Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
03/23/2018 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB176 | |
| HB105 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 105-TAKING WOLVES NEAR DENALI PARK;TRAPPING
3:38:05 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL called the meeting back to order and announced
consideration of HB 105. [CSHB 105(FIN), version 30-LS0408\R,
was before the committee.]
3:38:31 PM
THOMAS ATKINSON, Chief of Staff to Representative Josephson,
Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided an overview
of HB 105 for the sponsor. He said this bill would close areas
that have been closed before by the Board of Game. Violation of
the closure must be negligent to be actionable. That is the
standard used throughout other Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G) statutes. He explained that the term "negligently"
in subsection (c) on page 2, is provable and enforceable,
whereas "intentionally" would be hard to prove.
3:39:22 PM
MR. ATKINSON said the National Park Service (NPS) has a wolf
sighting index and it indicates that sightings have declined
rapidly and dramatically over the past decade. Wolves are a
major tourist draw to the area. The Board of Game established a
buffer zone in Denali's eastern boundary, which existed for 10
years, during which time there were more sightings. However, in
2014, less than 6 percent of park visitors were able to see
wolves, a decrease from 45 percent when the Board of Game
imposed a closure. Wolf populations in Denali have declined in
numbers from 116 in spring of 2006 to 50 in the spring of 2014.
3:40:24 PM
SENATOR BISHOP asked who is doing the wolf counts.
MR. ATKINSON answered just the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G).
SENATOR BISHOP asked if the National Park Service was involved
with any of the wolf counts.
MR. ATKINSON replied he was uncomfortable giving him a
definitive answer on that, but the figures he has are from the
ADF&G, and it's his understanding that is where the counts come
from.
To protect wolves for future Alaskans and visitors, HB 105 would
prohibit wolf hunting and trapping in two areas adjacent to
Denali National Park & Preserve: The Wolf Townships (AKA: the
Stampede Trail) and the Nenana Canyon.
MR. ATKINSON said new information (on slide 3) indicates that
five radio-collared wolves from the Denali packs were killed
outside of the park in the Stampede Corridor this winter, one of
the proposed closure areas. The collar was destroyed. This wolf
was commonly seen along the park road and had a role in 2017's
higher viewing rate. Two wolves from the Comb pack were also
harvested in the Stampede Corridor; one wolf from the Eagle
Creek pack was harvested in the Nenana Canyon, which is the
other geographical area that the bill proposes to close to
taking of wolves; and one dispersed wolf from the Iron Creek
pack was harvested near Delta.
3:42:15 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked what "dispersed wolf" means.
MR. ATKINSON replied that it means the wolf is no longer with
the pack.
SENATOR COGHILL asked him to verify that "harvested" could mean
anywhere from shooting to trapping and that it is done by
someone who is known to report.
MR. ATKINSON answered "harvested" means any method of take; it
could conceivably be done with a bow and arrow, although that
would be difficult.
SENATOR COGHILL explained the reason for his question is that
one of the collared wolves was killed and he wondered if an
automobile had run over it and if that distinction is made.
3:43:19 PM
MR. ATKINSON replied that Senator Coghill made a good point and
that "have been killed" doesn't necessarily mean by someone who
was intending to kill.
MR. ATKINSON explained that the reason Representative Josephson
introduced the bill is because wildlife viewing has an economic
benefit to the state according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). The latest information indicates total direct
expenditures by wildlife viewers in the United States in 2011
was $54.9 billion .
3:44:27 PM
MR. ATKINSON said slide 5 broke out economic impacts of wildlife
viewing in Alaska. In 2011, it was $2,059,000,000, which helped
create 40,000-plus jobs, $1.5 billion in wages and salaries, and
some state and local tax revenues and even more federal tax
revenues. Alaska is in the top-10 states ranked by economic
output for wildlife viewing.
3:45:13 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked if this figure was aggregated to include
cruise ship passengers looking at sea otters.
MR. ATKINSON said yes, adding that they do know a great many
visitors from outside Alaska do have Denali National Park and
Preserve (DNPP) on their "To See List" when they come to Alaska,
and most of the time they want to see wildlife.
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked if there is a checklist that asks which
animals people would like to see.
MR. ATKINSON replied yes, and that visitors tell the National
Park Service when they go to Denali they want to see wolves. He
offered to follow up on that.
SENATOR VON IMHOF commented that a checklist like that would be
a key piece of information since tourism is gaining as one of
the state's "bright spots."
3:47:27 PM
MR. ATKINSON went to slide 5 called "The Buffer Zone," and said
to protect wolves for future Alaskans and visitors from outside
Alaska (a lot of Alaskans go to Denali National Park and
Preserve, also), HB 105 would prohibit wolf hunting and trapping
in two areas adjacent to the Park and Preserve: one is the Wolf
Townships in the northeast corner where state land juts out to
the west into the park and the Nenana Canyon on the other side
of the highway running north/south.
3:48:39 PM
MR. ATKINSON said slide 6 had a map showing the "wolf buffer
zone." He explained the bill does not propose to close the area
south of Cantwell.
CHAIR GIESSEL noted that was the cross-hatched section.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if downtown Healy was included.
MR. ATKINSON answered yes.
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that including Healy could be
problematic for public safety.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if Cantwell is encompassed by the proposed
area.
MR. ATKINSON answered that Cantwell is not encompassed by the
proposed closure area.
3:50:22 PM
MR. ATKINSON said a resolution of support was received from the
Fairbanks North Star Borough and that he included the map on
slide 7 because it shows the utilization of the area by wolves.
3:51:12 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he appreciated that and asked Mr. Atkinson
if he had compared the wolf sightings with the sightings of the
other animals, because wolf density probably has a lot to do
with animals they prey upon like moose and caribou. So, the
density of both wolves and prey should be counted.
MR. ATKINSON answered no, but that two biologists who are
invited testifiers could better answer that question.
3:52:30 PM
MR. ATKINSON went to slides 8 and 9, a sectional analysis of the
only section in the bill that prohibits the taking of wolves and
the use of certain traps and snares in the specific areas
adjacent to DNPP. It says a person may not take a wolf or use a
cable snare with a diameter greater than 3/32 inch or a leg-hold
trap with a jaw-spread greater than 5 inches within the
boundaries described.
He explained that this very specific language was arrived at in
consultation with ADF&G biologists who told them what trappers
typically use for taking wolves as opposed to other animals.
They typically don't use traps of this size or larger for taking
smaller animals. Nothing in this section could be construed to
prevent the department from taking or authorizing the taking of
wolves that present a danger to the health or safety of local
residents, which might address Senator Coghill's concern about
Healy, although he didn't want to state definitively that it
does. He added that a person who negligently violates (a) of
this section is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
3:54:01 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how long it takes for a wolf to die
when its caught in a cable snare or a leg-hold trap.
MR. ATKINSON answered that he did not know.
3:54:50 PM
MR. ATKINSON said HB 105 wouldn't affect the six per-year
subsistence federal quota within the DNPP. He added that sub-
unit 20(A) is much larger than the proposed closure area. So,
closing the Wolf Townships wouldn't necessarily reduce the
subsistence opportunities elsewhere in that sub-unit. When the
Board of Game closed the Townships to wolf take between 2000 and
2010, no one challenged that closure based on subsistence.
3:55:39 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked who brought this issue to the sponsor's
attention.
MR. ATKINSON replied that Representative Josephson introduced
this bill before he was working for him and he did not know that
history.
3:56:20 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened invited testimony on HB 105.
3:56:42 PM*
RICK STEINER, conservation biology consultant representing
himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of HB 105. He
was a professor at the University of Alaska for 30 years
stationed in the Arctic, Prince William Sound, and then in
Anchorage; he is now a conservation biology consultant.
He said this should be "an easy yes vote." For years, the Denali
wolf buffer has been entangled in this ideological dispute
between those who object in principle to federal management in
parks and refuges versus those who love parks, watchable
wildlife, and natural undisturbed ecosystems. He said HB 105 is
not about any of that and encouraged the committee to try to
disentangle that ideological context and reframe it as what it
is: 1. What is best for the economy of Alaska; and 2. What is
best for the majority of the people of Alaska. Through that
lens, HB 105 would be a clear yes vote.
MR. STEINER noted a number of undisputed and very clear facts:
1. Denali generates over $600 million a year in
visitor spending. It is Alaska's most valuable tourism
resource and viewing of wildlife is clearly one of the
main reasons for such visitation to Denali.
2. Denali has been the easiest place in Alaska for
people to go see wolves in their natural habitat, and
it used to be one of the best such places in the
world, but it is not anymore, and that is due
primarily to state-permitted take along the
boundaries.
3. It is clear that park wolves cross the northeast
boundary and return in the spring following caribou
primarily and are taken by sport hunters and trappers.
On average only four or five are taken each year
across the boundary, but already this winter, five
collared park wolves have been taken. Given that there
are four times as many uncollared wolves in the park
as uncollared, it's a virtual certainty that many more
uncollared wolves were taken outside the park as well,
and the season remains open until the end of April.
4. Science is clear that even a low-level take can
cause a disproportionate impact on the eastern park
wolf groups and thus visitor viewing success. For
example, in 2012, the last pregnant female in the
Grant Creek group was trapped. It didn't have pups; it
did not den; and the group disintegrated and visitor
viewing success dropped by about half that following
season. The same phenomenon occurred with the East
Pack in 2015/16: what science has called the "breeder
loss effect" where essentially the take of one
important breeding wolf along the boundary could cause
a significant loss in the integrity of a group,
dispersion, and a drop in the consequent drop in
visitor viewing success.
5. Wolf viewing success has declined from 45 percent
when the buffer existed to 4-6 percent for a 4-5-year
period, and last year increased a little bit to 16
percent, but it is still far below the 45 percent it
had with a buffer. Much of that visitor success was
from the collared Wiley Creek male that was killed
this winter in the Stampede Corridor. That alone can
lead to the visitor viewing success rate this summer.
6. In Yellowstone, for comparison, 45-85 percent of
the visitors have wolf viewing success and the wolf
viewing economy there is valued at $35 million a year.
Science has shown very clearly that a small closed
area along the northeast boundary, such as proposed in
HB 105, will help protect the eastern park wolf groups
most seen by visitors. That would correspondingly
increase visitor viewing success and ultimately
increase the wildlife viewing economy at the park.
7. The closed area would impact only a few local sport
hunters and trappers who can relocate their activities
to two miles away. But it would benefit up to 70,000
Alaska citizens and over half million out-of-state
visitors who visit the park annually, many of whom
want to see wolves in the wild.
8. The closed area is broadly supported by Alaskans,
the Fairbanks North Star Borough, many wildlife
tourism advocacy organizations, several hundred
thousand people who signed an online petition, and
countless other efforts to try to secure this buffer.
9. The cost benefit is clearly and overwhelmingly in
favor of the bill.
MR. STEINER said based on these facts, the question becomes what
state policy should be. Clearly, a rational government would do
everything it could to restore, sustain, and enhance this multi-
million-dollar economic resource. HB 105 will help this by
simply keeping these few animals from being taken along the
boundary of the park allowing them to remain alive for visitor
viewing in the park.
He also questioned whether 6 million acres in the park is enough
in which to take wolves. In fact, 4 million acres of Denali are
open to wolf take and only 2 million are closed (the Old
McKinley Park). Secondly, too much of Alaska is already closed
to hunting and trapping. Less than 3 percent of Alaska is closed
to wolf take: the pre-ANILCA parks, the Denali and Katmai. So,
the question should be: isn't 97 percent of Alaska and 350
million acres open to wolf hunting and trapping enough?
MR. STEINER concluded that some folks have said this is just a
gift to the federal government and the Park Service, when in
fact, it is a gift to the people and the economy of Alaska.
4:05:03 PM
SENATOR BISHOP asked what the typical square-mile range is for a
wolf pack.
MR. STEINER answered that it depends; in areas around Denali it
could be 50-70 square miles.
4:05:45 PM
VIC VAN BALLENBERGHE, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in support HB 105. He was appointed to the Alaska
Board of Game three times and is a wildlife biologist in Alaska
since 1974. It's important to ask the basic question of why we
are here. The answer is because there is an important unresolved
problem that has existed for decades: the state of Alaska has
not provided a small number of wolves in Denali with adequate
protection from hunting and trapping when they travel outside
the park. Lacking this protection, when these wolves are shot or
trapped, hundreds of thousands of park visitors are deprived of
the opportunity to see and hear wolves, putting millions of
dollars of tourism revenue at risk.
This is not just a wildlife issue; it is in the best interest of
the State of Alaska. The Alaska Board of Game has debated this
issue numerous times since 1992 when the first protective buffer
was adopted. Between 2000-2010, the board on seven occasions
took major actions to create buffers and defended their
boundaries. Each time required a large effort by the board, its
support staff, the ADF&G, and the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) to provide input. And each time hundreds of individuals
provided written comments and oral testimony to the board.
Numerous organizations representing hunters, trappers, and
conservation organizations also provided input.
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE said he was on the board in 2002 when it
created a protective buffer adjacent to the northeast corner of
the park. Several times in previous years, wolf packs were
severely reduced or eliminated in this area by legal and illegal
hunting and trapping. The board thoroughly debated this
proposal, amended, and passed it. He knows how much effort
accompanied this action and how difficult it was to reach
consensus. He also knows that no less effort was required each
of the other six times the board addressed this issue. Despite
their best efforts, over time, the protective buffers were too
small, and wolves continued to be lost.
In 2010, the National Park Service and several conservation
organizations submitted proposals to the board to enlarge the
buffers based on the best available data. Despite strong public
support, the board not only rejected the proposals, but
eliminated the existing buffers. During the past seven years,
with no buffers in place, the problems have worsened with
sightings of wolves along the park road dropping greatly.
From 1980 to 2017, he conducted wildlife research in Denali
National Park keeping records of wolf sightings along the park
road in his study. During those years when the wolf packs were
not disrupted by hunting and trapping he saw wolves near the
road a lot and often dozens of sightings. During the years when
the packs were disrupted, there were few if any sightings. He
experienced these differences first hand. Clearly, the Board of
Game has demonstrated that it cannot and will not resolve this
important issue. It is time to finally provide a lasting
solution by moving the Game Board arena to the legislature, and
HB 105 will accomplish that.
4:10:27 PM
NANCY BALE, advocate, Denali Citizens Council (DCC), Anchorage,
Alaska, testified in support of HB 105. She has been a resident
of Alaska since 1971 and spent the first 30 years as a resident
of the Denali region. She and her husband developed one of the
last homesteads left in Denali Park when the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) selections began. They spent
winters there and lived and worked in the Kantishna area in the
summers for over 23 years. In 1996, she graduated from nursing
school and moved to Anchorage.
In 2000, she joined the board of the Denali Citizen's Council.
Many of their 300 members are year-round local residents in
Healy, McKinley Village, and Cantwell; others are seasonal
employees who benefit from the opportunity to share the national
park with roughly a half-million visitors yearly. DCC has been
one of the organizations over the years that supported
protection of Denali wolves when they have been ventured onto
state lands outside the park and supported the board closures of
these areas in 2002 through 2010. They have brought numerous
proposals and initiatives before the Board of Game.
In the 1980s, radio collaring allowed scientists to learn much
more about pack structure, territories, and movements. The wolf
program at Denali is unique in the state and has provided
valuable data to the scientific community as well as learning
experiences for park visitors. Through the Murie Science and
Learning Center, park scientists are able to share the results
of a lot of that information with park guests. In addition,
Denali's wolf program has encouraged cooperation among both
state and federal scientists.
One clear result of these studies has been to show that wolves
who den in the park predictably visit certain areas of state
lands at the northeast corner, particularly in late winter and
spring, but return to the park for denning and summer
activities. Certainly, some of these wolves disperse entirely
away, but radio location data conducted over decades has shown
that many venture out and return. These wolves are the ones that
are the greatest risk of death from trapping and hunting outside
the park. Add to this the ease of highway access on these lands
and the long hunting/trapping seasons lasting from August 10
through May 31 in most areas, and in some areas through April
15, and the risk is increased. Such risk concentrated in these
areas is what has lead to the development of the map. Although
hunting and trapping of wolves can occur in the preserves and in
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)
park additions - 2 million acres north and 2 million acres south
- and the preserves in the northwest and southwest.
HB 105 is only asking for a no-kill area on those state lands
northeast of the parks as this is where the human harvest risk
is concentrated. The overall population of wolves in the area is
not threatened but they also know that just a few deaths can be
significant for both scientific study and visitor experience.
MS. BALE said the Denali Citizens' Council board has a decades-
long history of residing and working in the region. Some members
live in the Stampede Corridor and the Nenana Canyon, the areas
scheduled for closure. Many are hunters and they do not oppose
hunting or trapping. They simply view the closure as a great
benefit with a relatively small cost to consumptive uses.
The area within the Stampede Corridor is in Game Management Unit
20(C) and the Nenana Canyon area is in Game Management Unit
20(A), and the very southern tip of that area is in Unit 13(E).
In these areas, hunting season lasts between August 10 and May
31 and is closed on April 15 within the Stampede Corridor. The
bag limit is 10 wolves per hunter. The trapping season goes from
November 1 to April 30 with an unlimited bag limit. These
liberal bag limits and hunting seasons and the unlimited
trapping numbers create a great risk when the time is right for
certain wolves to be captured and to be unavailable for science
and the enjoyment of visitors in the park. She urged them to
pass HB 105.
4:17:33 PM
JOEL BENNETT, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of HB 105. He said his primary employment now is in film
and television, but he was a Legislative Affairs Agency attorney
for nine years specializing in natural resources law, including
fish and game. He also served on the Alaska Board of Game for 13
years. In his work, he has traveled extensively in Denali
National Park as well as in countless other remote areas of the
state. As a resource user, he has been an active licensed hunter
in the state every year since 1968.
Over the years, there have been many efforts to reach agreement
on what is best for wildlife and what is best for Alaska. Wolf
management has always been a challenging and controversial
subject, but the issue that HB 105 addresses should not be. Mr.
Bennett with previous testimony that HB 105 is not a hunting
issue; it is an economic one. In certain limited areas of the
state, the highest and best interest of wildlife is for tourism;
it is a huge economic driver.
Denali National Park is one of the most popular national parks
in the nation and includes visits by tens of thousands of Alaska
residents a year. Anything that adversely impacts one of the
main things visitors come to see there should be minimized. The
restrictions that HB 105 would impose are limited to wolves only
and will likely result in more wolves for Denali National Park
visitors to view while only displacing a few hunters and
trappers who have ample opportunities elsewhere.
MR. BENNETT said the Board of Game recognized this when on
several occasions it created buffer areas for wolves in the very
areas that HB 105 covers. After that, wolf viewing success in
the park was high. Now, with no buffer areas, wolf viewing
success is the lowest it has ever been. Passage of HB 105 could
change this.
When Jay Hammond appointed him to the Board of Game in 1977, he
encouraged him to do what is best for the resource, but also as
a hunter and wildlife advocate to look at both sides of an
issue. He respects the values of different user groups and
recognizes that some areas deserve special protection and, in
some areas, hunting and trapping should be restricted.
MR. BENNETT said he believes that Jay Hammond, an early master
guide and hunting defender, would have examined HB 105 on its
merits, waived the cost benefit to the state, and seen the
wisdom of protecting wolves in these two sensitive areas
adjacent to Denali National Park. In the spirit of Jay Hammond,
one of Alaska's most visionary public servants, he urged the
committee to support HB 105.
4:22:13 PM
RYAN HARMS, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, testified on
HB 105 and said he didn't have a position on it. When he came to
Alaska he lived in Healy, specifically on the Stampede Corridor.
He was a bartender for several years and some of his family
still live there.
He offered his as a voice "of the tourist that isn't here." In
the years that he worked in Denali National Park, primarily as a
bar tender, and then later as a teacher, he saw many tourists
who loved seeing the wildlife in general, but they would really
glow when they talked about seeing wolves. He only saw one in
the years he lived there (2004-2009) and it was an elated moment
for him. He has seen many bears and sheep everywhere, but wolves
are almost majestic in the sense that you don't see them.
"Without question, tourists love to see wolves," he said.
As far as public safety, Mr. Harms said, the only thing he has
seen in the Healy region is the unintended harming of domestic
animals in the area that are attracted to traps and get caught.
4:25:26 PM
RANDALL L. ZARNKE, President, Alaska Trappers Association,
Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in opposition to HB 105. The
association believes this measure is unnecessary, because the
wolf population in the Denali area is abundant and wildlife
management is really based on population not on the individual
animals, as discussed earlier. As all know, management of
wildlife in Alaska is the responsibility of the Board of Game
and it should be left to them.
In the association's opinion, this bill is being promoted by
people who are opposed to consumptive use who should work with
their allies at the Park Service to offer state residents
something in return. They would consider supporting a buffer
zone if state residents were allowed to hunt sheep in the Gates
of the Arctic area and the Wrangell Mountains.
4:27:06 PM
AL BARRETTE, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified
in opposition of HB 105. His concern is based on language saying
that a leghold trap with a jaw-spread greater than 5 inches
would not be allowed in the designated area, and that basically
eliminates what trappers call the number-4 size trap. It's
probably the second most popular trap in Alaska that is used on
the ground. So, it potentially would make any of the subsistence
trappers in the area re-supply with less effective, smaller
traps targeting other species like coyote, lynx, and wolverine.
His second concern was language on line 18 authorizing the
department to take wolves that are presenting a danger for
health and safety to local residents, and that is the only
option. Currently, the Minto Flats area has a lice outbreak, and
the department is considering its options on how to take care of
the pelt damage that affects animals' ability to have long hair
and survive through the cold winters. This provision in HB 105
wouldn't allow the department to take wolves in that area.
MR. BARRETTE said the definition of "taking" includes capturing
or pursuing, and it allows the department to eliminate some of
the infected wolves, so the infestation doesn't spread
throughout the state, but wouldn't allow them to treat the
wolves by pursuing them.
MR. BARRETTE added that one of the four or five collared wolves
that were retrieved this year was killed by another pack, and no
one ever mentions the high mortality of wolf-on-wolf
interaction.
Subsistence users would be impacted in the area. Moving from one
area to somebody else's area creates a lot of conflict and
confusion with other trappers, he said.
4:30:42 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted department representatives on line and asked
if the committee had questions.
SENATOR COGHILL asked for someone to comment on whether the pack
size fluctuates with the food supply.
4:32:02 PM
BRUCE DALE, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska, answered that
wolf density, or population size, is largely a function of the
availability of ungulate prey, and when wolf populations
decline, its either because prey numbers change or if the
vulnerability of the prey changes. Vulnerability to predation
could be affected by snow conditions, nutritional status, and
that sort of thing. It's a good predictor of wolf density. In a
few areas harvest can have an effect, but in Alaska through
regular hunting and trapping, harvest typically does not affect
wolf numbers. Wolves are capable of providing for a lot of
harvest, because dispersal is a real important life history
trait. Up to 20 percent of a pack can disperse every year.
Wolves have a lot of pups and when they get to be about two
years old at about this time of year, from February through June
and July, a lot of them seek their own territories. They are
looking for places to live and there aren't always places to
live and they become vulnerable to other wolves and to the
trappers and hunters.
4:34:07 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said the other part to that question is in this
particular zone the wolves are managed by the park and the state
manages for wolves within the state and asked if there is any
overlap in management. Is there an ability to count accurately?
MR. DALE answered that there is some overlap. The park actually
studies the wolves and monitors their population. The state
doesn't do surveys inside Denali National Park. He said the
primary cause of death in wolves in Denali National Park from
1987 through the late 90s was being killed by other wolves.
4:35:28 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked Mr. Dale to help him understand the
interplay of the Constitution; the general authority section in
Article 8, says natural resources belonging to the state are to
be used for the maximum benefit of the people. Then there's the
common use section, which says fish, wildlife, and waters are
reserved for the people for common use. He asked how he accounts
for the money the wolf viewing brings in versus the other
competing uses and what he thinks is the maximum benefit for
this wildlife.
MR. DALE replied that is a policy call for the trustees of the
resource, which is the legislature, that delegated that
authority to the Board of Game. As the trust manager, the
department provides the information needed to make the decision,
and wolf viewing is a high use.
4:37:00 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI concurred with him but asked if he could
reconcile all the interests.
MR. DALE answered no; his expertise is in biology, and that is
really a "values call."
4:38:22 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL closed public testimony on HB 105.
4:39:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 105, commented that much of what he would
say has been said already. The fundamental things he wants the
committee to know are that research on the question of who is
taking wolves that leave the National Park suggest that it's two
or three individuals. An article in the National Geographic
Magazine, February 2016, featured a gentleman named Mr. Wallace
saying he had ruined the opportunity for millions of people to
see wolves. He is right, because taking significant breeding
females contributes to the demise of a pack. When a buffer was
put in place by the Board of Game, the numbers seemed to
correlate with viewability which was down to 6 percent last year
from 45 percent - and there was no evidence to the contrary.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said Mr. Wallace may be right also,
because Denali gets about 650,000 visitors per year and that
adds up to a couple million people over a number of years. The
issue here is economic. It's true that the park entry is doing
well, but the question is: could it do better. Fundamentally, it
is known that these wolves leave to the north and to the east
and evidence indicates that only a handful of trappers are
getting any benefit in this area, but that is enough to really
do some damage.
Relative to the traps that would be prohibited under the
legislation, he carefully crafted that language with Bernard
Chastain, the leading Department of Public Safety (DPS) officer
in the state on wildlife enforcement policy; Mr. Dale, and
former Board of Game member, Vic Van Ballenberg and their
general consensus was that those two types of traps were the
kinds that a wolf would come upon and end its life over and not
necessarily other traps. All other trapping would continue. Mr.
Chastain said in correspondence if someone caught a wolf in a
trap, because the bill precludes the taking of wolves, that
almost surely would not result in his prosecution, because an
affirmative defense could be used to say it was some other
animal.
He also noted that people say this is state land and this is
basically a conservation easement of sorts in a discrete and
narrow way relative to this wolf population.
4:44:36 PM
SENATOR COGHILL observed that most of the wolf viewing is along
the road system and that viewing opportunities within the park
are very limited, because it has only one major road and just a
few pack areas. It looks like this corridor is really giving the
population area that is covered by roads that limitation. Is
that observation accurate?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON replied clearly, the wolf observing
happens on the park road and without a doubt the economic
benefit of seeing more wolves would be enjoyed by Denali Park
hoteliers and restaurants. Some people get permits to go into
the units where they have better chances of seeing wolves.
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that he would probably ask the park to
put in more access before he would be willing to surrender some
of this ground.
4:46:18 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked his thoughts on weighing the Alaska
Constitutional issues of common use versus the maximum benefit
for Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that there is a discussion on
whether predator control polices allow the constitutional goals
to be met. But this isn't about that issue. It is, however,
about concerns over the rights of folks to see wildlife. It is
imperative to do better in terms of the economic value, and the
common use principle is seriously undermined when two or three
individuals can capture wolves who leave in a seasonal way and
undermine the health of the packs, which rely on the knowledge
and intelligence of their senior members for their prosperity
and health.
4:48:04 PM
SENATOR BISHOP asked how long the three people he is talking
about have been harvesting wolves in this area.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON replied they were prohibited for a time
in 2000 to 2010. He didn't know if that was dispositive of
anything.
SENATOR BISHOP said he looked at the population estimates inside
the park in the last 26 years and saw some good wolf numbers,
and he was trying to draw a correlation.
4:49:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted anecdotal information from Mr.
Shawn McGuire (in the other body) that has not been challenged
that animals have been killed to draw the wolves out. He knew
that a horse had been killed for that purpose. That concerns
him. Folks who come on a two-week trip to Alaska want to see
wolves and we should help them see them.
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked the sponsor and held HB 105 in committee.