Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/11/1996 03:37 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 262 MANAGEMENT OF FISH/GAME POPULATION & AREA
SENATOR LEMAN announced SB 262 to be up for consideration.
MARY GORE, Staff to Senator Miller, sponsor, said she had
highlighted the changes for the committee.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt the committee substitute to SB 262.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if the Tanana Chiefs supported the
legislation with the current changes. MS. GORE replied that they
do.
LYNN LEVENGOOD, Fairbanks, supported the committee substitute. He
said it was absolutely necessary to reverse the plummeting laws of
consumptive use opportunities by politically based closures to
their uses.
BILL PERHACH, Alaska Environmental Lobby, commented on the
assumption that game should be managed for the maximum sustained
yield by human harvest. This is assuming that human consumption is
the highest and best use. He said like a lot of people in the
Denali Borough he makes his living through tourism. He has worked
for the last 14 years with the packaged tour segment of the market
and the last six years with eco-tourism which is just booming. In
over 20 years he has seen tourism growth between 3 - 16 percent
every year. They sell two things at Denali - the Mountain and
watchable wildlife. He said the animals in the park are affected
by what happens around the perimeter of the park. They are looking
for some sort of acknowledgement that this wildlife is a product a
kind of subsistence activity. It is the way they make their living
- a nonconsumptive use of the wildlife.
MR. PERHACH said there are two native corporations in the Denali
Borough right now which are looking at tourism because they can't
continue to live off of resource extraction. Ahtna, for example,
is actively engaged in a project in Broad Pass. The Doyon Corp.
just bought property in Kantishna where subsistence hunting is
still allowed (inside the park). He thought that once Doyon
started trying to make a living from tourism they might also
request some relief from Senator Miller.
Number 146
SENATOR HALFORD explained one of the conflicts is the source of
funding for the management and he asked if it was reasonable for
management of these resources to be paid for by the taxes, revenue
sharing, and license fees of hunters. MR. PERHACH said he didn't
see why the tourist industry shouldn't contribute.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if thought that managing for consumptive uses
is somehow going to be detrimental to those people who view. MR.
PERHACH said the folks he deals with are not going to get off the
road corridor for their experience, so he didn't have a problem
with subsistence and recreational hunting. He helps people who
work for their meat. It's people who hunt in road corridors who
are a problem for him and his clientele. He said this is a very
complex issue and the bill is very simplistic. He didn't think
they could predict what the impact would be if they continue to
allow this type of access to game. He sensed that as hunting from
the road increases, the game year round disappears.
MR. PERHACH said his most important concern is that he get some
acknowledgement that wildlife viewing is just as important as
consumptive use.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if he thought he'd win in the battle if
wildlife were managed according to a public mandate. MR. PERHACH
said he thought it would.
TAPE 96-27, SIDE A
Number 001
KEN TAYLOR, Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
said he noticed some changes that weren't mentioned before. On
page 2, line 21 "highest" was substituted for "high" and "greater
than" was included at the end of the sentence. On line 24 "the
highest" was substituted for "a high." The same occurs on page 4,
line 1 and line 5.
There are three portions of this version of SB 262 that cause the
Department concern. The first is in section 1 which mandates the
game population should be managed solely for maximum sustained
yield by human harvest. The definitions which follow would mandate
harvest levels that could only be achieved only by reducing wolf
and bear populations to extremely low levels and by wide spread
establishment of antlerless moose hunts which even are prohibited
in AS16.05.780.
The second concern is that the bill would prohibit the expenditure
of federal aid to ADF&G from management of non-game species. The
fact is that the non-game program was established to meet the
statutory requirements of the Alaska Endangered Species Statute
which passed in 1971. The purpose of that statute is to establish
a program for conservation, protection, restoration, and
propagation of species listed as endangered in Alaska. He said
their track record has been excellent in that regard. If these
programs go unfunded and we fail to meet our conservation and
management responsibilities for non-game or endangered species,
Alaska's authority to manage these resources will be further
eroded.
Currently ADF&G has a place at the table of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on
Endangered Species management. We are actively involved in
decisions on Goshawks and wolves in Southeast Alaska, eiders and
Aleutian Canada Geese, and peregrin falcons in the Arctic (recently
delisted). If funding is eliminated for this small State program,
we will be shut out of the endangered species decision making
process, leaving this entirely up to the federal agencies. Our
marine mammal program also focuses on endangered species such as
the Stellar sea lion and the bowhead whale.
MR. TAYLOR said that we fund only two positions to establish
expertise in this area, but we are known world-wide.
Their third concern is that section 2 removes authority from the
Board of Game to restrict public access in a variety areas,
including sanctuaries, refuges, and special management areas.
Since statehood the Board has adopted several management areas and
controlled use areas that restrict access methods and means to
reduce conflicts between user groups, provide for various quality
hunting experiences the public has desired, and to maximize
opportunities for participation and hunting. Without this tool the
Board will be forced to shorten seasons, establish additional tier
II permit hunts which Alaskan hunters overwhelmingly oppose, or
close areas entirely. The Board has recently taken a regional
approach to considering regulatory changes and all areas will be
reviewed to determine if they are meeting the objectives for which
they were established.
The provision in section 1(b) that mandates the Board to open an
area at least three times larger than an area closed is really
unrealistic. Nearly all the lands closed to hunting in Alaska are
under federal management over which the State has no authority.
The Board would essentially be prohibited from passing any
regulations in the future that restrict methods, manner, or means
in an area as hunting pressure increases or shifts from one area to
another. Their only options would be to shorten seasons or to
close them and be subject to litigation.
Serving on the Board of Game is a tiring and thankless task.
Subjecting Board members to litigation and personal liability for
decisions they make in the interests of Alaskans would likely
result in many of them resigning.
Section 2(b) would prohibit access restrictions in sanctuaries.
This provision is in direct conflict with AS16.20.094 and
AS16.21.62 which specifically authorize the Board to adopt
regulations governing public entry onto these lands. Without this
authority unrestricted public access would soon render these areas
useless as sanctuaries. The cost of this to Alaska's economy,
national image, and ultimate authority to manage its resources is
impossible to calculate.
MR. TAYLOR concluded saying the Department really didn't see a
great deal of change in this version from the original version and
remains opposed.
Number 130
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how all the other managers who are doing work
under the Endangered Species Act were being paid.
MR. TAYLOR replied in their Marine Mammal Program there are two
positions that are funded in their budget ($163,000). All of the
other positions, projects, and work that's done in marine mammals
cost $1.5 - $2 million and are all federal funds. A sizeable chunk
of money comes from the National Marine Fisheries Servey to work on
Stellar Sea Lions. Because of that funding they have been working
identifying separate stocks in the stellar sea lion population.
The stock in the Bristol Bay area has been declining much more
rapidly than the stock in Southeast Alaska.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he knew the Department was involved in more
non-game species management than just the two marine mammal
programs he commented on and asked where the funding for that came
from. MR. TAYLOR replied that they get funding from the Forest
Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service to do goshawk and
archipelago wolf research. They get funding for the peregrin
falcon work through section 7 Fish and Wildlife Service Funds.
These are all special project accounts. They aren't part of the
permanent budget.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how many employees were being paid mostly from
the State budget and just a token amount from federal funds. MR.
TAYLOR replied comparing all the special projects funding to amount
of funding that's in their base budget, they will find that what he
has said is true. Most of the funding that goes to both non-game
and marine mammal programs comes from other sources.
Number 235
SENATOR HALFORD asked if the Endangered Species Act treats the
Stellar sea lions as one population. MR. TAYLOR answered that he
wasn't an expert on the Endangered Species Act, but he thinks the
Act treats them as one population. The Department is arguing that
they are two population stocks and there are provisions in the
Endangered Species Act that allow for that.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if the one population that wasn't in trouble
is of sufficient strength to carry the population that is in
trouble if they are managed as one species. He said he was trying
to figure out if the State's position was the same as the
congressional delegation's position regarding the reauthorization
of Endangered Species Act. MR. TAYLOR said he didn't know what our
delegation is doing on that issue and he wasn't an expert. He said
that the population has declined overall in Alaska from 120,000
stellar sea lions in the 1950's to 30,000 statewide which is why
they are listed as threatened. He didn't know if 30,000 was
sufficient to carry the population.
Number 306
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if the Board of Game was the public official
he was referring to when he said they might not be able to get
people to serve if they are going to get sued. MR. TAYLOR replied
yes and the reason he brought it up is because the Board of Game
makes the decisions on which areas are going to be open or closed.
They are the only public officials who do make those decisions, so
the penalty clause will apply to them alone.
SENATOR HALFORD said regarding the access provision - the public
trust would be breached by restricting public access to State game
refuges, etc. and he didn't agree with the concern that the animals
move away and don't come back. Some access methods do provide some
pretty significant impacts that stay there for a long time and may
have some negative impact on tourism and he thought they should add
an exception that might read, "except where such restrictions are
solely for the purpose of protecting habitat from direct damage due
to the method of access." SENATOR LEMAN said he wouldn't object to
such an amendment. SENATOR TAYLOR said his only concern was that
it would be misused as well as it was used and withdrew his
objection.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to insert on page 3 "except where such
restrictions are solely for the purpose of protecting habitat from
direct damage due to the method of access." There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR HOFFMAN moved on page 2, line 10 to delete "or public
official" and on line 11 delete, "a public official is not immune
from suit under this section." His primary concern was being able
to get competent people to serve on the Board of Game. SENATOR
TAYLOR objected; he said he believed people needed to be
accountable. SENATOR HOFFMAN repeated his concern that they
wouldn't be able to get people to service. SENATOR TAYLOR agreed
that it was a bit harsh, but he thought the point needed to be made
that someone had to be accountable.
SENATOR HALFORD said he thought there might be two questions where
on line 10 the public official could be the Commissioner acting on
an emergency closure or something else. He thought it wasn't just
Board members and he thought it could be drafted in a way to
exclude the Board members.
SENATOR TAYLOR withdrew his objection.
SENATOR HOFFMAN amended his motion to just Board members, not
public officials. There were no objections and the amendment to
the amendment was adopted.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if there was any objection to SENATOR HOFFMAN'S
amended amendment. There were no more objections and it was
adopted.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 262 (res)(am) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|