Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/10/1998 01:10 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 364 - GUIDES FOR NONRESIDENT MOOSE HUNTERS CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the next order of business was House Bill Number 364, "An Act requiring nonresident hunters to be accompanied when hunting moose; and providing for an effective date." Number 2138 TOM WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Ivan M. Ivan, Alaska State Legislature, explained Representative Ivan is ill today otherwise he would be here today. He read the following sponsor statement: "The purpose of the bill is to require nonresident hunters to be accompanied in the field by a registered guide while hunting moose. The present moose antler restrictions for nonresident hunters - a 50 inch minimum in most game management units - there are major conservation reasons for this guide requirement." MR. WRITE said there is more to the sponsor statement. It primarily comes from a letter written by Peter Shepherd. He could continue to read it or answer any questions of the committee members. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced he would open the meeting up to the teleconference network. Number 2184 HERMAN MORGAN, Chairman, Central Kuskokwim Fish and Game Advisory Committee, testified via teleconference in Aniak. He has been involved with the committee for about 15 years, as chairman for 5 years. He is strongly in favor of the bill and so is the committee. In fact, it recently put a proposal to the Board of Game similar to the bill because of the growth of nonresident hunters in the area, and the phenomenal amount of waste by them with no one being held responsible. "If you or I did something like that, we'd be in big trouble. But these people are just getting away with it either through ignorance, inexperience, or just plain lack of caring." If they were accompanied by an experienced guide who knows how to take care of the meat, a lot of the waste could be stopped. Right now, air transporters dump as many hunters as they can in one area, and when it is wiped out they move to another area. "I though we were suppose to operate under the principle of sustained yield." Number 2271 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Morgan how many guides are there in the Aniak area. Number 2288 MR. MORGAN replied he is not sure. There are a lot that come from the Lower Forty-Eight during the moose season. They advertise on the Internet and it is getting out of hand. There are too many and the moose should be taken care of. The wolves are even becoming a problem. Number 2307 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Morgan whether there has been a problem with sub-legal moose being left in the field in the Aniak area. Number 2312 MR. MORGAN replied we have heard stories about guys shooting a sub- legal moose and leaving it. They do not understand how to take care of the meat or what it takes. If there was an experienced guide with them, it would stop a lot of this. Number 2330 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated there are problems in his area as well. There is a problem with the new antler restrictions. Number 2351 MR. MORGAN said there is such new technology that it is easy to spot a moose from a plane. If it is not regulated it will hurt the resource when a lot depend on it to feed their families. "Think how it makes us feel to see the meat go to waste," he said. Number 2379 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK asked Mr. Morgan how long has he been noticing the problem. Number 2390 MR. MORGAN replied this has been going on for quite a while. Before the "meat-and-bone" rule, a lot of the meat was being left out in the field. The hunters would come back to the village with just the horns and a little bag of meat. Their excuse was that a bear got the meat. Number 2405 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated it seems that a lot of the problems are because of the air carriers that just drop off the hunters then take off again. Number 2420 MR. MORGAN stated the bill would sure help the problem. He asked the committee members to put aside their differences. Number 2429 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated we are trying to work together on this problem and other problems. Hopefully, this bill would be a step in the right direction to help. Number 2439 NANCY HILLSTRAND testified via teleconference in Homer. She is in support of HB 364. The resources can't withstand what is going on in the woods right now. There is a wanton waste problem. She agrees with the sponsor statement, and hopes that the bill is passed. It will help the moose population. Number 2493 WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Fish and Game, testified in Juneau. TAPE 98-32, SIDE B Number 0000 MR. REGELIN continued. One of the main reasons that people are proposing the bill is to solve the problem of wanton waste. The department's opinion is that it will be very unlikely that the bill would have any noticeable impact on the wanton waste of moose meat. The problem of wanton waste is not specific to moose or nonresidents. There are a lot of cases that involved wanton waste with other species and resident hunters. Each year about 30,000 residents hunt moose and 3,000 nonresidents hunt moose in Alaska. Of the 3,000 nonresident hunters, 25 percent hire a guide. If the bill passed and the number of nonresidents did not decline, only 7 percent of the moose hunters would be impacted. The small percentage of 7 percent would not have any affect on the wanton waste issue. The bill will have an impact on the state, however. In 1996, 2,947 nonresidents purchased moose tags and licenses that generated $1,429,000. Last year, the number increased to 3,479 generating $1,685,000. The money goes into the fish and wildlife fund for wildlife management. A nonresident hunting license costs $85, and a moose tag costs $400. The average cost of a guided moose hunt in Alaska is about $6,000. The cost for 75 percent of the nonresident moose hunters will significantly increase by thousands of dollars. A large number will not come to Alaska anymore. Hunters will go to other places like Canada. Based on the data when goats were added to the list of species that required a guide, there was a loss of 70 percent. The department would loose about $885,000 in revenue each year. The loss of the hunters would also have a significant impact on the economy. Based on a 1994 study, nonresident hunters that did not hire a guide spent an average of $3,517 while in the state which included transportation, fuel, food and lodging. In total, it factors about $5.5 million into the economy. MR. REGELIN further stated another concern is the legal challenge for bear, goat and sheet nonresident hunters to have a guide. The department has never been challenged, but based on the large number of federal lands there is concern. He does not mean to give the impression that the department is not concerned about wanton waste. The waste of even one animal is too much. There is nothing that hurts the image of hunting more than the waste of meat. The department follows up on any report of wanton waste, and issues citations, if warranted. The fine for the waste of meat is one of the highest on the books for fish and game violations - up to $5,000 a year and up to one year in jail. The typical fine is over $1,000 and almost always involves some jail time and the loss of hunting privileges in Alaska for several years. The department is trying other ideas to reduce or eliminate wanton waste. The Board of Game passed the "meat-on-the-bone" in Units 17 and 19 in an attempt to reduce wanton waste. It is having some beneficial effects. In addition, the nonresident hunters in Unit 19B last year as an experiment were required to take an orientation course on how to handle meat and view film on how to determine whether a bull moose has 50-inch antlers or not. If it is successful, the department will expand it into other areas where there are problems. The department is in the process of making a film on how to take care of meat in the field and working with the transport industry to deliver the course before flying the hunters out to the field. The department is also trying to make it easier for people to donate their meat in the villages. The passage of HB 364 does not really get at the problem of wanton waste. Number 0312 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Regelin whether it is a huge problem with a significant portion of the moose regulations in terms of antler restrictions. He has been a moose hunter for 20 years and has hunted with experienced guides, and they have argued about the legality of the animal that they are looking at in terms of its antlers (brow tines). Number 0412 MR. REGELIN replied about 50 percent of the state has antler restrictions on a bull moose. The most common is a spike fork or 50 inches and bigger. It was started about six years ago. In some places it has worked really well, and in other places it has not worked well at all. On the Kenai Peninsula most hunters have liked it. In the Mat-Su Valley and Unit 13 it has not worked very well due to the antler configuration. There is a task force of biologists and the chairs of the advisory committees in the Mat-Su area working on the issue now. The reasons for doing this were because in some areas the bull were being over harvested causing a distorted bull-cow ratio influencing the productivity of the herds. It was a way to allow for longer seasons in the field, take a trophy bull, take a small-meat bull, and let the middle-aged moose grow and bread. It has worked very well in restoring the bull-cow ratios, but in certain areas (Units 13 and 14) it is still a problem. Number 0507 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Mr. Regelin whether the state would be compensated for land-user fees that are not now collectible from drop-off hunts. Number 0538 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated the guides currently have to go through the (DNR) Department of Natural Resources for land-use fees for camps. There would probably be an increase in the amount of those activities. He asked Mr. Regelin whether he has looked at the difference. Number 0557 MR. REGELIN replied he has not looked at that. He knows that DNR has the ability to charge fees, but he is not sure whether it is. If it is, the fees are not going back to the fish and game fund. The vast majority of guiding is on federal lands - 60 percent. He could try to figure out the amount that would go back into the state treasury. Number 0587 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated guided hunts would reduce the number of nonresidents harvesting moose in direct competition with local hunters. In addition, if the bill was to pass, hunting pressures would be spread throughout the state, not just in one area. The guides could take them out to different areas. Number 0633 MR. REGELIN stated it would certainly reduce the number of nonresident moose hunters in Alaska. There would be a loss of 1,800 nonresident moose hunters scattered throughout the state. There would be less competition, but in some areas such as Aniak almost all of the local residents hunt along the rivers by boats, while 85 percent that do not live in the area hunt by aircraft. Therefore, there is a natural method of reducing that type of competition according to statistical information from Units 17 and 19. Number 0718 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated she disagrees with Mr. Regelin in terms of wanton waste. Right now, the problem is with unaccompanied nonresidents that hunt moose. The moose is so huge that it is hard to care and preserve the meat. A guide could help them get the moose out and care for it. Mr. Regelin's points are not really falling into place. She finds it hard to believe some of his facts. Number 0770 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS agreed with Representative Masek. It is difficult to hear his arguments when experienced people are also having the same problem. He asked Mr. Regelin who is paying for the instructions and how much does it cost to produce a film. Number 0815 MR. REGELIN replied the department now provides written material to the transporters and guides, and a film on how to identify a 50- inch antler. The department is preparing a film now that will cost about $15,000 on how to take care of moose meat. The cost of the film on the 50-inch antler was probably in the $15,000 to $20,000 range. The department does the films itself so a lot of money is not spent. Number 0852 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS stated his arguments are still very weak. He recognized that the amount to produce a film is a one-time cost. He supports the bill because it talks about nonresident hunters. Number 0888 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated when adopting the list of animals to require a guide legally was related to the type of terrain, for example. She asked Mr. Regelin to speak to the legal reasons. She could not remember them all. Number 0922 MR. REGELIN stated he is concerned about adding moose to the list. The list currently contains grizzly bears, sheep and goats. The legislature has been extremely careful when adding species and to base it on the need of safety because it is a dangerous animal or very dangerous country. The legislature has been afraid of a court successfully challenging it because there is so much federal lands in the state to the point that it would not be able to require a guide for any species. If that was to happen, it would put a lot of guides out of business. The primary guiding industry in Alaska revolves around bear and sheep. It is a viable industry and necessary for a lot of people to be able to hunt. He reiterated 25 percent of the nonresidents hire a guide to hunt moose. A large part of the other portion comes to Alaska to hunt with friends or family. Number 1007 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated by-en-large the people who hunt with family members have to be closely related by blood for other wild species. She asked Mr. Regelin whether the terrain for the moose habitat generally speaking are of a non-dangerous nature. Number 1038 MR. REGELIN replied, "Correct." The state would be hard pressed to justify moose under the safety factor. In terms of grizzly bears, sheep or goats, one can hunt with close family members up to a second degree of kindred - dad, brother, uncle. Number 1068 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Regelin whether the conservation of the resource is a justifiable reason to require guided moose hunts simply because of the difficulty in judging the antler restrictions. Number 1113 MR. REGELIN replied he is not sure what a court of law would say. The department realizes that there are problems with the 50-inch rule. It is not just the nonresidents that have trouble. Number 1133 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated it would be appropriate to hold the bill over until there are some answers to the legal questions. Number 1146 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated it is not possible to say that one group of people leave meat un-salvaged any more than another group, otherwise there would be proof and they would be in jail. There are very strict laws on the books that relate to salvaging meat. Number 1185 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated that is a point that the sponsor needs to address. Number 1199 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS stated there is a lot of meat being left because of the 50-inch rack, yet there is no wanton waste. He is hearing conflicting stories. Number 1220 MR. REGELIN explained he said earlier that even one moose or one caribou wasted is too many. The department has no indication that wanton waste has increased. The department also thinks that some of the measures it is taking to reduce waste will continue to be effective. He believes there is a problem because in some villages that have had very little air traffic in the past such as Aniak are experiencing more traffic because of the Mulchatna herd. Number 1320 ROB HOLT, Representative, Alaska Professional Hunters Association, testified via teleconference in Mat-Su. We are at this point for moose because of the elimination of the Big Game Commercial Services Board. It was the state's best way to control the growing commercial service industry centered around big game hunting. It did a pretty good job of controlling the guides by putting them into a manageable scenario. When the board's sunset expired they were looking at the air taxis and transporters. The state lost the ability to control that group and now it is the fastest growing group. There are 23 proposals that deal with this issue in one form or another of the Board of Game. It is obvious that the residents put a very high value on moose. The moose deserve the same kind of consideration that bears, sheep and goats are under in terms of how the population is (indisc.--paper shuffling). It is a sensitive issue because there are many different angles. In addition, the revenue shortfall for the Department of Fish and Game should be looked at. He imaged that about one-half of the 1,800 nonresident hunters would probably go ahead and book a guided moose hunt in the short run. The number will probably not return, but it will not be significantly low. There should be a way to transfer the revenue shortfall if it would be that much of an impact on fish and game. Number 1546 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said the state has a lawsuit to control the transporter group. When he served on the Big Game Commercial Services Board, it never tackled that group because it did not have the authority. They were not providing a hunting service; they were simply taxi cab drivers. They fell under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Number 1597 MR. HOLT stated when the board was designed it went from a guide to a big game commercial services board strictly for the reason to encompass everybody who provided a service for a big game hunter. Number 1624 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated Mr. Holt is correct. Licenses and stickers were issued to transporters. He is not sure if they have gone away, however. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked Mr. Holt whether he favors or opposes the bill. Number 1658 MR. HOLT replied he favors the bill in consideration of the people in the outlying areas that need some relief from what they see happening. Controlled use areas are not in the best interest of the average resident Alaskan who lives in an urban area and wants to go hunting. He should not suffer for the over zealous drop-off industry. Number 1719 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated there is very strong case law that supports being able to force people to use guides for safety. Incorporating moose into the same set of statutes is a foul of the United States Commerce Clause. She asked Mr. Holt to comment. Number 1765 MR. HOLT replied, if the state was to keep close track from now of which nonresidents gets hurt hunting, moose hunters would be included. It is an area with the most possible safety problems with the least amount of supervision and responsibility. It is just a guess, however, he could be wrong. The requirement of a nonresident hunter to hire a guide for bear, sheep and goat based upon safety, the state is telling them that it is looking out for their best interest. In the same law, the state has licensed a non-hunting housewife in Eagle River, for example, to be a guide for her nonresident relative. It does not happen a lot, but he has seen it in Kodiak with brown bear hunting. If the state is concerned about the validity of its law, it needs to look at requiring resident-relatives to provide an affidavit that says they have actually taken the species they are after with their nonresident relatives. Otherwise, what has the state done to provide for the safety of that person. Number 1930 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN responded the state has transferred the safety over to the relative. Number 1939 MR. HOLT replied in that respect it also weakens the ability to retain the law. Number 1965 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that many legislators would not limit people from taking their relatives hunting and fishing. If the state cannot show a justifiable reason for putting moose under the guide area, eventually all of the guided areas will be lost to the United States Commerce Clause. Number 2001 MR. HOLT responded her point is very well taken. The state has always been very careful when approaching the issue for that exact reason. But something needs to be done to relieve the problems in the outlying areas. Number 2031 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated there is no question that the problem needs to be addressed, but there are other more legitimate ways to do it, such as seasons and bag limits. If people are not getting their amount for sustenance in an area then there needs to be an earlier or later season so that they are not in competition for the same food source. Number 2084 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated he would like to see something from the Legislative Legal Counsel Division concerning the application of the United States Commerce Clause. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained it has been requested already. Number 2112 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Mr. Regelin his opinion on the impact of wanton waste of moose meat in terms of the transporters when their unaccompanied nonresident clients are not being held responsible for the environmental impact. The transporter industry is growing and making more money. Number 2287 MR. REGELIN replied, in general, overall there are a few big transporters taking advantage of the system. But most have been in business for a number of years. If they see that not enough of their clients are brining meat out of the fields, they work with the Department of Fish and Game and the Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection. It is important to realize that a great deal of resident moose hunters fly in too. They far out number the amount of nonresidents. The concerns of wanton waste can not be attributed to one group more than another group. Number 2401 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated she does not feel comfortable with Mr. Regelin's answers. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the bill will be held over, until there are answers from the Department of Public Safety - Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection and Department of Law.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|