Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/13/2003 08:10 AM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
May 13, 2003
8:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Morgan, Chair
Representative Kelly Wolf, Vice Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Anderson
Representative Albert Kookesh
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 288
"An Act changing the name of the Department of Community and
Economic Development."
- MOVED CSHB 288(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 155(RES)
"An Act relating to predator control programs; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 288
SHORT TITLE:CHANGING NAME OF DEPT OF COMM & ECON DEV.
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KOHRING
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/28/03 1156 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/28/03 1156 (H) STA, L&C
05/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/06/03 (H) Moved CSHB 288(STA) Out of
Committee -- Recessed to 5:30
PM --
MINUTE(STA)
05/08/03 1475 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 1DNP
3NR
05/08/03 1475 (H) DP: DAHLSTROM, LYNN, HOLM;
05/08/03 1475 (H) DNP: BERKOWITZ; NR: SEATON,
GRUENBERG,
05/08/03 1475 (H) WEYHRAUCH
05/08/03 1475 (H) FN1: ZERO(CED)
05/08/03 1478 (H) CRA REFERRAL ADDED AFTER L&C
05/09/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/09/03 (H) Moved CSHB 288(STA) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(L&C)
05/10/03 1534 (H) L&C RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 1NR
2AM
05/10/03 1534 (H) DP: GATTO, DAHLSTROM, LYNN;
05/10/03 1534 (H) NR: ROKEBERG; AM: CRAWFORD,
GUTTENBERG
05/10/03 1535 (H) FN1: ZERO(CED)
05/13/03 1591 (H) CRA RPT CS(STA) NT 2DP 3NR
05/13/03 1591 (H) DP: WOLF, KOTT; NR: SAMUELS,
CISSNA,
05/13/03 1591 (H) MORGAN
05/13/03 1591 (H) FN1: ZERO(CED)
05/13/03 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 155
SHORT TITLE:PREDATOR CONTROL/AIRBORNE SHOOTING
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SEEKINS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/20/03 0551 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/20/03 0551 (S) JUD, RES
03/31/03 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/31/03 (S) Heard & Held
03/31/03 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/04/03 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/04/03 (S) Heard & Held
04/04/03 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/16/03 (S) JUD AT 1:00 PM BELTZ 211
04/16/03 (S) Moved CSSB 155(JUD) Out of
Committee -- Permanent Time
Change --
04/16/03 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/17/03 0892 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 2DNP 1NR NEW
TITLE
04/17/03 0892 (S) DP: SEEKINS, THERRIAULT;
04/17/03 0892 (S) DNP: FRENCH, ELLIS; NR: OGAN
04/17/03 0892 (S) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
04/30/03 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/30/03 (S) Moved CSSB 155(RES) Out of
Committee
04/30/03 (S) MINUTE(RES)
05/01/03 1073 (S) RES RPT CS 5DP 1DNP NEW TITLE
05/01/03 1074 (S) DP: WAGONER, DYSON, LINCOLN,
STEVENS B,
05/01/03 1074 (S) SEEKINS; DNP: ELTON
05/01/03 1074 (S) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
05/02/03 1105 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 5/2/2003
05/02/03 1105 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
05/02/03 1105 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
05/02/03 1106 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 5/3
CALENDAR
05/02/03 1106 (S) COSPONSOR(S): LINCOLN, OGAN,
COWDERY,
05/02/03 1106 (S) GREEN, DYSON, WAGONER,
STEVENS B,
05/02/03 1106 (S) THERRIAULT
05/03/03 1133 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
155(RES)
05/03/03 1133 (S) COSPONSOR(S): HOFFMAN,
WILKEN, TAYLOR
05/03/03 1133 (S) PASSED Y14 N1 E5
05/03/03 1133 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
05/03/03 1133 (S) ELTON NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
05/04/03 1147 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
05/04/03 1148 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/04/03 1148 (S) VERSION: CSSB 155(RES)
05/05/03 1306 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/05/03 1306 (H) RES, CRA
05/08/03 1481 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): MORGAN
05/09/03 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/09/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee --
Recessed to 1:00 pm --
MINUTE(RES)
05/10/03 1537 (H) RES RPT 6DP 3AM
05/10/03 1537 (H) DP: MASEK, GATTO, MORGAN,
WOLF, LYNN,
05/10/03 1537 (H) FATE; AM: GUTTENBERG, CISSNA,
HEINZE
05/10/03 1538 (H) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
05/13/03 1619 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): WOLF
05/13/03 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 288.
EDGAR BLATCHFORD, Commissioner
Department of Community & Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 288.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of SB 155.
GREG ROCZICKA
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as a former member of the BOG.
JOEL BENNETT
Defenders of Wildlife
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that [CSSB 155(RES)] is a large
scale overturn of the public votes.
MATT ROBUS, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to CSSB 155(RES).
RON SOMERVILLE, Appointee
to the Board of Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on SB 155, testified that
BOG has no intention of initiating a large aerial hunting
program by the public.
CLIFF JUDKINS, Appointee
to the Board of Game
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of moving the [CSSB
155(RES)] forward.
PAUL JOSTLIN, Wildlife Biologist
Alaska Wildlife Alliance
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed his hope that the committee
wouldn't pass CSSB 155(RES) from committee.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-18, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR CARL MORGAN called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:10 a.m.
Representatives Morgan, Wolf, Samuels, and Cissna were present
at the call to order. Representative Kott arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 288-CHANGING NAME OF DEPT OF COMM & ECON DEV.
CHAIR MORGAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 288, "An Act changing the name of the Department
of Community and Economic Development." [Before the committee
is CSHB 288(STA).]
CHAIR MORGAN announced his intent to move HB 288 from committee
today.
Number 0116
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING, Alaska State Legislature, spoke as
the sponsor of HB 288. Representative Kohring explained that
CSHB 288(STA) simply changes the name of the Department of
Community & Economic Development (DCED) to the Department of
Commerce & Economic Development. He said that there seems to be
some confusion with regard to the mission of DCED, and therefore
the name change would clarify that the department's focus is to
promote commerce and emphasize economic development in the
state. Representative Kohring reminded committee members that
Governor Murkowski's address in the fall discussed economic
development and indicated his desire to make this name change.
Representative Kohring emphasized that the name change wouldn't
erode the integrity of the department, but would simply make
it's role clear and eliminate confusion. Furthermore, the name
change would promote the fact that Alaska is open for business.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING acknowledged that previous committees
have had concern with regard to the impact this name change
would have on rural programs. He indicated that this concern
stems from the 1999 merger of the Department of Commerce &
Economic Development with the Department of Community & Regional
Affairs to form the present Department of Community & Economic
Development. At that time there was concern with regard to
whether the integrity of the Department of Community & Regional
Affairs would be maintained once the merger occurred. Four
years later, the answer is yes and the [community and regional]
programs have remained in tact. As a result of the 1999 merger,
the Division of Community Advocacy was created. Therefore,
Representative Kohring said he didn't believe this name change
would impact rural programs. In fact, the emphasis on commerce
is good for rural and urban Alaska.
Number 0505
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked if the Department of Commerce &
Economic Development was the original name.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING replied yes.
Number 0556
EDGAR BLATCHFORD, Commissioner, Department of Community &
Economic Development, echoed the reasoning of Representative
Kohring. Over the years, there has been considerable confusion
with regard to the mission of the department. Commissioner
Blatchford opined that there is further confusion because some
people still refer to the department as the Department of
Commerce. The desire is to send a clear message that Alaska is
open for business. He related his belief that communities
recognize the importance of economic development. Furthermore,
the [name change] wouldn't dilute the mission of the department.
He informed the committee that the Division of Community and
Business Development was reorganized and the name changed to the
Division of Community Advocacy in order to reflect the
constitutional intent for the department to be an advocate for
municipalities. Commissioner Blatchford said that there needs
to be a common calling card for all who want to do business with
Alaska.
Number 0794
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA recalled the department's name change to
the Department of Community & Economic Development and the
concern that the department had been a rural department in which
people were comfortable. Representative Cissna agreed that
changing "Community" to "Commerce" would look better and
although such a change would make it a little less confusing for
some, it could be confusing for others. She asked if the
aforementioned has been addressed.
COMMISSIONER BLATCHFORD said that "we" recognized that the name
change was coming. In order to strengthen the commitment to
rural Alaska the Division of Community and Business
Development's name was changed to the Division of Community
Advocacy. This division housed most of the activities of the
former Department of Community & Regional Affairs. He noted
that no cost was attached to the division name change.
CHAIR MORGAN, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
Number 1122
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF moved to report CSHB 288(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 288(STA) was
reported from the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:26 a.m. to 8:28 a.m.
SB 155-PREDATOR CONTROL/AIRBORNE SHOOTING
[Not on tape, but reconstructed from the committee secretary's
log notes, was the following two minutes worth of testimony.]
CHAIR MORGAN announced that the next order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 155(RES), "An Act relating to predator
control programs; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1208
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS, Alaska State Legislature, spoke as the
sponsor of SB 155. He explained that SB 155 provides tools for
the management of game populations. Under AS 16.05.783, the
Board of Game (BOG) can authorize a predator control program
from the air if the commissioner of the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G) has a written report regarding the need for
prey populations to be under intensive management.
[Recording resumes.]
SENATOR SEEKINS related that an intensive management area means
that the area is identified as important for human consumption.
[Once an intensive management area is identified] the
commissioner would have to return to BOG and certify the
information that his paid and degreed scientists have already
presented to the BOG, the same information that led the board to
reach the conclusion that there is a problem with predation that
a reduction in predators would solve. This legislation
specifies that it's BOG's responsibility to listen to the
scientists from ADF&G and have the commissioner, through his
scientific experts, say that there is a problem that
necessitates review of the prey population objective, the
harvest objective, the predator objective, and the predator
population objective. Therefore, the greatest number of
scientific facts could be brought into play. "There's a
collapse in the prey population ... part of that is a function
of predation and that a reduction in predation would help solve
problem. What we're doing is we're frontloading in [SB] 155,
the input from the department - the paid professional scientists
of the department - that this is a problem and that this is a
way to solve it." This legislation specifies that BOG makes
this decision and has the prerogative to determine the methods
and means such as how many [predators] should be taken, who can
participate, and under what conditions these individuals can
participate. The board already has this ability in other parts
of the statute. This legislation specifically combines them
[under this statute] to specify that the board has this
authority with predator control programs. The legislation does
eliminate the commissioner's ability to pocket veto the board's
decision.
SENATOR SEEKINS turned to McGrath and Unit 13, an intensive
management area, as an example. Unit 13 has been a productive
area in the past and has had as many as 27,000 moose in the
reproductive base; however, that is down to 8,000. The
commissioner chose never to write the letter authorizing the
[predator control] program and thus pocket vetoed the program.
Therefore, [this legislation] specifies that the decision is
left to the BOG, based on the best science available. The input
from the department comes upfront. Currently, BOG's findings
have to [be drawn] from input from ADF&G that predation is a
problem and the reduction in predation is an answer. This
legislation creates the proper order to make a decision so that
the board can proceed a-politically with a predator reduction
program based on science rather than politics. All options to
carry out a predator reduction program are available -- whatever
is the most humane, efficient, and effective manner in which to
reduce the predators. Senator Seekins said, "What it [SB 155]
does is says that protein on the family table in Alaska is
important. Important enough that sometimes we have to carry out
unpleasant things in terms of predator control."
SENATOR SEEKINS said that [the proposal in SB 155] is how every
other ADF&G statutes is carried out. In fact, in 1995 the
Alaska Supreme Court, on a matter involving fish, specified that
the ADF&G commissioner doesn't have the authority to effectively
veto a decision of the Board of Fish. This legislation simply
allows the BOG to have the same prerogative. Only with regard
to predator control has the department had veto ability.
Senator Seekins mentioned that Governor Murkowski is his friend
and he supports him; however, Senator Seekins said that he can't
trust that the next governor will have the same discretion as
Governor Murkowski. Therefore, Senator Seekins related his
desire to have these decisions made on the best, current, and
most sound science and SB 155 provides that pathway.
Number 1775
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA pointed out that the title specified on
the fiscal note, which refers to same day airborne hunting, is
different from that specified on CSSB 155(RES).
SENATE SEEKINS explained that the title had been changed because
he wanted to be clear that the legislation wasn't about same day
airborne hunting but rather about predator control. Senator
Seekins emphasized that as a general rule he doesn't advocate
same day airborne hunting or airborne shooting. The fiscal note
can be changed to reflect the correct title. The legislation is
meant to address predator [control] programs not hunting, he
stressed.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA directed attention to Section 1(a) which
inserts language referring to airborne shooting and same day
airborne shooting as part of a management plan.
SENATOR SEEKINS highlighted that the language refers to shooting
not hunting.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related that her constituency was strongly
in opposition to same day airborne.
SENATOR SEEKINS remarked that he appreciated that those in
Anchorage don't want to narrow the urban-rural split. However,
this is an urban-rural issue that can't be avoided. He said,
"If the folks in your area of Anchorage feel strongly about not
being able to put moose and caribou on the table of the people
in the rural regions, that's their prerogative; I don't feel
that way." In fact, when one reviews Unit 13 [one sees] that it
could be one of the most productive areas for moose hunting in
the state, if the predators were properly controlled.
Furthermore, if folks in Anchorage and Fairbanks are given the
opportunity to harvest reasonably close to home, those folks
aren't going to venture to remote areas of Alaska. Therefore,
he characterized SB 155 as an opportunity to narrow the urban-
rural gap. He expressed his desire for those in urban areas to
be able to hunt reasonably close to home so that they don't
intrude in the rural areas of the state. "And quite frankly, I
believe that if the people in your district were to find that
out and understand that and not listen to the media campaigns by
outside, highly influential anti-hunting groups and understood
that this was the most effective, efficient, and humane way to
be able to solve that problem, I think that they probably would
vote for that," he said. Senator Seekins stated that he was
willing to use effective predator control in order to be able to
put protein on the table of those in rural Alaska.
Number 2019
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF noted his appreciation for Senator Seekins
introducing this legislation. Representative Wolf agreed that a
lot of outside [interests] influence Alaska's resource
management policies. He said that his biggest concern is
turning this into an emotional issue from which large, well-
funded organizations would make millions. Representative Wolf
related his wholehearted support of this and his belief that the
ADF&G commissioner shouldn't have veto authority over BOG.
Number 2114
SENATOR SEEKINS informed the committee that for about one week a
year he is a hunter. Senator Seekins also informed the
committee that he is a pilot and he likes to fly low enough to
view wildlife. Senator Seekins related his philosophy as
follows:
I think that God created us as man, his most marvelous
creation, and when he did that he gave us a
stewardship responsibility. That stewardship says we
must have wise use of our resources ... and
stewardship, to me, implies management. We have to
prioritize some of the things that we do. And one of
the highest priorities for me, in terms of management,
is not to eradicate but to bring within a balance.
SENATOR SEEKINS told the committee that his research has shown
that less than 2 percent of the harvestable surplus of moose,
caribou, and Dahl sheep production in Alaska goes to humans. In
areas such as Unit 13, the harvestable surplus is much less than
2 percent because of the fall of moose calf survival rates which
he indicated is due to predation. A moose calf in Unit 13 has
about an 80 percent chance of being killed by a predator before
it's four-weeks-old. Senator Seekins drew attention to charts
in the committee packet referring to the moose calf survival
rates, the bear population, and the moose population trend.
This data is from ADF&G and it points to predation as the
problem, he said. If one-third of the high productivity of the
moose population was allocated to humans, the number of moose
harvested in the state would almost quadruple. He said that
it's a matter of allocation and without intervention the moose
population will collapse and in that case he questioned where
the stewardship and management responsibility would be.
Number 2353
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA informed the committee that she attended
the [House] Resources Standing Committee meeting on this
legislation. She said she has heard two sides of this issue.
Many of the biologists aren't certain why [some of the
populations are decreasing]. She recalled that one of the
issues was with the target population and the need to realize
that these are wild populations where there are swings in
population. Representative Cissna related her hope that Senator
Seekins realized that there is more than one side to this issue
and that just because some people look at this issue
differently, those people aren't necessarily wrong.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he understood that and is sympathetic to
those biologists who lean more toward predator preservation than
production. However, sometimes it's necessary to have some
[hunting] areas close to home that can be [harvested] and thus
that means sometimes "we" have to be managers. With regard to
the argument that a balance will come, Senator Seekins predicted
that the balance would result in nothing. Senator Seekins
remarked that in the last administration the creation of study
groups and stakeholder groups delayed the issue indefinitely.
He pointed to the population charts in the committee packet and
specified that the result was poor. Although Senator Seekins
acknowledged that there are seasonal aspects to populations, he
emphasized that predators continue [to be present]. "What we've
done is manage humans not predators," he said. He suggested
that having [hunting] areas close to home can solve some of the
regional pressures throughout the state.
Number 2583
GREG ROCZICKA began by informing the committee that he served on
the BOG under the prior administration. He also informed the
committee that the committee packet should include a copy of his
comments on this issue. Mr. Roczicka recalled concern that the
intensive game management objectives were set too high.
However, he assured those concerned that those objectives were
carefully considered by the board. He explained that the board
at the time wasn't pursuing the historical high [population]
levels rather the habitat capability and the criteria for a
long-term sustained yield was taken into consideration. For
instance, in Unit 13 the historical high was 28,000 moose, but
the board's range was 18,000-22,000. Therefore, anyone who says
those population objectives are unrealistic hasn't done their
homework. With regard to those who criticize good science,
those people almost always have an emotional or monetary
connection to the issue. He requested that the committee review
this issue in an objective manner.
MR. ROCZICKA turned to the comments that the people of Alaska
have spoken on this matter during the 1996 and 2000 ballot
initiatives and referendums. He recalled that in 2000 the vote
was 52.5 percent, which he didn't view as a wide margin.
Furthermore, in 1996 the initiative language was couched in the
negative which he indicated lead to confused voters. Mr.
Roczicka announced that he is strongly in favor of this
legislation because the state needs it. He noted that he was
saddened with the lack of administrative will to allow effective
and humane methods to be used. Mr. Roczicka asked the committee
members to use this opportunity to educate their constituents.
He mentioned that the Alaska Tourism Marketing Group should be
behind this legislation and educate the public who he believes
isn't receiving the entire picture.
Number 2971
JOEL BENNETT, Defenders of Wildlife, informed the committee that
he, too, is a former member of the BOG. With regard to Senator
Seekins' earlier statement that the two ballot propositions were
largely the effort of outdoor groups, Mr. Bennett said that
isn't accurate. The ballot propositions were sponsored by an
in-state organization called Alaskans for Wildlife, which was
composed of former members of BOG, former officials of ADF&G,
and others.
TAPE 03-18, SIDE B
MR. BENNETT went on to say that the ballot propositions clearly
illustrate that Alaskans support predator control. Predator
control was clearly authorized in the 1996 ballot proposition.
However, the public doesn't support predator control programs
that aren't strictly monitored or enforced or programs that
involve the general public, which he believes to be true today
as well. This legislation, CSSB 155(RES), authorizes the
involvement of the public, which he believes to be a serious
defect. He related his belief that public involvement is bad
public policy and won't be supported by the general public in
Alaska because the general public isn't as accountable to the
program as department employees would be. Furthermore, the
general public is inefficient and efficiency has been
highlighted as important to this concept. Moreover, land and
shoot and airborne methods are inhumane because of the
significant amounts of wounding and inability to retrieve
animals that are wounded. Those animals that can't be retrieved
hurt the department's research capabilities.
MR. BENNETT related that the other major problem Defenders of
Wildlife have with this legislation is the removal of the
commissioner from a key role in the decision-making process.
Most people understand that predator control programs are highly
controversial and volatile in Alaska. Mr. Bennett said that the
commissioner is and should be properly involved in the final
implementation decision of a predator control program that
impacts the welfare of so many Alaskans. The commissioner
should also be involved because [of the commissioner's knowledge
with regard] to how a predator control program would impact
other programs, personnel matters, and fiscal matters.
MR. BENNETT concluded by relating that the Defenders of Wildlife
believes that this legislation is a large scale overturn of the
public votes. Furthermore, the Defenders of Wildlife believes
that the public won't support this. This legislation goes too
far and is too loose, he said.
Number 2783
MATT ROBUS, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, informed the committee that SB
155 and HB 208 were originally intended to make technical
changes to allow the McGrath predator program that was
recommended by the BOG at the March 2003 meeting to proceed.
Originally, the bills would have made a small change to the
existing statute that would've broadened the reasons that the
commissioner could've used to make his/her findings to approve a
program by the board. However, as SB 155 has moved through the
committee process, it has experienced a number of changes. The
department worked with Senator Seekins on a number of language
changes, which the department appreciated. However, the current
version, CSSB 155(RES), that removes the statutory role of the
commissioner from the process of finalizing a BOG created
predator control program isn't supported by the administration.
The department has provided the committee with language that the
department would like to see incorporated in Section 1 of the
legislation.
MR. ROBUS explained that Section 1 of CSSB 155(RES) makes
changes to the process used to implement a predator control
program using airborne or same day airborne methods. Currently,
statute specifies a three-criteria process that the commissioner
must go through in order to determine that aerial methods are
appropriate to implement a board-sponsored predator control
program. The original SB 155 and HB 208 retained the
aforementioned process. The current statutory language
originated in legislation sponsored by Senator Pete Kelly in
1999. The current version, CSSB 155(RES), transfers the finding
process from the commissioner to the board and retains two of
the three criteria that the commissioner currently has to use in
a finding. Mr. Robus explained that when the board puts forward
a predator control program involving aerial methods under CSSB
155(RES), after the board hears technical information from the
department it would have to find that an ungulate population
that has been identified under the intensive management law is
either declining or is depressed below the established
population objective. Secondly, the board would have to
determine that a reduction in predator populations would
probably reverse that problem and allow the ungulate herd to
improve. However, CSSB 155(RES) would not require that the
finding include the finding that aerial methods are necessary in
order to accomplish a reduction in predation, which is required
under current statute.
MR. ROBUS specified that the main debate probably lays with the
commissioner being able to receive BOG's request for a finding
and sit on it indefinitely, the pocket veto. He agreed that
under current statute there is no limit to the amount of time
the commissioner can sit on a request by the board. Mr. Robus
said that the department believes the amendment it has suggested
would address concerns with regard to the pocket veto while at
the same time retain the role of the commissioner in working
with the BOG in moving forward with well-justified, sustainable
predator control programs involving airborne methods where
deemed necessary. In conclusion, Mr. Robus highlighted that the
administration isn't opposed to predator control programs. The
focus of the comments and the department's position are
regarding the change to the current statutory process. He
explained that the department believes the amendment would
retain the commissioner's role in deciding to proceed with
predator control programs while eliminating the ability of the
commissioner to not do anything forever. The amendment
basically provides the commissioner seven days within which to
justify a negative finding otherwise the program would proceed.
CHAIR MORGAN pointed out that the department's fiscal note
referred to the incorrect title and thus he requested a fiscal
note referring to the correct title.
MR. ROBUS agreed to do so.
Number 2392
RON SOMERVILLE, Appointee to the Board of Game, indicated that
he was testifying on behalf of the BOG. Mr. Somerville
highlighted that the board had requested a minor change that
would allow the board to use other than just prey populations as
the total objective in which the standard would be set to
initiate a predator control program. For example, if the board
can't consider harvest objectives, there could be a very
nonproductive population consisting of largely males or young
animals which wouldn't meet the harvest objective, although it
would meet the prey population objective. He pointed out that
BOG has no intention of initiating a large aerial hunting
program by the public. He informed the committee that 60
percent of Alaska is federal land and initiating a predator
control program on federal land is unimaginable. Additionally,
Mr. Somerville estimated that on 20-30 percent of state lands it
isn't possible to initiate a predator control program without
using poisons. Therefore, less than 3 percent of the total
state would be where the board, due to statute, could consider
implementing an intensive management program that might include
a predator control program. The board and previous board have
recognized that predator control doesn't just involve shooting
wolves. The board recognizes that bears can be the largest
predator in a particular area, he related. Although there are
scientific differences of opinion with regard to the best
course, three separate boards have declared McGrath a biological
emergency and by all indications a social emergency as well.
Mr. Somerville pointed out that the National Academy of Science
has done an extensive review of the predator control program
issue and concluded that there are instances in which a variety
of predators can keep a prey population at extremely low levels
for an extended period of time. Therefore, the aforementioned
can exacerbate the occurrence of [natural] population
fluctuations. Mr. Somerville related his belief that the board
is being proactive with management and saying that it needs some
of the previously mentioned tools to perform the job it's
assigned by the legislature. In conclusion, Mr. Somerville
highlighted that everyone on the board believes the wolf to be
an important resource in Alaska.
Number 2147
CLIFF JUDKINS, Appointee to the Board of Game, informed the
committee that he is a 40-year resident of the state who is
usually a consumptive of wildlife. He also informed the
committee that for more than 15 years he has served on local
fish and game advisory committees. He mentioned that he has a
degree in wildlife biology. Mr. Judkins said that SB 155 is a
move in the correct direction. The legislation requires that
predator control factions of wildlife management be based on
science rather than on emotions and political pressures applied
by anti-hunter groups. Echoing earlier sentiment, he said he
knew of no one on the BOG who wanted to kill all predators.
However, the board wants to be able to reduce the number of
predators in areas where moose, in particular, have been reduced
to such low levels that the moose can't reproduce fast enough to
feed the predators and grow the herd. Where there are healthy
predator populations, there can be healthy prey populations.
However, a bad winter or two that decreases the moose population
may leave the predator population high, which would mean that
the moose can't recover. He concluded by saying that he hoped
the committee moved the legislation forward.
Number 1932
PAUL JOSTLIN, Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Wildlife Alliance,
highlighted that predator control is a highly controversial
issue. He informed the committee that the National Academy of
Science has put forward three principles that are important when
dealing with highly controversial programs. First, one must
ensure that the science being used is sound and is carried out
in-depth before advancing [a program]. Second, the [program]
must be cost-effective. Third, broad public support should be
gained.
MR. JOSTLIN said that SB 155 would bring back same day airborne
hunting of wolves. However, twice Alaskans have voted on this
matter and clearly stated that they don't like same day airborne
hunting of wolves as a [predator control] method. He recalled
that Senator Seekins has said that the legislation isn't really
about same day airborne hunting of wolves because it's carried
out by ADF&G. Mr. Jostlin explained that the general public
would be permitted, which amounts to the public being involved
[in same day airborne shooting.] If the killing of wolves in
Alaska is reviewed as a whole, one would see that the killing of
wolves in Alaska has steadily increased. The suggestions that
[same day airborne shooting] is necessary seems to fly in the
face of the truth that more wolves than ever have been killed.
He attributed the huge increase in the killing of wolves to
efficiencies that have occurred. Furthermore, Alaska has
experienced a 50 percent increase in population. There has also
been the introduction of more snow machines.
Number 1633
MR. JOSTLIN turned to the McGrath area and posed a situation in
which the initial sense of science, the perception that there is
a substantial decline in the moose population, was used to
support predator control in the form of same day airborne
hunting of wolves. However, ADF&G has only carried out two in-
depth counts of moose in the McGrath area in 1996 and 2001. The
department found that the moose population hadn't declined but
rather may have slightly increased. Although there should be
another moose count, at present there is an increase in the
birth rate and weight of the moose calves. He noted that
although there have been mild winters [in recent years], there
was a 100,000 acre fire a year ago. The fire has surely brought
in more "brows" (ph) and gets to the root cause of what
manipulates prey populations. Still, the wolf is blamed. "It's
simply running high on attitude and not enough on science," he
charged. Therefore, he asked the committee to recognize that
true, sound science is necessary before pushing ahead with these
programs. He related his belief that predator control shouldn't
be done when the science shows flat to increasing prey
populations [as is the case in McGrath].
Number 1485
MR. JOSTLIN turned to the issue dealing with the commissioner.
He emphasized the importance of ensuring that decisions aren't
just driven by the BOG. Mr. Jostlin opined that the current BOG
is one of the most extreme BOG because every member has a
history of having been a trapper at some point, which may
represent a very narrow viewpoint. However, the commissioner
has to answer to the governor who has to answer to Alaskans.
Mr. Jostlin concluded with the following example. In 1976 the
BOG had decided that the Western Arctic Caribou herd was
crashing due to the wolf. There were about 75,000 caribou in
that herd in 1976. It turned out that in this situation the
problem was over-harvesting. The wolf control program was
brought to a halt by court action and the caribou population has
increased to close to 500,000 in spite of the existence of the
wolves. Mr. Jostlin reiterated that often the wolf is said to
be the answer when its not and in fact, many scientists have
gone before the BOG and the McGrath Adaptive Committee and said
the wolf isn't the answer. He expressed his hope that the
committee wouldn't pass CSSB 155(RES) from committee.
[SB 155 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
recessed to Thursday, May 15, 2003, at 8:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|