources will be made by the Federal Subsistence
Board and the Alaska Board of Game. The Federal Subsistence
Board has an obligation to provide for subsistence needs for
rural Alaskans and the Alaska Board of Game has a priority to
provide a subsistence priority for all Alaskans. He reaffirmed
that only after providing for subsistence would the rest of
Alaskans have a general hunting provision.
4:05:52 PM
KATHY WALKER-CHASE stated that she serves on the Grayling Anvik
Holy Cross Shageluk (GASH) Fish & Game Advisory Committee. She
further stated that she supports relocation of the bison. In
further response to Co-Chair Feige, she clarified that GASH
stands for Grayling Anvik Holy Cross Shageluk. She said she
represents Holy Cross on the advisory committee.
4:06:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK asked whether she had reviewed the video he
posted on the wood bison.
MS. WALKER-CHASE answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK offered his belief that if people in GASH
viewed the video they would reconsider their position. He
cautioned against possible irreversible long-term consequences
with the re-introduction of wood bison. He suggested that she
go to the internet to youtube.com and query wood bison Innoko.
He offered to assist his constituents in achieving wood bison
but the decision for re-introduction should be based on an
informed decision and all the materials should be viewed. He
further cautioned that the legislature deals with the federal
government being very abusive to Alaskans and locking up the
land. He related his fear that people will be locked up and the
bison will be roaming free. He encouraged her to watch the
video.
4:08:51 PM
MIKE MILLER, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center (AWCC), stated
that he has been managing the wood bison for the state. He
related that for the past 30 years he has managed plains bison.
He recalled previous testimony given. He offered his belief
that there is not any reason to take action on HB 186 since it
would only place another layer of unnecessary involvement. He
thought that the endangered species animal under the protection
of the "10(j)" should be out in the wild procreating. He stated
the wood bison would have the same protection as other animals,
such as caribou or squirrels. He recalled that in 1960, Canada
faced a similar situation with only 23 animals. He reported
that Canada fenced an area, similar to the 200 acres in Alaska,
and implemented the Canadian wood bison recovery program
resulting in eight herds numbering over 800 animals in each
herd. He stated that the people are enjoying the resource. He
said that Canada viewed the opportunity to bring back a species
from extinction.
4:11:19 PM
MR. MILLER characterized his position at the center as
frustrating, but rewarding. He related that over 200,000
legislators, members of the Congress, media, Native Alaskans and
the general public come through the wildlife center every year.
He said that the AWCC provides people with an educational
opportunity. He pointed out environmentalist, hunters, and
others have been working on the wood bison project together
rather than fighting among themselves.
4:12:49 PM
MR. MILLER offered his belief that HB 186 creates a new problem
that does not make any sense. In 2008, he participated in the
capture of 60 wood bison in Canada and brought them back to the
AWCC in Alaska. He urged members not to re-hash the wood bison
issue. He understood Representative Dick's concerns, but if the
Native people in the villages want these animals released the
ADF&G would still not release them unless there is agreement on
the "10(j)" rule. He said the Native people should decide if
the wood bison are re-introduced and not the legislature. He
viewed HB 186 as creating another unnecessary hurdle to re-
introducing the wood bison into the wild.
4:14:33 PM
MR. MILLER pointed out the requirement for archeological
findings to demonstrate the natural range of the wood bison,
which became extinct in Alaska 90 years ago. He related prior
disputes and concerns, including some were concerned that the
bison were not wood bison, which was genetically proven. Some
held unfounded fears that wood bison would trample eggs or
displacing moose. He characterized the issues as unfounded and
relentless, including the newest concern that re-introduction of
wood bison would affect peat excavation. He listed donors to
the AWCC that have provided feed and financial support for the
project, including the Safari Club, the University of Alaska and
the Wildlife Conservation Society, as well as the Defenders of
Wildlife. He characterized the funding as diverse funding from
many different user groups.
MR. MILLER disagreed that the wood bison project is a "Trojan
horse." He urged members to take into consideration that land
would not be locked up and new covenants would not be put into
place. He offered his belief that the project would be easily
defensible, given his conversations with the USFWS, since
agriculture and fencing do not exist in the proposed re-
introduction area. He acknowledged that while any group could
sue, many environmental groups have expressed their support for
the wood bison project.
4:19:36 PM
MR. MILLER said he has a different point of view because he
works with the wood bison every day. He pointed to the success
of the Canadian project and would like to see the wood bison
project. He hoped that once the "10(j)" ruling is released that
people will respect it since it could result in numerous people
enjoying the wood bison.
4:21:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that not everyone in Alaska,
including herself has been aware of this project. She inquired
as to whether the groups he mentioned benefit from the Delta
bison herd.
MR. MILLER responded that the Delta bison herd provides
watchable wildlife opportunities and sport hunting permits. The
areas where these wood bison were once found have native
habitat. He recalled testimony by Native elders who recalled
seeing wood bison in the wild as children. The wood bison in
the Neslin herd in Canada were transplanted in mid-80s and have
grown to over 1,000 animals. The herd has grown to the point
that special permits are no longer needed and residents simply
obtain over-the-counter licenses to hunt wood bison. He
characterized the habitat for the wood bison project as the best
on earth and it could result in sizable herds 100 years from
now. He offered his view that wood bison are as natural to the
state as moose. He said if moose needed to be re-introduced it
would be fully supported by Alaskans.
MR. MILLER urged members to quit thinking about all these
hypothetical concerns. He recalled hearing concerns that the
herd is getting too domesticated but a youtube.com video
demonstrates otherwise. He acknowledged that this issue is
emotional because the proposed re-introduction of wood bison is
such a beautiful project and he hoped the Native people continue
their push for the project.
4:28:03 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 186.
4:28:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated that she finds the issue
difficult. She indicated she made a commitment that she would
not resist moving this bill out of committee, but has been
persuaded that this project is a good project. She indicated
she would not support HB 186 if it comes to the floor for a
vote.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK apologized for being a source of
frustration, but already this bill has accomplished something.
He reiterated that the bill does not say bison cannot be moved
but rather that the legislature must approve it. He affirmed
that he did not want to create another layer of government. He
predicted that if the re-introduction of wood bison happens that
the biologists will study the animals. He acknowledged that the
issue is an emotional one for many people. Ten years from now
his constituents might get to hunt some wood bison, but they
could also be litigants and that raises his real concern with
the project.
4:31:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK related the risk of a wolf taking down a
wood bison is very small due to wind, but this time in his
northern district is referred to as "crust time" because the
wolves do not punch through the snow but the moose do and two
wolves can take down a bull moose. He reported that Innoko is
one of the areas where predator control is not allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK, with respect to the Delta bison, pointed
out that in three decades the state has not resolved the
conflict between the farmers and the hunters in Delta Junction.
He pointed out, with respect to the wood bison interbreeding,
that bison live approximately 200 miles away from the proposed
re-introduction site. He offered his belief that if the wood
bison can mingle with the plains bison there will be trouble
with interbreeding in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK offered his belief that President Obama has
attempted to violate the statehood act, which leads him to
believe that agreements cannot be made with the federal
government.
4:36:33 PM
PAUL VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, referred to a
map in members' packets that shows another 3,000 square miles
was just locked up in Cook Inlet with the designation of beluga
critical habitat. He stated this is the same area where two new
jack-up rigs are on their way into the Cook Inlet. He expressed
concern that if the wood bison are re-introduced, there will be
lawsuits and unintended consequences. He reiterated the best
method for determining the issue of the wood bison project is
through legislative approval.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK pointed out that he trusts Doug Vincent-
Lang, but it is not always possible to trust government
officials. He recalled his view of when Governor Tony Knowles
was governor and Frank Rue was appointed commissioner that "we
were devastated." He expressed his preference that these
decisions should not be made by the administration but by the
legislature. He concluded it is not an issue of wood bison but
whether the folks in Washington, D.C. can be trusted. He said,
"I vote no on the folks in Washington."
4:39:51 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON REPRESENTATIVE moved to report HB 186 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 186 was reported
from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|