Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/02/2004 03:30 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 297-BEAR HUNTING/DISPOSAL OF HIDE/SKULL
CHAIR SCOTT OGAN announced SB 297 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS, sponsor, moved to adopt SSSB 297, version
\W.
CHAIR OGAN objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he removed the section having to do with a
fourth guide area - primarily because that section was moved
into the Commercial Service Board bill that the committee heard
earlier. Section 2 is now section 1 and talks about control of
different species of bears. The Board of Game has to first
identify predation by bears to be the cause of the depletion and
determine that a reasonable reduction would solve the problem.
The department is required to provide notice to the public when
those sections are in effect.
Page 2, line 5, section (b) says that the permit would be issued
by the department and that taking of the bear under it is
subject to the provisions of AS 16 and the regulations governing
it that do not conflict with other sections in this bill.
Section (c) lists concerns that the guides have about continuing
to require guide services for hunting dangerous animals in
dangerous terrain.
Attorneys told the sponsor that the most logical place that
issue would be challenged is under the second degree of kindred
statutes. Under those statutes, a 10-year old Alaska resident
could take his adult stepbrother, or stepwhomever, hunting
grizzly bears. This section says any permit holder who is over
21 years of age and is a resident of the state who has legally
hunted big game in the state at least two calendar years could
accompany a maximum of two people into the field and stay with
them. This is a tougher requirement than to be an assistant
guide under the commercial services proposal who would have to
be only 19 years of age, have hunted big game in the State of
Alaska for two years and have a Red Cross First Aid certificate.
A registered master guide would not be restricted to the number
of people they could accompany into the field under their
regular rules and could use these methods and means for the
harvest of bear as long as the client has a permit under this
section.
CHAIR OGAN asked if a registered guide could book a hunt and
send the clients out with someone who wasn't a registered guide.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied no, the registered guide or his
assistant must stay with the non-resident at all times.
SENATOR GEORGIANNA LINCOLN asked if a resident who is over 21
years old, who is not a registered guide could take out up to
two non-resident hunters, but can't receive any remuneration in
excess of direct expenses.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied that is correct. Direct expenses include
food, fuel and how they got there.
CHAIR OGAN said some kind of standard should be established for
that.
SENATOR SEEKINS said:
I intend for it to mean on the record that that direct
expense would be for fuel if they had a boat... and
for food necessary to get there, what it cost that
person to get into the field and stay in the field
with them - the direct expense.
CHAIR OGAN said he didn't want it to mean:
Okay, I had to buy an airplane to take my friend
hunting and I had to buy a tent and guns and all this
stuff. Those were my direct expenses for taking this
person out. So, he owes me $10,000....
SENATOR SEEKINS said he didn't have any problem with that. He
means what it cost to get there, not to buy the implement to get
there with.
CHAIR OGAN asked about feed for horses, since it costs him
several thousand dollars per year to feed his.
SENATOR SEEKINS responded that he could charge for the feed for
the horse while they were in the field with him with the
particular person. "There is no way they can profit from it."
CHAIR OGAN indicated everyone concurred with that.
SENATOR ELTON asked if someone had to take two weeks off from
his job to do this, would that be considered a direct expense?
SENATOR SEEKINS said no:
There should be no repayment of wages lost. In other
words, I should be able to come up with an itemized
list of what it costs for me to be out there with you
in terms of my food, my equipment and that's it.
That's my intent.
He thought that could be established in regulation.
CHAIR OGAN wanted to say hunters can't receive remuneration at
all. If buddies want to go hunting, they can split the expenses.
He moved to delete "in excess of direct expenses incurred in"
and insert "for" and insert "may not receive any remuneration
for accompanying".
SENATOR ELTON said he didn't object, but suggested getting a
dictionary because he observed that he thought remuneration
means to pay and striking the other language may broaden what
someone could charge off to expenses.
CHAIR OGAN said, "We can clearly state on the record that the
committee's intent is that there is no compensation whatsoever
for doing this...."
SENATOR GEORGIANNA LINCOLN suggested making a conceptual
amendment.
CHAIR OGAN agreed and withdrew his amendment.
SENATOR SEEKINS clarified that he didn't expect that the guide
taking the person out would have to pay for the expenses of the
person going out with him, but for his own expenses.
He moved on to section (d), a suggestion brought to him by
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).
Since our intent is to put more hunters into the
field, that we do have a universe of people who tend
to be hunters, who enjoy the outdoors, who are active
participants in the outdoors, who are well-acquainted
with firearms in most cases and who have been equipped
with survival skills in most cases and whose lifestyle
generally would include this kind of an activity in
the military and those folks who come to Alaska, we
have said here that if someone is in the military
service or the United States Coast Guard, they're
stationed in Alaska and they have met the other
requirements in this section and are at least 19 years
of age, we're going to treat them as a resident in
terms of getting a bear control permit. If they are
over 21 years of age and they meet the other
requirement of having hunted big game in Alaska for
two years, they can get a permit to accompany.
CHAIR OGAN thought that language might be pushing the issue in
section (c), which covers the reasons for requiring guides for
bear hunting.
SENATOR SEEKINS said:
The only conceptual way I could see this happen would
be if a military person had grown up in Alaska, had
been here before, had hunted big game in Alaska for
two years and now they came back to the state, but
were not technically a resident, but they had the same
experience as if they had been, could accompany.
CHAIR OGAN said the term "legally hunted big game" means that
they basically got a tag and put on it that they hunted one day
in a subunit when they may have gotten out of their car for only
five minutes.
SENATOR ELTON said he understands why the sponsor put that
section in, but testimony from previous years on requiring a
guide to accompany a non-resident used the safety issue. He
feared this started down the "slippery slope" away from that and
wanted to hear opinions from the ADF&G and Attorney General.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he was trying to use the same level of
experience used for a resident in terms of their experience in
the field, not based on their status as a military person.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked why the ADF&G said a provision for a non-
resident military person had to be put in. He or she could be 19
years old and in the state for only one day and get a resident
hunting license.
SENATOR SEEKINS explained the reason is:
We're attempting to put additional hunters in the
field of people who have reasonably good skills in
terms of survival and weapons use.
SENATOR LINCOLN couldn't see how a military person who qualifies
as a resident by being here one day, and hasn't been in the
field, can go out there without any assistance. "How is that
reflective of a person who is knowledgeable about the area, the
species and how to safely hunt?"
SENATOR SEEKINS agreed that there is no comparison between
someone who has not hunted big game before and someone who has,
no matter how long they have lived in Alaska.
All I was attempting to do in this case is shorten the
period for the qualification of being a resident.
There is no guarantee that in that first 12 months
that someone is in the state that they are going to
get any more experience than they had when they first
came into the state. So, all I was trying to do here
was basically make people on a limited budget able to
help us reduce bear populations....
CHAIR OGAN agreed with his point saying all a person needs now
to hunt bear is to be a resident for 12 months to get a bear tag
and $25.
SENATOR SEEKINS continued on to (e) and (j) where he removed the
tag fee and required a sealing fee for the hide of $50. "I am
trying to disassociate this from hunting as much as I can and
make it a predator control program...."
SENATOR ELTON asked what tag fees are for black, brown and
grizzly bears for residents and non-residents.
CHAIR OGAN said they could ask the department representative
when he testifies.
SENATOR SEEKINS explained that (f) says a person who holds a
bear control permit may use within that area scents and edible
parts of game or whole or parts of dead domestic livestock as an
attractant for bear without having to register.
Here, Mr. Chairman, the intent is - many bear kills
are incidental kills on gut piles. Trying to be able
to relocate that gut pile in a place that is more
advantageous for the hunter rather than for the
hunted. A moose does not always die where you want it
to. If it's in an area of high density cover, you may
want to move that gut pile to an area that's clear
where you can conceal yourself and ask the bear to
expose him or herself to make it safer, make it easier
for a more humane kill and make it more probable to be
able to actually harvest the bear.
Secondly, to be able to use, for example, dead
livestock. When I grew up in Wyoming, we had a steer
that died. We used that for bear bait. We took it out
and chained it to a log in the middle of an open area.
But, because gut piles are incidental kills, they're
in the field, it's not easy for someone to be able to
come back to town to be able to get a registration
permit. We talked about a way to be able to do that in
these areas if you have that permit without having to
register.
CHAIR OGAN said, "That's only if you relocate it. Right now you
can shoot a bear off your kill if you don't relocate any of the
parts."
SENATOR SEEKINS added that relocating gut piles under normal
hunting rules is prohibited.
CHAIR OGAN said that argument isn't germane to using dead
domestic livestock, because obviously you have an intent to
bring something out there.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he only wanted to give a hunter the
opportunity to place that in the field in an advantageous place
that is a long way from civilization rather than getting an
actual location like bear baiting stations are now.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if "without having to register" referred
to the bait station.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied yes.
I wouldn't have a problem if under regulations we
tried to define proximity and a few other things along
that line, Mr. Chairman. Now, if you're going to have
a bait station, you have to locate it; you have to
post signs around it; you have to do all kinds of
things, because you're generally assumed to be in a
little closer proximity to where people live.... In
this case we're anticipating that when someone is out
in the field, that it's very difficult for them to get
back to town to go through the process at the
Department of Fish and Game to do all the registration
on the gut pile or on where they might place the dead
remains of a domestic animal.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked him to look closer at that point before
this comes back before the committee.
I don't know how difficult it is if you're going out
into that field to hunt bear in that given permit area
to say that you will at least have the baiting
stations within the area.
CHAIR OGAN responded that there would be some discussion about
that.
SENATOR SEEKINS forged on that he had talked at length to the
department about how to differentiate this from a bait station.
He explained that (g) covers same-day air borne hunting that is
allowed in this bill.
TAPE 04-35, SIDE B
SENATOR SEEKINS continued saying that (h) deals with current
regulations and allows a person with a permit to use a motorboat
or a motorized land vehicle to intercept or pursue a bear that
has become aware of the person's presence. Section (i) talks
about two-way communication and optical illumination equipment
to aid in taking a bear.
CHAIR OGAN asked if he intended to allow hunting bears at night.
SENATOR SEEKINS professed allowing someone to locate or hunt a
bear on the permitted area at night. The use of two-way
communication equipment is for safety as much as anything else.
He related how a hunter he knew wounded a bear that circled
around and mauled him, but his friends who saw it happen
couldn't warn him. "It's not necessarily an unethical
practice...."
CHAIR OGAN contended that someone could herd bears by using a
swamp buggy, huge lights and radios. The bears wouldn't have a
chance.
SENATOR SEEKINS believed that would be an extreme case and
probably wouldn't happen. He strongly believed that two-way
radios would be a big help.
Unfettered use of big spotlights and everything else
would not be within my intent. My intent is to try to
safely eliminate bears and to give the advantage to
the hunter.
SENATOR ELTON went back to the last part of section (h) that
says a motorized boat or land vehicle can be used to pursue a
bear that has become aware of the person's presence. He asked
why the distinction.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied:
Once that bear becomes aware of your presence and
flees, you cannot pursue it with a motorized vehicle
under current law. This gives you the opportunity to
be able to do that.
SENATOR ELTON asked if this would preclude a person from getting
into a riverboat and cruising the river and if they spot a bear,
they can't shoot it - although the bear would be aware of their
presence.
SENATOR SEEKINS said this bill would allow that, although other
regulations are still in effect. You couldn't shoot from a
moving boat, for instance.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked since he was opening up the law, did he
want to include a moving boat. She has seen many bears just
stand there and not go running. If you landed and had to shoot,
that bear would more than likely not be there. "It seems like
you might allow turning off the motor or it doesn't matter. Why
not put in there that you could also shoot from a moving boat?"
CHAIR OGAN said that's what this bill does.
SENATOR SEEKINS added:
I don't think you can shoot when it's under power....
I would not have a problem with it if it's coasting
and it's a safe opportunity. It was meant primarily
for safety of other people in the boat and
themselves.... I'm not trying to rule that out. I am
just trying to say here that you could use that boat
to pursue, to use that snow machine, without breaking
the law. I didn't go to the end shot where you have
to.
SENATOR SEEKINS said the last sections deal with bear hides and
skulls. Currently when the ADF&G comes into possession of bear
hides and skulls, it is able to sell them at auction and use the
proceeds in the fish and game fund. This bill allows someone to
donate a hide or skull to the department to be sold for that
purpose or to a qualified organization that is associated with
conservation. It could be sold and a commission of up to 50
percent of the net proceeds could go to the person who donated
it to recover his expenses.
Part of the reason we have it restricted the way it is
... [to] keep them out of the strict identification of
being involved in interstate commerce and allow
someone who may have harvested a bear and may not want
that skull or may not want that hide any longer to be
able to put the value to good use.
SENATOR DYSON asked if gall bladders are allowed.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied that gall bladders are not allowed.
SENATOR WAGONER asked if the qualified organization already has
a bear hide or skull that's been donated to them and they want
to sell it, can they do that under this bill.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied not the way it's classified now, but he
wouldn't have a problem with doing that. He didn't think the
department would either.
SENATOR ELTON said he thought a legally taken bear under this
permit program could have the skull and hide donated, but he
didn't know for sure if that was an expansion of what can happen
now.
CHAIR OGAN conceded that was a good point. It might have to say
legally taken bear under AS something or other.
SENATOR SEEKINS added that the intent was to try and accommodate
a request from folks who want to give a bear hide away to
someone else who would value it.
Then we are allowing them to auction them or raffle
them and to do that through the department or through
a 501(c)(3) who also has conservation purposes. I
don't care how they get the hide.
SENATOR WAGONER said he has a 501(c)(3) [the food bank in Kenai]
that had a skull and hide donated to it and this legislation
would allow them to be sold and he had no problem with that
happening.
CHAIR OGAN said he was in Jackson Hole for an Energy Council
Conference a year and a half ago and saw a lot of Alaska moose
racks and Grizzly bear. People take them to other states and
sell them and according to ADF&G, we can't stop them. He didn't
know if they could sell animals killed in their state, though.
SENATOR LINCOLN noted that proceeds could not be used to
contribute to a political candidate or to any organization
supporting or opposing ballot propositions or to pay expenses
associated with lobbying. Yet, she thought the Outdoor Council
has a lobbyist and someone mentioned it earlier as a recipient.
She asked how the department determines how that money is used
by an organization. How would one know if someone was going to
support or oppose a ballot proposition? It is such a wide-open
statement and doesn't even mention a timeframe.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied that it's not uncommon for organizations
to have affiliate organizations that are made up of the same
members, but for different purposes and he used the National
Rifle Association as an example.
Our attempt here is to not use these things to fund
the contentious side of the issues, but rather to
support those that are 502(c)(3) that don't partake in
those kinds of activities. I think a (c)(3) is
precluded from being able to participate in many of
these activities.
SENATOR WAGONER agreed.
CHAIR OGAN elaborated that a 501(c)(3) cannot make that kind of
contribution and that language doesn't even need to be there. "A
(c)(3) can't do anything political at all or they lose their
status."
SENATOR ELTON assumed that the board would still set the time of
year a person could hunt with this permit and would set the
number of animals that could be taken under one permit.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied that is absolutely correct.
CHAIR OGAN said the committee would be receiving a lot of
comments on this bill in the future and set it aside.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|