Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/12/1996 03:36 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SRES 2/12/96
SB 262 MANAGEMENT OF FISH/GAME POPULATION & AREA
CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:36 p.m. and announced SB 262 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR MILLER, sponsor of SB 262, said the intent of the bill is
basically for any acre that comes out of hunting for no good
biological reason at the next Board meeting that five acres of land
not already open to hunting replace it.
Now, if there are good biological reasons for shutting land down,
additional lands do not have to be put back into hunting.
MR. LYNN LEVENGOOD, Fairbanks attorney representing Alaska Wildlife
Conservation Association, said that Alaska consumptive users have
lost nearly the size of the state of Wyoming in one form or
another. The most recent and alarming trend has happened in 1995
when the Board of Game restricted land for harvest without any
biological reason. The most notable was restricting over 200
square miles on the Alaska Peninsula from bear hunting. Recently
the Board of Game closed 90 square miles in the Mat-Su Valley to
hunting by rifles without biological reasons.
Number 134
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked Mr. Levengood for the work he had done on
this legislation.
MR. WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
said that SB 262 would modify several existing statutes related to
hunting and fishing in Alaska. The first section would mandate
that game populations be managed solely for maximum sustained yield
for human harvest and that defines consumptive use as the highest
and best use of game. It would mandate that if the Board of Game
closes an area or restricts hunting in an area in any way, it must
open a similar area at least five times larger than that area which
is closed. This provision has some major implications for the
State subsistence law. If areas are moved into a Tier II or a Tier
I hunt by the Board of Game to protect subsistence uses, other
areas would be required to be opened before such restriction could
be continued. In most cases such areas wouldn't be available, so
the restrictions would probably have to go away or couldn't occur
in the first place.
The Board of Game would have serious difficulty in closing any
season in any area under the provisions in section 1 of this bill.
Each temporary closure due to a biological emergency would be
subject to litigation as provided for by paragraphs (c) and (d) in
this section. It doesn't specify they can be closed for biological
reasons, it just says flat that you can't.
Section 2 of SB 262 would outlaw restrictions on public access to
any refuge, sanctuary, or special management area, and would
provide for civil actions against public officials who allow
restrictions to occur. It would also restrict the use of revenue
from federal aid and licenses to certain programs.
Sections 3 - 7 would modify statutes to guarantee access to
refuges, sanctuaries, and critical habitat areas, for sport
fishing, hunting, and trapping consistent with the maximum
sustained yield. The Department has real concerns with this for a
number of reasons. It would be impossible for them to manage any
of Alaska's wildlife populations consistent with the definition of
harvestable surplus, high levels of human harvest, and maximum
sustained yield as provided in section 1.
The most intensively harvested wildlife populations in the world
can't meet these requirements. The three definitions all tie
together and would require reducing predators to extremely low
levels so that we could have more human harvest. There is no doubt
if we reduce predators we could have human harvest, but in their
judgment they would never be able to supply one third or more of
the harvestable surplus as defined in this bill even where there's
no predation.
MR. REGELIN said even in Sweden they can't reach that level. They
harvest about 30 percent of their moose each year. They have no
predators and almost no winter loss, but 50 percent of the harvest
they take is of calves that are four months old. Twenty-five
percent is cows. He didn't know if we wanted to do that in Alaska,
but he thought we couldn't achieve the same situation in the type
of eco-system that we have.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked for the number of moose harvested in Sweden.
MR. REGELIN replied that they are taking over 100,000 moose per
year in Sweden.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked why Sweden, a tiny country, can harvest
100,000 moose every year. MR. REGELIN said that Sweden has about
400,000 moose and they are about one fifth the size of Alaska.
Their forest management practices have allowed moose populations to
increase to very high levels. They have intensive forestry on 160
acre blocks which they manage for moose. The big difference is
that they don't have winters that kill animals and they don't have
very many predators - one pack of wolves in northern Sweden and
very few bears. The tree species they manage for is lodge pole pine
which moose can eat. Here moose can't eat spruce. So weather and
food resource are the real differences.
Number 240
MR. REGELIN said paragraph 3 (b) is very vague. Most wildlife
populations in Alaska are subject to federal subsistence management
that is not recognized by State law. A strict interpretation of
this paragraph would prohibit expenditure of fish and game funds or
federal aid funds for management of all of these populations.
Further, it would disallow intensive management in an area like the
Nelchina Basin where the Nelchina caribou herd is subject to rural
preference under the federal law. He didn't feel that this law
would be workable.
MR. REGELIN emphasized that the word has been spread that the
harvest of wildlife in Alaska is way down. That's just not true if
you look at the record. For instance, 20 years ago 3,000 moose
were harvested in Alaska; last year 7,300 were harvested. We used
to harvest about 5,000 caribou; last year we harvested over 30,000.
Harvest statistics for Fairbanks are higher today than 20 years
ago, nearly double.
He said a bill like this would do a lot of damage to Alaska in the
long run. Twenty years ago very few people were interested in
wildlife management, basically just hunters. Today lots of people
are interested in how we manage wildlife, are demanding services,
and want a place at the table when decisions are made. It is
happening throughout the nation. Hunters are not the only ones who
own the wildlife. It belongs to all the people of Alaska and we
have to be good stewards of this resource. Saying the only and
best use of wildlife is human consumptive use in the long term will
be really damaging to hunters, because he didn't think we could
hold that position.
MR. REGELIN said over 95 percent of their budget is directly
related to maintaining and enhancing hunting opportunity. We also
have to provide benefits to the other people who like to view
wildlife. If those people are shut out of the equation, they won't
stand for it. And they are the majority.
Number 300
SENATOR TAYLOR said the only portion left of the Department of Fish
and Game budget that comes out of the general fund is the
commercial fisheries budget. The rest are federal pass-through
monies and State monies from license fees paid for by hunters, from
taxes paid by people who purchase guns, fishing poles, lures, etc.
He asked what amount of funding they were receiving from these
"other groups of people who want to sit at the table."
MR. REGELIN replied that right now we are not receiving anything
from them. They are working hard on getting some federal
legislation with matching funds from the State so that non-
consumptive users can pay their own way. He said there is no doubt
that hunters have been paying their own way for years. Because of
the dollars they have contributed there is very good wildlife
management. They spend $620,000 of the ADF&G budget on all of the
non-consumptive use programs, including wildlife education (Project
Wild), work on endangered species, and about $350,000 on wildlife
viewing programs.
He said there is no doubt that the primary use of the fish and game
fund and license fees has to primarily benefit hunting and fishing,
and trapping. The Department does that. He emphasized that the
Department uses four and a half percent of the budget to have a
balanced program, so that when non-hunters see a controversial
program, they don't turn against us. With legislation like this he
was afraid non-hunters, about 60 percent of Alaska, would turn into
anti-hunters.
Number 331
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how many moose the people in Sweden harvested
twenty years ago. He asked if they had significantly enhanced
availability of moose to hunt, wouldn't they be enhancing the
numbers of moose to view as well? He asked what recommendations he
could make to avoid conflicts with subsistence users who should be
the primary benefiters of this legislation.
MR. REGELIN replied that the situation in Sweden is a completely
different eco-system which Alaska will never match. In Alaska
where they were able to manage most intensively there were almost
four moose per square mile, although that level cannot be held for
very long. Prescribed fires are difficult because State, federal,
and private lands are all together in most places and mechanical
manipulation is very costly.
Predation management in Alaska, wolf control, has been very
controversial for years. It's not going to change; it's an issue
that affects not just game management and the Division of Wildlife
Conservation; it affects the entire State of Alaska. Because of
this, decisions on whether or not to implement predator management
programs have been made by the Governor. The last four governors
have been involved in those decisions. The Department tries to
have the information ready to follow the law that says what
information has to be collected, so the Board can make those
decisions. These decisions are going to be made in the political
branch, not the Division of Wildlife.
Number 388
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what amount of money his department has
requested for predator control. MR. REGELIN replied that they have
asked for no funding. They are waiting for a review by the
National Academy of Sciences and then the Governor will make a
decision on whether or not to proceed.
SENATOR HOFFMAN commented regarding page 3, section 3 (b) we would
be inviting the federal government to come in and manage the
resources the State would be prohibited from managing and the
people of Alaska want to go in the other direction.
MR. REGELIN agreed that the way the bill is structured it would
prohibit the Department from spending any money in an area where
the federal government has implemented its system of management.
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned where the funding for his department
comes from. MR. REGELIN explained that the only sources of funding
are from the fish and game fund and license fees. Every one needs
to have a State hunting license, whether they are hunting on State,
private, or federal land.
Number 428
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked which areas of the State and specific
populations were not managed for consumptive uses. MR. REGELIN
replied that Round Island is now open to hunting through a special
agreement with the local Native residents of that area and in the
10 years he has worked for the Board of Game, two areas have been
closed to hunting. One is Pack Creek and the other is the McNeil
River Refuge. In the past they had harvested up to three bears per
year at McNeil River and there is no problem with the population of
bears in that area. The Board of Game heard that issue and as a
Department they made an unprecedented request to the Board to close
an area when there was no biological need. The reason is simply
because this area had become an issue on the international and
national stage. Hunting at McNeil was on TV night after night
across the nation with Dan Rather making it look like people were
harvesting bears at McNeil Falls while people were watching them.
This was totally untrue, but that was the perception. It was
turning non-hunters across the nation into anti-hunters. For three
bears a year it was a tremendous way for anti-hunting groups to
raise money. When he sees something that detrimental to the image
of hunters, he felt it was a fight we couldn't win. He said he
hates to see areas closed to hunting and his Department fights hard
to enhance hunting opportunity.
Number 468
SENATOR LINCOLN stated she would ask just two of her questions in
deference to the many people that wanted to testify on this issue.
She asked MARY GORE, Senator Miller's Legislative Aide, if SB 262
is a replacement for a subsistence bill. MS. GORE said Senator
Miller would have to answer that question.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Regelin if he read this bill as a
subsistence bill or if it has an affect on subsistence or rural
preference.
MR. REGELIN answered that he didn't think this bill had anything to
do with rural preference or the subsistence issue, but it does
affect it because of the way the law is structured. It would
affect how they would continue to spend money on populations that
are only used for subsistence purposes.
Number 518
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that that concern is handled on page 3,
paragraph 3 where it says specifically that if they are going to
use revenue that has been generated from taxes, license fees, and
other fees paid by sportsmen, or funds received from federal aid in
sport fish in wildlife restoration programs, then they shouldn't
use it in an area where no one can hunt or fish. So those
subsistence areas where the general public can't hunt should have
some other funding source.
BILL HAGAR, Fairbanks resident, said the goals of the Department of
Wildlife Conservation have been shifted from biological sciences to
behavioral sciences or social engineering. This bill provides the
guidance the Department needs to manage game according to the
constitution.
MICK MANNS, Bettles resident, supported SB 262, because it would
get us back towards our State Constitution. He said the sheep and
moose populations are being wiped out and we've got to get things
back to where there is a sustained yield. Without that nothing in
the Department of Fish and Game would make much sense.
Number 570
PETE SHEPHERD supported SB 262 because it sends a very pointed
message to ADF&G, the Board of Game, and other State agencies which
are philosophically and not biologically driven. Human consumptive
use is a priority use of fish and game according to the
Constitutional mandate. He credited the senators for recognizing
the need for civil recourse for unjustified bureaucratic stonewalls
and philosophical differences. The bill addresses the problems
inherent in State agencies which appear to be at odds with
consumptive use.
TAPE 96-13, SIDE B
TOM SCARBOROUGH, Fairbanks resident, said SB 262 is a lands bill.
Areas hunters can use are being restricted more and more and he
thought this legislation is absolutely necessary.
MIKE TINKER, said SB 262 sets goals and objectives and gives
direction to the Department to set policy so that they don't have
to manage for such a wide spectrum of interests. Every agency
needs clear goals, he said. Because of the complexities of
managing wildlife let's get the biologists back to using biology,
he said. It is extremely important to have the definitions
included in this bill.
Number 561
GEORGE YASKA, Tanana Chiefs Conference, said they like the use of
the term maximum sustained yield. They do support certain forms of
predator control. He said that the legislature has rarely funded
maximum sustained yield programs beyond the Fairbanks area. He
wanted due consideration given to areas outside of areas generally
considered as non-subsistence areas. They are concerned that
section 15.20.75 as amended would provide an unhealthy level of
competition for subsistence resources within the moose management
areas. He cautioned the legislature about guarantees for sports
hunting within official management areas that are under Tier II
restrictions. Guaranteed access under this amendment for sports
hunters may not be unhealthy for sports hunters, but would be
decidedly unhealthy for rural subsistence hunters that are
generally not able to compete with the quota of hunters that would
be found under the proposed scenario.
Number 542
MR. LEVENGOOD reported that this bill is in no way a subsistence
bill. It would prevent less land from being taken out of
consumptive uses which would benefit all uses and it would provide
a guaranteed access, not limited to sport hunters. In areas where
Tier II preferences are given this bill would have absolutely no
effect.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he thought that predator control was one of the
issues driving this legislation and there was a proposed $0 budget
for predator control this year.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that predator control could be very effective
if done by people outside of the Department in rural Alaska.
Number 504
SENATOR MILLER reiterated that this is not a subsistence bill and
it wouldn't negatively impact subsistence. He said he would work
with the Department on their concerns.
SENATOR HOFFMAN commented that they say it wouldn't impact
subsistence, but according to Senator Taylor's interpretation of
page 3, section 3 that no money could be utilized to manage in
areas in conflict with our State Constitution. That's exactly in
the areas of subsistence. The resources could not be managed for
subsistence hunts which would impact subsistence.
SENATOR MILLER said that other general funds cover the subsistence
budget.
SENATOR LEMAN said they would hold the bill for further work.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|