Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
02/10/2017 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB105 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 105-DENALI WOLF SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA
1:12:37 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 105, "An Act establishing the Gordon Haber Denali
Wolf Special Management Area.
1:13:35 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON, speaking as the sponsor of HB 105, informed
the committee legislation on this issue was first proposed in
2013, and again in 2015, but never received a hearing. The bill
seeks to return to a state policy that looks out for the
interests of wolf packs that leave the Denali National Park and
Preserve (the park) and venture north and east of the park. He
stated in the north part of the park is the Stampede Trail where
there are wolf townships, not in the park, but on state land.
Although wolves are intelligent, they do not recognize borders,
and the wolf population in the park has dropped significantly.
Wolf packs remain in the park, but two packs are decimated or
gone because of trapping. Tourism industry records indicate it
used to be that one-half of the visitors to the park saw a wolf,
but now wolf sightings are reported by six visitors out of one
hundred, a decrease of approximately 45 percent to 6 percent.
Co-Chair Josephson opined the bill is important for two reasons:
Denali National Park and Preserve is the third highest revenue-
generating park, and has 650,000 visitors each year. Spending
at the park is about $810 million, with a small city of hotels
and commerce north of the park entrance supporting visitors. In
addition, wildlife viewing is a big facet of the tourism
economy; in fact, ECONorthwest reported 90 percent of visitors
to the state come to view, rather than hunt, wildlife. Tourism
hunting is also beneficial as hunting sustains wildlife;
however, more visitors come to take pictures of wildlife. There
are 19,000 jobs statewide in tourism that produce nearly $1
billion in wages. The park remains a prime destination for
visitors to Alaska, and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADG&F) reports there is "just a handful" of trappers lawfully
trapping in a way that hurts the wolf pack and viewing
opportunities thereof. The bill reflects the sponsor's four-
year effort to change the law affecting the lands north and east
of the park, in order to return to state policy that protects
the species. Furthermore, in addition to the economic reasons
to change the law, there are also ecologic reasons to support an
intact ecological system in the park, even if the system
ventures outside the borders of the park. He referred to other
pending legislation related to trapping near trails.
1:21:21 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said, according to ADF&G, HB 105 would affect
a handful of trappers who have an "adverse impact." He directed
attention to the national perception of this issue and read from
an article on page 69 of the 2/16 edition of National Geographic
magazine entitled, "Denali." The article described collared
alpha female wolves from the known Grant Creek and East Fork
packs that had been trapped and shot by an individual claiming
three times to have ruined wolf viewing experiences for millions
of visitors to the park [document not provided]. Co-Chair
Josephson continued to explain in 2000 wolf biologist, the late
Gordon Haber, and others convinced the Board of Game (BOG),
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), to establish a no-kill
buffer zone along the Stampede Trail and in Nenana Canyon, east
of the park. In 2009, the National Park Service (NPS),
requested an expansion of the protected area; however, BOG
eliminated the buffer. Currently, this issue is up to BOG, but
the legislature has the authority to take action consistent with
Alaska Statutes Title 16. He opined BOG is not a sufficiently
diverse board to comply with its enabling act. The last time a
buffer was proposed, BOG postponed further consideration of the
issue for six years, although there was an emergency closure for
a few months.
1:26:07 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON observed Fairbanks is a community that prides
itself on trapping; however, the Fairbanks North Star Borough
voted six to three to pass a resolution in support of protection
for wolves. He read portions of Fairbanks North Star Borough
Resolution No. 201639: "A Resolution Urging Governor Walker to
Close Areas Adjacent to Denali National Park and Preserve to the
Trapping and Hunting of Bears, Wolves and Wolverines," provided
in the committee packet. Co-Chair Josephson concluded the state
contributes to the loss of wolves in the park, and directed
attention to documents provided in the committee packet related
to the impact of trapping to the park, and supplying statistics
on tourism. From the foregoing statistics, one can conclude
wildlife viewing generates more income than hunting, although
both are important. Also, ADF&G reported the number of active
trappers in the affected area is between one and three. In
2012, he recalled the Alaska Travel Industry Association (ATIA)
expressed interest in a non-consumptive seat on BOG. He
acknowledged although there will be criticism of the bill, this
is a statewide issue.
1:31:37 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR asked the sponsor to read the Be It Resolved
portion of the above mentioned resolution.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON read as follows [[original punctuation
provided]:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Fairbanks North Star
Borough urges the Governor, through the Commissioner
of Fish and Game to close the areas adjacent to Denali
National Park and Preserve to the trapping and hunting
of bears, wolves and wolverines. BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED copies of this resolution shall be
distributed to Governor Walker and Alaska Department
of Fish and Game Commissioner Sam Cotton ...
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO expressed his understanding the original
buffer zone had a sunset clause, thus BOG did not reauthorize
the buffer zone and did not take an action to remove the buffer
zone.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON deferred the question to Dr. Steiner.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO asked whether the sponsor was aware of
the distance between the closest Fairbanks North Star Borough
boundary and the area of the proposed buffer zone.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON estimated 120 miles.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for the width of the boundary.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said the proposed boundary encompasses
several hundred thousands of acres in a conservation easement
management area where activities are unaffected except that
wolves can't be killed. He deferred to Dr. Steiner for
confirmation.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE acknowledged there is a value of
trapping and a value of tourists viewing animals; he pointed out
tourists leave at the end of each season, and local activities
continue year-around.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON deferred to Dr. Steiner for a complete answer
as to when wolves are taken, but noted part of the problem is
the wolves are not alive in June.
1:36:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked the sponsor to provide a map that
would show the boundary proposed by the bill. On page 1, line
8, the bill read [in part]:
consists of the land and water presently owned by the
state and the land and water acquired in the future by
the state lying within the boundaries of the parcel
described in this subsection:
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to how [land and water] would
be acquired by the state in the future and how it would be
affected by the bill.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON reminded the committee there are five million
acres left to select under the terms of the [Alaska Statehood
Act of 1958]. Although the land around the Stampede Trail has
been selected, there is always the possibility of a land trade
due to the importance of this issue; however, there is a crisis
- two well-known family packs are gone - and he cautioned
against waiting for alternative action by, for example, the
Board of Game.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said she has never been into the park but
has traveled the Stampede Trail. She directed attention to page
2, lines [17-19] of the bill which read:
(b) The land and water lying within the Gordon
Haber Denali Wolf Special Management Area is reserved
from all uses incompatible with its primary function
to protect wolves from hunting and trapping, except
that nothing in this section may be
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON advised in the abovementioned area there
are many other animals and game. She questioned whether the
bill would be unique, and the first of its kind, with the
primary function of designating a buffer to protect wolf
habitat.
1:39:42 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON agreed the foregoing language could be
improved and clarified. He stressed the bill does not create an
area such as the McNeil River State Game Sanctuary and Refuge,
which is uniquely dedicated to protect bear habitat. Co-Chair
Josephson recalled attending a BOG meeting which revealed, he
opined, only with great reluctance will BOG consider non-
consumptive concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER referred to statistics provided in the
sponsor statement, and inquired as to whether a current
sustainable population number [of wolves] has been established
through scientific study.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON deferred to Dr. Steiner.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for an explanation of Fiscal Note
Identifier: HB105-DNR-MLW-2-8-17, OMB Component Number 3002.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON opined a special management area may fall
under the auspices of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
and a critical habitat area may fall under the auspices of
ADF&G; in fact, amendments to the bill may create a critical
habitat area instead of a special management area. He noted DNR
has twice issued an indeterminate fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated without a fiscal note, the bill
cannot seriously be considered, and requested additional related
information from ADF&G.
CO-CHAIR TARR pointed out fiscal notes are sometimes
indeterminate and gave an example.
1:46:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON directed attention to the last line on
page 2 of the above referenced fiscal note analysis which read
[in part]:
If the intent of the bill is to transfer
responsibilities and authorities to the Department of
Natural Resources ... [the Department of Natural
Resources} does not have sufficient information ...
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked:
It just seems like that they're unclear about the
intent and if they're unclear about the intent, I
didn't know what your ... intent entirely was either.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON responded the bill was drafted by the
Legislative Affairs Agency, Legislative Legal and Research
Services. He said he would work with the department on the
bill's fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, referring to his earlier question, also
asked if there is a trend in the [wolf] population. Further, he
questioned whether the bill provides wildlife for tourism, or
solves a wolf problem.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON answered both. He seeks to preserve for
future generations an Alaska with intact ecosystems, and not
little pockets of wilderness, as in the national parks in the
Lower 48. The intent of the bill is to have a sustainable,
healthy wolf population, which correlates with income to the
state from tourism.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE questioned why DNR and not ADF&G will
facilitate the bill.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON deferred to his staff.
1:50:17 PM
MEGAN ROWE, on behalf of Representative Josephson, sponsor,
explained ADF&G is not responsible in the bill as it is drafted
because the bill relates to a chapter in statute designated to
the responsibilities of DNR. She directed attention to page 2,
beginning on line 22 of the bill which read:
(c) The land and water lying within the Gordon
Haber Denali Wolf Special Management Area is assigned
to the department for control, development, and
maintenance.
MS. ROWE advised that "the department" was thought to be ADF&G,
but is actually DNR, and thus is a "drafting issue."
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH recalled in 1992 a wolf buffer zone about
one-third larger than proposed was established, but overturned
for non-biological reasons. He questioned why the proposed
buffer zone is smaller than the area previously suggested by
BOG.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON deferred to Dr. Steiner to explain why the
land - illustrated on a map provided in the committee packet -
to the southeast of the original park and south of Cantwell,
along the George Parks Highway, is no longer in need of a
buffer.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked whether the sponsor has had dialogue
with the Denali Borough in this regard.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said no and offered to inquire.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said Healy is the closest community to
the park, as are the Stampede Road and Panguingue Creek
Subdivision.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH encouraged the sponsor to think about the
importance of local control. He recalled his personal
experience in the area responding to the use of the Antiquities
Act of 1906 by former President Jimmy Carter in 1978, and
expressed his concern about wildlife-related bills that ignore,
or sidestep, the affected local governments.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON opined BOG has plenary power in this regard
and only the legislature can intervene; in fact, it has been
reported that local, regional advisory councils are ignored by
BOG.
1:56:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed her concern for the wolf pack
that has been studied and is a "treasure ... for our state."
She is also concerned about the continued expansions of the park
boundary, which used to be much smaller. Representative Johnson
asked how much further expansion is enough for animals that
don't understand boundaries.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON clarified the bill does not extend any
boundary, but grants an easement for the benefit of the wolves
in this area. Furthermore, the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act is unique in that part of its settlement terms
allow for existing uses to continue, such as subsistence and
sport hunting, and other local practices. Within the original
1917 park boundary are many restrictions, but within the
preserve there are bear hunting, subsistence hunting, and other
allowed activities.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO turned attention to page 1, beginning on
line 8, of the bill which read [in part]:
... Wolf Special Management Area consists of the land
and water presently owned by the state and the land
and water acquired in the future by the state lying
within the boundaries ...
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO interpreted the foregoing language to
mean that any included private property would not be part of the
management area.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said he did not know and confirmed there are
private inholdings in the affected area. However, basic police
power precludes some activities on private land and he agreed
the language "requires some, some further discussion for sure."
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO advised it is important to check the
status of the ownership of the affected land. For example, he
questioned whether the largest contiguous piece of land owned by
the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) would be affected. He
advised there is a 6,000 acre reserve within the boundaries of
the map provided, and a portion of the land is held in quiet
title by a lease. Also within this area are parcels of
residential private property, ARRC property, University of
Alaska (UA) property, and land owned by a municipality; however,
the bill only applies to land owned by the state. Furthermore,
according to the map, a large part of the land encompassed by
the bill is on the east side of the Nenana River, and he
inquired as to the location and health of the Totatlanika wolf
pack on the east side of the river. He said he saw 27 wolves in
this pack, and other wolf packs on the east side of the Nenana
River appear to be thriving in game management unit 20A.
2:04:26 PM
BRUCE DALE, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, in response to Representative
Talerico, said generally wolf densities are higher in game
management unit 20A than in Denali National Park and Preserve,
because the abundance of moose is higher.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH returned attention to page 1, beginning on
line 8 of the bill [text previously provided], and to page 2,
beginning at line 17, which read [in part]:
(b) The land and water lying within the Gordon Haber
Denali Wolf Special Management Area ...
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked if ADF&G were the enforcement
agency, would it interpret the foregoing language to include
private property falling within the boundaries defined by the
bill.
MR. DALE said the Department of Public Safety (DPS) would be the
primary enforcement body, and "it depends on how it's
implemented whether it would be closed to taking of wolves on
private land or not."
MS. ROWE remarked:
The first sentence that you're referring to, "The
Gordon Haber Denali Wolf Special Management Area"
consists of the land that is owned by the state, now
and in the future. This says, "the land that is
within that area," so the area is the area that's
presently owned by the state. What is reserved is
that area. The, the land descriptions might include
private areas ... private lands and waters, but the
area that is the Gordon Haber Denali Wolf Special
Management Area is land that is presently owned by the
state or will in the future be owned by the state, so
it's not to include private lands.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH surmised private land within the outlying
territory would not be subject to the rules in the bill.
MS. ROWE said yes.
2:08:10 PM
RICK STEINER, Professor, Conservation Biologist, informed the
committee he was a professor at UA from 1980-2010, and directed
attention to his written testimony and ten supporting documents
provided in the committee packet. He suggested the committee
consider the following two criteria while judging HB 105: 1.)
The bill helps the economics of the state because it enhances
the wildlife tourism industry; 2.) The bill supports the Alaska
Constitution by the principle of equity, fairness, and common
ownership of all resources, including wildlife, by all Alaskans.
He paraphrased from the Alaska Constitution as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Article 8 - Natural Resources
Section 2. General Authority
The legislature shall provide for the utilization,
development, and conservation of all natural resources
belonging to the State, including land and waters, for
the maximum benefit of its people.
Section 3. Common Use
Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish,
wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for
common use
DR. STEINER surmised all Alaskans have equal legal access to and
use of the wildlife in Denali National Park and Preserve,
including the seventy thousand Alaskans who visit the park each
year - and who wish to see the animals alive - in contrast to
the two or three individuals who wish to hunt and trap along the
boundary of the park. Dr. Steiner opined approval of the bill
is a clear constitutional and economic choice. Turning to a
short history of the park, he said at the time of the creation
of the park in 1917, the exact boundaries were unclear and
debated, especially along the northeast boundary where wildlife
migrations occur. In 1922, the Alaska Railroad recommended
adding additional land to the park, and in 1965 the state
selected said lands, noting the park boundary is an "arbitrary
line." Efforts to define the boundaries in 1969 by the Johnson
Administration, and in 1978 by the Carter Administration,
failed. In 1980, during negotiations surrounding the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act, land exchanges to
bring certain areas into the park were suggested but not
implemented. In 1985, the Sheffield Administration attempted a
land exchange with the Kantishna Mining District, and 1992, BOG
established the first wolf buffer, which was approximately 800
square miles, including the wolf townships and the entire
eastern boundary of the park. In response to an earlier
question, he explained HB 105 seeks a smaller area than the 1992
buffer because the bill focuses specifically on viewing wolf
family groups along the Park Road. Subsequently, "in political
retaliation response to [former] Governor Hickel's suspension of
some wolf control programs elsewhere," BOG rescinded the 1992
wolf buffer zone order two months after it was issued. In 1995,
the Murkowski Administration proposed a railroad line through
the wolf townships, and in 2000, BOG reestablished a wolf buffer
which was expanded in 2002. In 2001, former Governor Knowles
unsuccessfully proposed to convey the townships to UA, which
would then sell the land to the park. In 2008, an expanded
buffer was proposed, and in 2010 there were four proposals to
BOG for wolf buffer zones. However, BOG eliminated the existing
buffer and adopted a six-year moratorium on the consideration of
further related proposals. Dr. Steiner noted the issue
continues to be contentious; in fact, the BOG process will not
provide a durable solution for the "Denali watchable wildlife
issue" and is opposed to protecting the economic values of
watchable wildlife.
2:18:00 PM
DR. STEINER pointed out if BOG enacted a closed area, the
closure could easily be rescinded; after 100 years, no efforts
have been successful at protecting wildlife along the
northeastern boundary, thus the need for HB 105 to partially do
so for wolves. The Denali National Park and Preserve wildlife
viewing decline is a matter of record, yet hunting and trapping
continue along the northeastern park boundary; although the
legal take along the boundary is limited to four or five wolves
per year, alpha breeding females are significantly important to
the pack. Since the buffer was rescinded in 2010, only 5
percent of visitors to the park have seen wolves in the past
four years. He directed attention to reports issued by the
National Park Service (NPS) provided in the committee packet.
Dr. Steiner opined the loss of the buffer is the primary cause
of the reduction, and the science is "crystal clear" that NPS
studies have shown the take of the wolves along the boundary has
reduced the park population, reduced denning near the Park Road,
and reduced visitor viewing success. Although only four to five
wolves are taken along the boundary, the "breeder loss effect"
of a significant breeding individual can cause the
disintegration of a family group as evidenced by the Grant Creek
family group that suffered the loss of its last pregnant female
in 2012, and shrank from fifteen to three wolves in one year.
In 2015 and 2016, the breeder loss effect occurred again in the
East Fork, or Toklat, family group which failed to pup and den
after its pregnant female was killed, leading to the demise of
one of the longest studied mammal groups in scientific history,
felt in the scientific and conservation communities as an
unnecessary and unfortunate loss. He restated the economics of
wildlife viewing are greater than the economic value of hunting
and trapping the same animals.
2:24:04 PM
DR. STEINER reviewed statistics related to total visitor
spending in Anchorage and Fairbanks credited to the park, and
other national park statistics. He cautioned that not including
all lands with the boundaries of the bill will complicate
enforcement and recommended HB 105 include not just state land
but all land as well. To those who argue six million acres is
sufficient for the park, he pointed out only the original Mount
McKinley National Park boundary of approximately two million
acres is closed to hunting and trapping, and the other four
million acres are open to subsistence and sport hunting and
trapping; further, the few hunters and trappers displaced by the
bill would retain access to millions of acres of state and
federal lands north, east, and south of the affected area.
Finally, he stated there is public support within Alaska,
nationally, and globally for the permanent protection of Denali
National Park and Preserve wildlife along the boundary of the
park as evidenced by petitions, written testimony, and a local
resolution.
2:30:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted his interest in other large
animals, and asked for an estimate of sustainable populations
for sheep and caribou in the park and surrounding areas.
CO-CHAIR TARR inquired as to the population estimate [for
wolves] at which collapse would occur.
DR. STEINER, in response to Representative Rauscher, said he was
unaware of a sustainable population objective for any of the
wildlife populations in the park. He deferred to NPS biology
staff who primarily manage wildlife in the park. However, the
bill is about the viewing ability of park wildlife along the
Park Road system for the visitors to the park, and is not about
the park's populations of wolves, bears, or other animals.
Further, the bill seeks to enhance and sustain the viewing of
wolves along the Park Road and to impose a substantial and
sufficient protected area. The number of wolves is not the only
measure to judge the health of a wolf population, and the
integrity of family groups is vital to game management. On a
broad scale, game management unit 20 is bigger than many states;
however, the bill can protect the pack integrity for the two or
three essential family groups for viewing in the park.
2:36:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER cautioned the cause and effect of the
bill should not be adverse. Reading from a publication by
Kimberly Titus, Division of Wildlife Conservation, ADF&G, he
relayed former Governor Knowles established three guiding
principles that must be met for wolf control to proceed:
programs must be based on sound science; cost effective; broadly
accepted by the public [document not provided]. Representative
Rauscher urged the committee to search for sound science in
order to recognize the cause and effect of the bill on the
buffer zone, as well as in the park.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO noted that the number of visitors to the
park set a record last year and another record is anticipated;
he inquired as to whether research has attached a number to the
lack of wolf viewing in Denali National Park and Preserve.
DR. STEINER answered visitors to Yellowstone National Park
(Yellowstone) have a 45-85 percent chance to see wolves, and
wolf viewing has been valued at approximately thirty-five
million dollars per year. He estimated the value of wolf
viewing in Denali National Park and Preserve to be millions of
dollars to tens of millions of dollars, in contrast to the
commercial value of five wolves taken, which would be a few
thousand dollars. He acknowledged placing a value on certain
experiences is difficult. Further, additional losses are caused
by dissatisfied visitors.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO asked whether low ungulate populations
of moose and caribou in ADF&G game management unit 20C, on the
west side of the Nenana River, have an impact on the wolf
population.
2:42:54 PM
DR. STEINER agreed ungulate populations have an effect as they
are the primary prey; in winter, wolves rely on moose and
caribou carrion from winter-kill. The Denali caribou population
is in a depression, and it is no longer permitted to take
caribou; however, snowfall does not have a direct correlation,
but is a factor in the availability of winter-kill. Although
natural factors and wildlife are a complex system, he advised
there is simplicity in reducing the loss of a few significant
wolves.
2:45:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO informed the committee game management
unit 20C has had a closed caribou season for over 30 years on
the east side of the Nenana River, and advised that there is no
take within the park, or on the north side, but there still are
no caribou.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON questioned whether there are other ways
to enhance the affected wolf pack.
DR. STEINER acknowledged management cannot control natural
causations for fluctuations in wildlife populations, but can
alter human interactions, and prohibit the limited take of four
to five animals each year. In addition, NPS restricts access to
wolf den sites along the road, and if the wolf family groups in
the northeastern section of the park recover, or new groups
form, and begin to den along the Park Road, the visitor viewing
success will return to 40-50 percent or higher. He was
encouraged to hear of high wolf density east of the Nenana
River.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked how NPS manages to protect wolves
in Yellowstone since its park boundaries span Idaho, Montana,
and Wyoming. Also, if a buffer zone is granted, she questioned
what would prevent the wolves from being lured to the new
boundary further east.
2:51:03 PM
DR. STEINER was unsure of the relationship between Yellowstone,
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming; however, last year the governor of
Montana established a 300,000 acre bison conservation area along
Yellowstone's boundary, which is a model for how a state can
cooperate with a national park. Wolves were reintroduced in
Yellowstone, and a comparison of Denali National Park and
Preserve and Yellowstone wolves is provided in the committee
packet. He acknowledged there is no perfect boundary for the
park; however, the 340,000 acre Denali Wildlife Conservation
Area proposed in 2016 would encompass almost 90-95 percent of
the wolf forays from the eastern edge of the park. Dr. Steiner
advised the area designated by the bill is a legitimate
compromise that has been proposed multiple times, and is easily
defined by mountain peaks from a public use and enforcement
standpoint.
2:54:12 PM
VIC VAN BALLENBERGHE said he is a wildlife biologist who served
on BOG three times between 1985 and 2002. In 2002, during the
time he was serving on the board, a buffer was created adjacent
to the northeast corner of Denali National Park and Preserve to
protect park wolves from hunting and trapping when they ventured
out of the park in winter. Previously, wolf packs were reduced
by legal and illegal hunting and trapping. The creation of the
buffer was strongly supported by the public. Other buffer areas
had been created, starting in 1992, including one along the
Stampede Trail, but from 2002 to 2010 more wolves were taken,
indicating that the buffers were too small. In 2010, the
National Park Service and other organizations proposed to
enlarge the northern buffer, and in spite of strong public
support, BOG rejected the proposals and rescinded the existing
buffers. In response to an earlier question, Mr. Van
Ballenberghe said the Nenana Canyon buffer created in 2002 did
not have a sunset clause, but was rescinded by a BOG vote.
During the past six years, sightings of wolves along the Park
Road has dropped; key wolf packs have been disrupted, including
the apparent elimination of a pack studied for 77 years, and
frequently seen in the park. Petitions to BOG requesting
emergency closures were rejected; however, after the six-year
moratorium, BOG will again consider this issue. He opined BOG
will not change its position and act to create an adequate
buffer. He stated there are many biological, sociological, and
economic reasons why buffers are needed and directed attention
to HB 105 supporting documents found in the committee packet.
At this time, a permanent solution such as HB 105 is needed; he
expressed his strong support for the bill and urged for its
passage. Mr. Van Ballenberghe related his personal experience
as an Alaskan: Alaska has a diversity of animals not found
elsewhere in the U.S., such as grizzly bears, polar bears, musk
ox, and caribou, but wild wolves remain elusive. Over 42 years
and many miles of travel in Alaska, he said he has only seen one
wolf along the road system due to hunting, trapping, and wolf
control programs. Over 36 years of travel in the park, previous
to the recent disruption, he saw dozens of wolves near the road,
which is the only opportunity for one who is interested in
seeing and hearing wolves along the road system. Mr.
Ballenberghe said HB 105 can provide what BOG will not:
Preserve the unique opportunity to experience wolves in one
small place that people can access.
[HB 105 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB105 vers D Buffer zone.pdf |
HRES 2/10/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Fiscal Note DFG 1.pdf |
HRES 2/10/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Fiscal Note DNR 1.pdf |
HRES 2/10/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Fiscal Note DPS 1.pdf |
HRES 2/10/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB 105 R. Steiner testimony 2-10-17.pdf |
HRES 2/10/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Supporting Documents.pdf |
HRES 2/10/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Letter in Opposition.pdf |
HRES 2/10/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Letters in Support.pdf |
HRES 2/10/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 2/10/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 105 |