Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/17/2000 09:06 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 267
"An Act relating to management of game."
VICTOR GUNN, Staff for Senator P. Kelly read the sponsor
statement into the record. He declared that Senate Bill
267 directs the Commissioner of Fish and Game to "accord a
high priority to the implementation of programs and
regulations adopted by the Board of Game under AS
16.05.255(e) - (I)" which provides for intensive management
programs to restore the abundance or productivity of
identified big game prey populations as necessary to
achieve human consumptive use goals of the board. He noted
that this bill directs the commissioner to allocate fiscal
and staff resources to implement intensive game management
programs and regulations in a timely and effective manner.
Mr. Gunn stated that Senate Bill 267 amends AS 16.05.2555
by adding a new subsection, which provides for the taking
of wolves on the same day airborne. He added that the
board or department may require no additional permit. He
specified that the prohibition of same-day airborne hunting
(AS 16.050783) would not apply when the Board of Game has
adopted regulations to provide for intensive management of
an identified big game prey population.
Mr. Gunn continued that this bill also authorizes an agent
of the Department of Fish and Game, as part of a game
management program, to shoot or assist in shooting
predators on the same day airborne. He recounted that this
legislation was a result of a meeting in McGrath over the
problems of predators in the area, as well as those
individuals around the state who are concerned about prey
populations. He referred to a previous fiscal note that
had been reduced to zero.
Senator Phillips asked if the Board of Game had requested
this legislation.
Mr. Gunn responded no, but noted that the Board was
consulted during the language drafting.
Senator Phillips asked why the previous fiscal note of
$600,000 was reduced to zero.
Mr. Gunn responded that this change took place during the
Committee Substitute adoption in the Senate Resources
Committee.
Senator Phillips stated that he had problems with this
bill. He noted that his constituents feel as though the
Board of Game is overreacting to the situation in McGrath.
Co-Chair Torgerson referred to line six and seven, on page
one and read the language as follows: "shall allocate
fiscal and staff resources for the department as necessary"
and asked if this language gave to the Board of Game the
power of appropriation over the legislature in order to
implement this program.
Mr. Gunn responded that this language was drafted in order
to give priority to this problem.
Co-Chair Torgerson referred to line 14, page one and read
the following language as follows: "for purposes of
protecting wildlife." He commented that this was very
open-ended language.
Senator Adams stated that he supported this legislation,
but he had a question about language in Section 3, line 6 -
8 on page two, with the use of the word "agent."
Mr. Gunn responded that this could be an individual
contracted by or employed in a temporary capacity. He
added that this language would be helpful to the department
to hire airplane pilots and such.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Fish & Game stated that the
subject of SB 267 is to control predators, particularly
wolves, through same day airborne shooting and the use of
agents in the department to conduct aerial control
programs. He commented that historically, this is a
controversial subject, which produces strong and negative
reactions from many individuals. He continued that the
Department has grave reservations about being legislated to
do something that such a large segment of the public so
clearly opposes. He referred to Section 1 of this
legislation and added that it requires the department to
implement predator control programs without violating the
Separation of Powers Doctrine. He noted that the
department is still unsure whether this Section is
successful in doing so.
Mr. Bruce referred to Section 2, which addresses same day
landing and shooting of wolves in the area of the state
subject to intensive management programs. He noted that
this comprised about two-thirds of the state. He added
that these same day shootings are subject to abuse and it
is difficult to enforce, especially keeping hunting within
designated areas. He described Section 3, which authorizes
the use of agents under a Fish & Game predator control
program. He added that the department does not support
this Section since aerial shooting is already controversial
and since the use of Fish & Game employees ensures more
accountability to the public.
Mr. Bruce commented that the department respectfully
offers, that legislative policies that are objectionable to
a large segment of the public, are not the way to resolve
the impasse over the management of wolves and the control
of predation. He declared that the department believes
that only through the development of a compromise,
resulting in a balanced wildlife management program, can
the gridlock over predator management be resolved.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked if the McGrath residents feel as
though the department has come up with a compromise to deal
with this wolf program.
Mr. Bruce responded negatively.
Senator Phillips assumed that the department does not
support this bill in its present form.
Mr. Bruce responded that this was a correct assumption.
Senator Phillips asked if the Board of Game had requested
this legislation.
Mr. Bruce responded that he was not aware of the Board
requesting this legislation.
Senator Phillips asked for clarification on the total moose
and bear population in the McGrath area, along with allowed
takings of the same. He asked if the hunting of bear with
the aid of snow machines was allowed.
Mr. Bruce responded that this latter assessment would be
illegal.
Senator Phillips understood that the Board of Game
recommended this predatory control be conducted by Fish &
Game staff or locals. He wondered if this was the
recommendation of the Board of Game.
Mr. Bruce responded that at the last board meeting, a
number of regulations were considered to try to increase
the harvest of wolves and bears. He added that the board
has authorized a predator control program in this area that
has not been implemented. He reported that the department
did not plan to implement a plan themselves at this time.
Senator Adams referred to Section 2 and clarified that Mr.
Bruce thought this section was too broad, by encompassing
too much of Alaska.
Mr. Bruce responded that this was correct. He noted that
while two-thirds of the state is subject to intensive
management plans, a much smaller area of the state has
experienced predator control programs adopted by the Board
of Game. He continued that this was much broader in places
where the board has recognized that predator control is
necessary.
Senator Adams asked if the department has looked at using
the McGrath area as a control area under game management or
as a longitude/latitude specific designation. He added
that this would avoid the legislation being too overly
broad.
Mr. Bruce responded that the department has considered
these options. He added that if the legislation is
restricted to these areas, where the board has authorized
the predator control program, this would narrow the focus
of the bill to those areas where the Board of Game has
determined that there is an actual problem with wolf
predation affecting prey populations. He continued that
this effort would help focus this issue more narrowly.
KEVIN SAXBY, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Department of Law testified via teleconference
from Anchorage regarding the wording problem of Section 2.
He noted that neither the public nor the enforcement
officers will be able to tell which areas are determined
exceptions to the same day airborne policy. He stated that
this was partly because the board has already adopted a
number of regulations under the intensive management law,
which are intended to provide for recovery of various game
populations. He then gave some examples of these, such as
liberalizing bag limits in season on wolves and bears. He
pointed out that in no place within regulations does it
identify that these regulations were adopted for intensive
management purposes or is an area identified as subjected
to these types of intensive management regulations, and in
essence, the public will not be able to tell. He added
that two-thirds of the state has been designated as
important for high levels of consumptive use, but it does
not follow from this, that intensive management regulations
have been adopted in this area as well.
Mr. Saxby pointed that intensive management, even when
predation has deemed to be the problem, may not be focused
on wolves, but instead, on bears. He noted that as a
result, the focus could potentially be on the wrong
predator with this legislation, under the current language.
He continued that there are other areas in the state where
predation is not the problem, but rather habitat is. He
recounted, that as a result, the board might adopt
regulations intended to benefit prey populations in these
areas, but wolves and bears would not have anything to do
with it. He concluded that even in areas where the board
has identified wolves as the primary limiting factor,
sometimes the board opts to adopt a non-lethal control
program. He added this legislation could greatly interfere
with exercising such an option. Mr. Saxby clarified that
at the last Board of Game meeting, it was decided that in
[inaudible] and in two other areas of the state, wolves
could be taken from a snow machine. He noted that this had
yet to be codified, but it was a decision made by the
board.
ROD ARNO testified via teleconference from MatSu. He
stated that he has been a registered guide for 35 years.
He noted that he supports this legislation, but has some
concerns, both of which were addressed. He continued that
having this legislation apply to intensive management of an
identified big game prey population area, should be changed
specifically to only relating to a wolf predation control
implementation plan as adopted by the Board of Game. He
referred to Section 2, line 15, where it states, "the
purpose of protection," and suggested that the following
language should be added "and enhancing wildlife." He
noted that there was clearly support for the sustainable
future of Alaska's renewal resources, and quoted revenue
figures for food harvests statewide. He added that there
are financial reasons to enhance wildlife in areas without
eradicating the prey populations in these same areas. He
continued to address public perception issues.
JOEL BENNETT, Defenders of Wildlife noted other
organizations have been involved in these types of
processes and he did not expect that his organization
should be criticized for their beliefs.
Tape: SFC - 00 #52, Side B, 9:54 AM
Mr. Bennett continued that he is a 35-year resident to
Alaska and a life-long hunter. He noted that he is a
former 13-year member of the Board of Game. He spoke
strongly against CSSB 267. He stated that this legislation
radically changes the citizens vote of 1996 on Proposition
3, by reinstating a practice of land and shoot hunting of
wolves. He continued that Alaskans in the past have
identified this as a practice that is subject to abuses and
is an unfair, unpopular method of hunting. He explained
that this form of hunting is impossible to enforce and many
times other animals are taken in this same manner while in
the pursuit of wolf. He referred to remarks made by
Senator P. Kelly that seemed to reverse his position of
supporting SB 74 introduced last year, which did not
include same day landing and shooting of wolves and other
predators.
Senator Donley responded that this characterization was not
accurate. He added that Senator P. Kelly spoke to a
separate piece of legislation. He continued that this was
inappropriate to impugn the intent of legislation from last
year.
Co-Chair Parnell reiterated that this legislation
specifically says that a person may not shoot from the air.
He continued that the language Mr. Bennett used means
numerous things to the public and that the public could
construe from these remarks that this present legislation
allows shooting wolves from the air.
Senator Phillips stated that he tends to agree in principal
with what Mr. Bennett had said about this legislation, but
noted that there is still a problem with wolves in the
McGrath area. He added that he does not support this
legislation in its current form and asked for other viable
solutions to this problem. He summed up that some of his
constituents question this methodology.
Mr. Bennett stated that the situation in McGrath is very
complex, involving bears as well as wolves. He thought
that the board was considering other measures to address
bear predation. He also mentioned bounties on wolves,
which in the past was very effective. Mr. Bennett
commented that he flew for seven hours over the McGrath
area to review the habitat. He challenged anyone to
designate this area as high-density moose habitat. He
referred to McGrath's 42 percent success rate for moose
last year, which was one of the most successful in the
state. He added in response to Co-Chair Parnell and
Senator Donley's comments that he only compared the two
pieces of legislation in order to reflect their conflicting
sentiment.
Mr. Bennett remarked that he saw the State of Alaska at a
serious crossroad and noted the wide chasm between major
elements of the public, which is getting wider. He felt as
though legislation such as SB 267 would widen this chasm
and produce polarization.
Mr. Gunn noted a Dittman Poll from last year which asked
residents statewide whether they would support, when a
biological emergency exists, a same day aerial wolf control
program and 63 percent said they would support this
initiative.
Co-Chair Torgerson summarized previous areas of concern
with this bill as mentioned and requested that language in
this bill be modified accordingly. He HELD the bill in
committee.
Senator Green reiterated that it was important to stress
that this present legislation has nothing to do with anyone
shooting wolves from an airplane or helicopter. The bill
was HELD in Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|