Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/25/2001 01:12 PM House RES
| 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 RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 25, 2001
1:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Board of Fisheries
Dr. John White - Bethel
Russell Nelson - Dillingham
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Game
Julie Maier - Fairbanks
Ben Grussendorf - Sitka
William H. "Chip" Dennerlein - Anchorage
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 17
Expressing the legislature's support for sale of a portion of
Alaska's North Slope natural gas for electrical generation to
power data centers within the North Slope Borough.
- MOVED CSHCR 17(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 241
"An Act relating to a railroad utility corridor for extension of
the Alaska Railroad to Canada and to extension of the Alaska
Railroad to Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO FRIDAY, 4/27
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HCR 17
SHORT TITLE:SALE OF NATURAL GAS TO POWER DATA CENTERS
SPONSOR(S): RLS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/20/01 1096 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/20/01 1096 (H) RES
04/23/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/23/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(RES)
04/25/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN McCOMBS
PO Box 87
Ninilchik, Alaska 99639
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the
reappointment of Dr. John White and Mr. Russell Nelson to the
Board of Fisheries.
STEVE VANEK
PO Box 103
Ninilchik, Alaska 99639
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the
reappointment of Dr. John White to the Board of Fisheries.
JAN KONIGSBERG, Director
Alaska Salmonid Biodiversity Program of Trout Unlimited (ASBPTU)
7511 Labrador Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the reappointment
of Dr. John White and Mr. Russell Nelson to the Board of
Fisheries.
ROSE FOSDICK
PO Box 1485
Nome, Alaska 99762
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the reappointment
of Dr. John White and Mr. Russell Nelson to the Board of
Fisheries.
RION VANEK
PO Box 251
Ninilchik, Alaska 99639
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the
reappointment of Dr. John White to the Board of Fisheries.
DAVID MARTIN
71065 Sterling Highway
Clam Gulch, Alaska 99568
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the
reappointment of Dr. John White to the Board of Fisheries.
ROBERT HEYANO
PO Box 1409
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of the reappointment of
Dr. John White and Russell Nelson to the Board of Fisheries.
ROBIN SAMUELSEN
PO Box 412
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
POSITION STATEMENT: Referred to previous testimony he gave at a
House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting, regarding
reconfirmation of Dr. John White and Mr. Russell Nelson to the
Board of Fisheries.
TERRY HOEFFERLE
PO Box 310
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding the reappointment of
Dr. John White and Mr. Russell Nelson to the Board of Fisheries.
JOE MALETESTA
PO Box 318
Clam Gulch, Alaska 99568
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the
reappointment of Dr. John White to the Board of Fisheries.
CHRIS GARCIA
PO Box 203
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the
reappointment of Dr. John White and Mr. Russell Nelson to the
Board of Fisheries.
BOB MERCHANT, President
United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA)
PO Box 389
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding the reappointment of
Dr. John White and Mr. Russell Nelson to the Board of Fisheries.
BILL SULLIVAN
PO Box 943
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding Dr. John White and the
present policies of the Board of Fisheries.
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Secretary/Treasurer
Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries
PO Box 674
Homer Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the reappointment
of Dr. John White and Mr. Russell Nelson to the Board of
Fisheries.
GERALD P. MERRIGAN
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association (PVOA)
PO Box 232
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the PVOA in
opposition to the reappointment of Dr. John White to the Board
of Fisheries.
CHERYL SUTTON
PO Box 39214
Ninilchik, Alaska 99639
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the
reappointment of Dr. John White to the Board of Fisheries, and
in support of the confirmation of Mr. Ben Grussendorf to the
Board of Game.
PAUL A. SHADURA II, Self-appointed Board of Fisheries Nominee
PO Box 1632
Kenai, Alaska 99611-1632
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the
reappointment of Dr. John White to the Board of Fisheries.
JULIE MAIER, Ph.D., Appointee
to the Board of Game
2140 Twin Flower Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Game.
BEN GRUSSENDORF, Appointee
to the Board of Game
1221 Halibut Point Road
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Game.
WILLIAM H. "CHIP" DENNERLEIN, Appointee
to the Board of Game
Alaska Regional Director
National Parks Conservation Association
329 F Street, Suite 208
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Board of
Game.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-42, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR DREW SCALZI called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:12 p.m. Representatives Fate,
Green, Chenault, Stevens, and Scalzi were present at the call to
order. Representatives McGuire, Kapsner, Kerttula, and Masek
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Board of Fisheries
[Contains brief testimony by Cheryl Sutton in favor of the
appointment of Ben Grussendorf to the Board of Game]
CO-CHAIR SCALZI brought before the committee the confirmations
of the appointments to the Board of Fisheries of Dr. John White
and Mr. Russell Nelson.
Number 0249
JOHN McCOMBS testified via teleconference in opposition to the
reappointment of John White and Russell Nelson to the Board of
Fisheries. He cited an October 2000 Board of Fisheries meeting
in Anchorage at which the failure of "10 salmon systems" in
Western Alaska was announced. He mentioned "cycle areas" and
the wasting by the Board of Fisheries of "hundreds of thousands"
of dollars over the last six years. Mr. McCombs stated that
both John White and Russell Nelson "sat silent" in August 2000
while 40 million pink salmon returned to Cook Inlet, with no
harvest allowed. He told the committee, "Nelson and White are
both guilty of wanton waste - do not confirm either one of
them."
Number 0335
STEVE VANEK testified via teleconference in opposition to the
reappointment of Dr. John White to the Board of Fisheries. He
said:
[Dr. White] has used his position on the Board of
Fisheries to further Governor Knowles' agenda for Cook
Inlet, which is to turn Cook Inlet into a tourist
attraction and get rid of commercial fishing. His
decisions have had nothing to do with conservation, as
proven by the pink salmon "wastage" last year in Cook
Inlet. The department biologist said there was no
coho conservation concern, as was borne out by the
record run of coho last year in Cook Inlet. But as a
result, all those pinks were wasted.
Furthermore, he has cost me hundreds and hundreds of
dollars during his six years on the board, by taking
up Cook Inlet every year for the purpose of putting me
out of business by increasing the escapement goals
well above the MSY [maximum sustained yield] for the
Kenai River.
Number 0565
JAN KONIGSBERG, Director, Alaska Salmonid Biodiversity Program
of Trout Unlimited (ASBPTU), testified via teleconference on
behalf of (ASBPTU) in support of the reappointment of Dr. John
White and Mr. Russell Nelson to the Board of Fisheries. He
said:
In particular, I think, with his leadership on the
sustainable salmon fisheries policy, Dr. White did
tremendously, bringing scientific and precautionary
measures to fisheries management, and against which
Alaskan salmon fishery can be evaluated more reliably
than ever before. Whatever the specific disagreements
may be about whether or not certain runs came in above
or below escapement, I find it hard to blame any
particular board member for a run failure or an over-
escapement. Nonetheless, the principle under the
sustainable policy, I think, will provide the best
cushion for conserving Alaska's wild salmon stocks.
I also think that had Dr. White been in the Pacific
Northwest - or two or three of them - they may have
avoided some of the problems they've had there,
particularly the collapse of the commercial salmon
fisheries. And I guess it's also not surprising that
a lot of the opposition to Dr. White comes from those
who are concerned, rightfully, about the future
economy of the salmon fishery, but ought to recognize
that none of this is a precise science. And to err on
the side of conservation, or simply conservative
management, makes a lot of sense in the long run for
most of us.
Finally, I'd like to say that I've been impressed with
the Board [of Fisheries] process and dedication and
thoroughness of ... its staff, and with the
department's advice, as well as the federal
government's advice on subsistence fisheries
management. But I also think that the budget [it is]
operating on is much too lean for the important work
that has to be accomplished, and there's not enough
there to ensure the kind of public participation that
we all value, and that the board values, in terms of
coming to a decision.
Number 0779
ROSE FOSDICK testified via teleconference in support of the
reappointment of Dr. John White and Russell Nelson. She said
several years ago the Board of Fisheries was in Nome, where its
members listened to testimony. Ms. Fosdick added that the Board
of Fisheries members are aware of the dire situation in that
area regarding the lack of salmon available for subsistence or
commercial fishing.
Number 0858
RION VANEK, a Cook Inlet fisherman, testified via teleconference
in opposition to the confirmation of Dr. John White to the Board
of Fisheries. He said, "Since [John] White has been on the
Board of Fisheries, I've seen our fisheries in Cook Inlet all
but destroyed." He added that two out of the last three
seasons were "disasters." Mr. Vanek mentioned 20 million pink
salmon going unharvested due to the Board of Fisheries' actions
and regulations, which have allowed over-escapement to destroy
red salmon runs, and due to mandatory closures, which have
disallowed fishing on "abundant pink and silver stock." In
conclusion, Mr. Vanek said, "In every case, John White has voted
in favor of the restrictive measures which have strangled our
fishery, sent canneries packing, and had ... a detrimental
effect on local families and the local economy." He said he
hoped the Board of Fisheries members would promote the fisheries
industry, rather than destroy it. He asked the House Resources
Standing Committee not to reconfirm John White.
Number 0957
DAVID MARTIN, testifying via teleconference in opposition to the
reappointment of Dr. John White and Russell Nelson, mentioned
having sent a letter to the House Resources Standing Committee
[included in the committee packet]. He said two terms were
sufficient, and he stated that a person's past actions are a
good indication of what his future action will be.
MR. MARTIN told the committee [the Board of Fisheries] has met
seven years straight in Cook Inlet [despite the fact that the
meetings are scheduled] on a three-year cycle. Consequently, a
great burden is placed on the public and the department. He
said, "That's all the department does now, is ... work for the
Board of Fisheries to generate the data that's requested of
them." He acknowledged that the board has developed many of the
plans in [Cook] Inlet, such as designs for over-escapement. He
related his belief that over-escapement ties the biologists'
hands, with the result that fishermen sat on the beach while 20
million pink salmon went up the rivers last year because there
was no way [that fishery] was going to be opened.
MR. MARTIN reiterated the concern heard in previous testimony
that because the Board of Fisheries ignores [ADF&G's]
conservation determinations, the scientific data of the
biologists, and the people, fish are being wasted and people's
livelihoods are adversely affected. He told the committee that
half of the processors [in Cook Inlet] have closed down, and
people who have fished for five decades have had to put
mortgages on their homes. He added that the "undue"
restrictions set up by [the Board of Fisheries] affect not only
the commercial fishing industry, but the sport fishing and
charter fishing industries as well.
Number 1173
ROBERT HEYANO, testifying via teleconference, stated that he had
previously given testimony in support of Dr. White and Mr.
Nelson at a House Special Committee on Fisheries hearing; he
said he would appreciate having those comments incorporated.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI noted that some members of the House Resources
Standing Committee are also members of the House Special
Committee on Fisheries and thus already may have heard Mr.
Heyano's testimony. Co-Chair Scalzi also indicated the
committee packet should include Mr. Heyano's testimony;
therefore, members will have heard, in some form, that Mr.
Heyano is in favor of the reappointment of Dr. White.
Number 1221
ROBIN SAMUELSEN, testifying via teleconference, said he would
echo Mr. Heyano's comments, since he, too, had testified before
the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
Number 1248
TERRY HOEFFERLE, testifying via teleconference, also noted that
he had testified before the House Special Committee on
Fisheries, but said he wanted to add testimony. He highlighted
the fact that currently fisheries throughout the state are
experiencing a great deal of pressure. He pointed out that
environmental causes result in stress on fish stocks for which
numerous user groups are vying. Mr. Hoefferle remarked that
many comments regarding these appointments have to do with
people whose "oxes have been gored - one way or another"; he
didn't blame board members for failures of fish stocks on the
Kvichak River or the Yukon River, however, or some of the user
groups in Cook Inlet. In conclusion, Mr. Hoefferle said both
[Dr. White and Mr. Nelson] are doing an excellent job.
Number 1355
JOE MALETESTA testified via teleconference in opposition to the
reappointment of Dr. John White, noting that he had previously
testified at the House Special Committee on Fisheries meeting.
Mr. Maletesta highlighted several points of Dr. White's "Kenai
River record" during his tenure on the Board of Fisheries, which
contradict the opinions of other testifiers who described Dr.
White as a steward of the resource who protects the habitat.
MR. MALETESTA stated that Dr. White has done everything in his
power to circumvent the public process and destroy the legal and
local advisory board processes. He said Dr. White has "over-
escaped" the Kenai River by constantly raising the escapement
levels, which will have disastrous results.
MR. MALETESTA mentioned eroding river banks that "house" many
species of fish, and said over-escapement has caused "miles of
degradation to the habitat." Millions of dollars of grant money
is being spent to build boardwalks on those eroding banks, he
noted. He told members that [Dr. White] "championed written
comment only, attempting to displace citizens from speaking
their minds at the so-called stacked committee meetings," adding
that no law exists for the formation of those committee
processes.
MR. MALETESTA stated that [Dr. White] took away the emergency
order (EO) authority of the local managers in Cook Inlet, but
doesn't have that authority, which is the legislature's. He
said the rest of the [fisheries] in the state are still managed
- some of them entirely - by EO authority. He continued:
We were told - and he was told - at the last meeting,
that there [were] no conservation ... reasons
regarding the coho, that they were strong. But what
happened? They let 20 to 40 millions pink [salmon] go
up that river "unharvested." This is a wrongful
taking from all the users, especially the commercial
fleet, [a] slam-dunk lawsuit. We could have fed many
hungry dogs and many hungry people with those ...
salmon. Any legislator that votes "yes" to confirm
Dr. White is sending a clear message to the whole
United States that they support wanton waste of 160
million pounds of precious food.
I've testified at many Board of Fisheries hearings
during Dr. White's tenure. The last time, I had two
elderly people, six generations' old. [Dr. White] was
rude and he was arrogant toward us, afterwards and
during. This man has got a predisposed mind, and that
was proven when Dan Coffey sent his letter to
"Representative that was sitting and voted out," and
he said there that no one should be able to make a
living in six weeks. This is 100 percent wrong. The
legislature should be holding hearings on the wanton
waste of food, and jailing Dr. White for not
supporting the proper efforts in allowing those fish
to be harvested.
MR. MALETESTA mentioned the fiduciary obligations of "boards
like this" to the state, and said a board member who breaches
his/her fiduciary obligation can be held liable. He asked the
committee not to recommend [Dr. White] for reappointment because
"he's just killing this community."
Number 1568
CHRIS GARCIA, testifying via teleconference in opposition to the
reappointment of Dr. John White and Mr. Russell Nelson to the
Board of Fisheries, stated, "This Board of Fisheries is
operating on a 'kill commercial fishing at [any] cost' concept."
He said a change is needed, and "our community" needs the
commercial fishing dollars. Mr. Garcia claimed that [Governor
Knowles] is economically crippling "our community" and should be
sent a message stating that "we're tired of this nonsense" and
demanding that he rebalance the board by appointing new people.
MR. GARCIA cited an example of the Board of Fisheries' harming
of his community, the recent net restrictions on the hooligan
fishery in the Kenai River, which is heavily used by both Native
and non-Native people. He said the restriction cripples that
fishery to the point that it may as well have been closed. He
concluded, "I think this is total nonsense, and it's just
another example of how our governor has total disregard for the
area of this state that I live in."
Number 1650
BOB MERCHANT, President, United Cook Inlet Drift Association
(UCIDA), testifying via teleconference, made the following
statement:
Some 30 years ago, I chose to commercial fish for a
living here in Cook Inlet. At the time, I believed
that since I was participating in a renewable-resource
industry, the industry had the potential, if properly
managed, to continue on and on and on. On Monday
last, Representative Kapsner stated that the reason
Dr. John White was not commercial fishing was because
their commercial fishery has been closed for years due
to a lack of fish. Evidently, what was once a viable,
profitable fishery for residents of Bethel appears to
be only a memory now.
Committee members have also been asked why so much
attention centers on these confirmation hearings.
There are many reasons, but we choose to express our
concerns by saying, first, this attention should serve
to prove to the legislature how important the resource
is to Alaskans. And second, as far as UCIDA is
concerned, we certainly don't want what happened to
John White's commercial fishery to happen here in Cook
Inlet. That's why we participate and why we argue and
disagree with the policies of the current Board of
Fisheries.
Is this to say that we blame the Board of Fisheries
for the salmon collapse in Western Alaska? Not
completely. After all, ADF&G managers were on-the-job
the whole time. Salmon cycles average two years and
four years. With the exception of Russell Nelson, the
rest of the board has been making regulations for one,
two, and - for some members - multiple salmon cycles.
This collapse in Western Alaska happened on their
watch. We can safely say that the salmon collapses in
California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia
were manmade.
So why should we (indisc.) the actions or inactions of
the Board [of Fisheries] and ADF&G from the reasons
for the failures here in Alaska? Remember that they
were, and are, in charge. It should not be surprising
to you why we in the commercial fishing industry want
a change in the [Board of Fisheries.] During the
times when commercial fishermen supposedly controlled
the board, Alaskan salmon runs were the envy of other
states and nations.
Last, we don't want our children to have to rebuild
decimated salmon stocks, as we had to after the "feds"
left the fisheries - certainly not because the
governor insisted on continuity. To us, continuity
simply means more of the same: declining wild salmon
stocks and failing fisheries.
Number 1818
BILL SULLIVAN testified via teleconference. He said the record
shows that whenever the Board of Fisheries meets on Cook Inlet
issues, the commercial fishery loses "time and area" to fish
salmon. In regard to consideration of issues that might
adversely impact the economics of the sport fishing industry,
Mr. Sullivan said the board acts conservatively and, in at least
one recent instance, recklessly. He expressed concern with the
lack of parity and continuity between how the board deals with
the Cook Inlet fishery and how it might deal with fisheries in
other areas of the state. Mr. Sullivan continued:
Our local Department of Fish & Game has voiced
concerns to the board over the possible and quite
probable demise of five ocean chinook salmon in the
Kenai River. The five ocean chinook are sold to the
public by sport fishing guides as "trophy kings." An
agenda change request was brought before the Board of
Fisheries last February, on an emergency by the guide
industry, to petition the board to allow retention of
over-52-inch trophy kings, at a time when smaller
kings must be released if they are hooked. The source
of the emergency, in this agenda-change request [ACR]
issue, was the economic impact that releasing these
trophy kings would have on the guide industry. The
Board of Fisheries subsequently passed the ACR request
with a 7-0 vote in favor of the guide industry.
Conversely, during a ... season termed to be an
economic disaster for the commercial salmon fishing
industry - last year's season - the board refused to
hear a request that would allow commercial fishers ...
harvest access to ... a 20-plus-million-strong pink
salmon run, using the lack of in-place pink and chum
salmon plans as its justification.
Please understand that while these plans may be
beneficial to have in place, our own state-employed
biologists have indicated to the Board [of Fisheries]
that there is little likelihood that Cook Inlet pink
and chum salmon stocks are anything but healthy.
MR. SULLIVAN summarized that the Board of Fisheries would
sanction a small group of guides benefiting economically at the
expense of a genetic class of trophy kings, but would not even
give consideration to healthy Cook Inlet chum and pink salmon
stocks and a 20-million run of pinks that would offer minimal
economic relief to the commercial fishery. Additionally, he
urged the House Resources Standing Committee to look into the
demoralization of "our local Board of Fisheries biologists," by
polling department personnel about their experiences dealing
with the current board members, including Dr. White.
Number 1981
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Secretary/Treasurer, Pioneer Alaskan
Fisheries, testified via teleconference in support of the
reappointment of Dr. John White and Mr. Russell Nelson to the
Board of Fisheries. She explained that Pioneer Alaskan
Fisheries has existed for 38 years and is now a commercial and
custom processor, located on Homer Spit. She also mentioned
that she has been a member of the fish and game advisory
committee for 13 years, is very aware of the Board of Fisheries
process, and has been "going to them" for over 17 years.
MS. HILLSTRAND stated that Dr. White and Mr. Nelson have worked
diligently through the "North Pacific regime shift," and have
done everything in their power to try to uphold the mandate of
the sustainability clause of the constitution. She said,
"Fisheries are very complex, and these people have the needed
knowledge and the wisdom, as well as the courage, to make the
difficult decisions needed to uphold the sustainability clause."
MS. HILLSTRAND told the committee that prior to the present
board, the Board of Fisheries was very commercially biased,
which resulted in the a loss of resources, including four
species of crab, four species of shrimp, and miscellaneous
shellfish. She expressed her belief that most people would not
be very proud of its actions in the 1970s and 1980s. Ms.
Hillstrand said the present board has been trying to "clean up
the mess" from the past. She emphasized how huge an area the
Board of Fisheries oversees and said its members have the
knowledge to do the job.
Number 2203
GERALD P. MERRIGAN testified on behalf of Petersburg Vessel
Owners Association (PVOA) - a group of 62 commercial vessel
owners - in opposition to the reappointment of Dr. John White to
the Board of Fisheries. He said he has been participating at
the Board of Fisheries [meetings] since 1985. Mr. Merrigan said
although he has had agreements and disagreements with Dr. White
and Russell Nelson over the years, Russell Nelson still listens,
while Dr. White has stopped listening.
MR. MERRIGAN stated the [PVOA's] belief that two terms is enough
and that the time for change is overdue. He pointed out that
the entire Board of Fisheries membership is composed of
individuals on their second or third term. He said, "There
needs to be a better balance between the desire for continuity
and the desire to get new and interested members of the public
involved." Mr. Merrigan described the moment people have served
too long on a board as the moment they start to think they don't
need public [input] anymore. He said this [attitude] was
evident when the Board of Fisheries came to a position on the
halibut charter IFQ (individual fishery quota) issue, without
ever holding a public meeting, taking public input, or giving
public notice. Mr. Merrigan indicated he was using a March 28
letter from the North Pacific [Fishery Management] Council as a
reference.
MR. MERRIGAN said [the PVOA] thinks commercial fishing is
underrepresented by the present composition of board membership,
particularly in regard to knowledge of blue-water ocean
fisheries, as opposed to "terminal in-river fisheries." He
added that it is ironic that "the legal and dental industries
have more representation on the board than the commercial
fishing fleet."
MR. MERRIGAN commented that the increasing length of the board
meetings has discouraged stakeholder participation. He said the
board is called "the board that can't say no" for the following
reasons: issues that should not be taken up out of cycle, such
as Copper River, are taken up; and issues over which the board
has no authority, such as chum hatchery production, are tabled
endlessly, "forcing us to attend more meetings, and breaking our
budget."
MR. MERRIGAN concluded by saying there were other viable
candidates who might bring a fresh viewpoint to the Board of
Fisheries, including Art Nelson and Paul Shadura. He asked the
House Resources Standing Committee not to reappoint Dr. White,
but rather to thank him for his service and "wish him luck in
his participation on the research board to which he was recently
appointed."
Number 2360
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER mentioned Mr. Merrigan's comments about
some board members who are not listening to the public's
requests and that issues should not be taken up out of cycle.
She also referred to the characterization of the board as "the
board that can't say no"; she suggested that the board was
responding to a cry for help.
MR. MERRIGAN replied, "I think you have to balance it out with
the regulations the board has to operate on - [for instance],
the agenda change request policy." He said taking an issue out
of sequence meant taking it out of the three-year cycle for that
area, which requires that the issue be a conservation concern,
involve an unforeseen circumstance of regulation, or involve an
error in regulation. The regulations clearly state that an
[issue] must not be "taken up" for allocation. Mr. Merrigan
mentioned trying to take the public input without violating
rules.
MR. MERRIGAN said he shared ADF&G's opinion that the Copper
River issue was not a conservation concern. He added that after
considerable expense by lots of people, the Board of Fisheries
finally concluded that it was not a conservation concern, "but
they did take it up." He concluded:
The public should take the issue up to the "RPT"
teams, in terms of the chum hatchery. The Board of
Fisheries did not have the authority, and the Board of
Fisheries' standing rule states, "If you do not have
the authority, you pick 'no action' - you table [the
issue] if you're trying to get more information." But
we ended going five years on this issue, and the Board
of Fisheries finally concluded it did not have the
authority. So, I guess you have to bifurcate giving
public access and giving public access in the proper
forum.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER commented that she took offense to Mr.
Merrigan's statement that "the legal and dental industries have
more representation on the board than the commercial fishing
fleet." She stated that she has known Dr. White "her whole
life," and said most people in the Yukon/Kuskokwim delta would
identify him first and foremost as a fisherman, then as a
dentist. She pointed out that the Board of Fisheries is not a
professional board, even though some people think it should be,
and, therefore, it is appropriate that those on the board have
jobs in other fields.
MR. MERRIGAN explained that "we're" looking for broad commercial
fishing representation on the Board of Fisheries. He listed
some of the permits held by present board members, most of which
do not represent ocean fisheries.
Number 2563
CHERYL SUTTON read her written testimony (included in the
committee packet), as follows:
My name is Cheryl Sutton, and I am representing my
family. We live in Ninilchik and have commercially
fished in the set gillnet fishery in Cook Inlet for 28
years. I am sorry to say that we are the "youngsters"
of this fishery, which is comprised of mostly third-
and fourth-generation fishing families.
The confirmation of individuals to the Board of
Fisheries is perhaps the most important vote the
members of this committee and the members of the
entire legislative body will make in joint session.
The legislature, as the policy makers, has empowered
the board with wide rule-making authority. The
regulations adopted by this seven-member lay board
regulate a multi-billion dollar industry and affect
the lives of all Alaskans. I would like to speak to
some of the policy issues surrounding these
confirmations.
Representative McGuire has often asked questions and
sought resolutions involving regulatory agencies'
exceeding the statutory powers invested in them by the
legislature. When the policies generated by the board
are examined with care, it becomes immediately
apparent that the legislative intent and statutory
mandate has been greatly exceeded in some areas and
ignored in others.
I have had more experience with this process than I
care to remember or recite. In addition, I served on
the Board of Fisheries Review Committee by appointment
of Governor Cowper. This committee was created
because four members of the board, in the midst of
their agenda in December of 1986, resigned. They
resigned because of vote-trading and undue outside
pressure to take actions contrary to sound scientific
management. This tragic episode was recorded in our
report [Board of Fisheries Review Committee, February
23, 1988] as [an] "unscheduled adjournment of the
board in Anchorage." And, further, "This adjournment
served public notice in a fairly dramatic way that the
process was in trouble and badly needed attention."
The four members who resigned included the chair, and
they took the honorable action.
Following this meltdown of the board, Governor Cowper
made some appointments, which dramatically changed the
ethical conduct of the board. The individual who
changed the process was Gary Slaven, from Petersburg,
who brought his personal integrity and fair dealings
to the process. Gary operated the board in a manner
consistent with fair public process and in accordance
with the policies set forth by the legislature.
Unfortunately, it was Gary's integrity that made the
difference. After Gary's tenure on the board, the
process once again began to degenerate. "Agenda
forwarding" on the board has now become somewhat more
sophisticated, and honorable actions are no longer in
vogue.
The legislature understands the need for ethics. You
have a process for investigating alleged ethical
violations among your members. The legislature cannot
legislate integrity, which would result in sound
ethical behavior. Therefore, the importance of the
[governor's] putting forth names whose personal
integrity allows them to rise above personal biases,
or particular philosophies - which we all have - is
essential. If the governor does not take this care,
then the check and balance you have provided for
yourselves is to not confirm.
The legislature, in statute [16.05.010], has charged
the Department of Fish & Game, via their chief
executive officer, the commissioner, to "be a
qualified executive with ... knowledge of the
requirements for the protection, management,
conservation, and restoration of the fish and game
resources of the state." In order to accomplish these
objectives, the legislature appropriates money to the
agency for the development of the scientific body of
information required to meet this mandate.
The legislature has clearly recognized the scientific
professionals [who] are within the department, and it
is their responsibility to present their best
information to the board to facilitate sound decision-
making. I have said all this to say that the record
of the current board is that they chiefly ignore or
exceed your statutory mandates in this area. The role
this board has assumed far exceeds what a lay board
should be doing under your direction.
Having board members serve consecutive terms has not
added to the continuity in decision-making. Each time
the board meets, [it] assumes ground zero. The
cumulative effect of this process has been devastating
to some fisheries and many people in the state. A
simple compilation of the historical record of actions
taken by the board relative to the issues before them
would serve as a meaningful guide. Continuity is
something that those of us in the fishing community
desire, and [we] do not believe that this is an
unreasonable expectation.
Some members of your body have expressed great
interest in developing a coherent statewide fisheries
policy. This has been advocated by reviewers of the
board process since its present organization in 1975
and, actually, since statehood. It is long overdue
and clearly your responsibility as the policy makers.
This committee and other committees have sufficient
expertise to undertake the development of this policy,
and it is something that could provide continuity in
the board process.
Representative McGuire asked Mary McDowell of the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission how a particular
bill your committee heard would provide for the
entrance of the younger generation of Alaskans into
commercial fisheries. I ask the same question
relative to the policy direction of the current board.
We will not encourage our children to look toward a
future in our fishery and, quite frankly, that saddens
me. Our fishery has the highest resident
participation in salmon limited entry fisheries and,
as I mentioned earlier, is largely comprised of third-
and fourth-generation fishing families. However, my
comments are not about Cook Inlet. Nor are they about
sport versus commercial versus personal use versus
subsistence. But, rather, they are about the policy
issues surrounding the board process. Their record
bears your scrutiny.
For all these reasons, I must oppose the reappointment
of John White.
MS. SUTTON told the House Resources Standing Committee she
supports the confirmation of [former] Representative Grussendorf
to the Board of Game, saying she has known him for a "long time"
and stating her belief he is an "honorable man."
Number 2893
PAUL A. SHADURA II read the following testimony:
I reside in the Kenai Peninsula Borough. I've
traveled a thousand miles today to testify on the
reconfirmation of Board of Fisheries member John
White. There [are] some key points that I believe you
should consider.
[First], how has the record of this board member
proved to the committee that he has made fair and
unbiased decisions that benefit all the users of the
state? Section 6(e) of the Alaska Statehood Act
states, the policy-making officials should be selected
for their ability and their dedicated interest in the
resource, and no identification should be made between
a policy-making official and any particular segment of
a population. Likewise, no official should be bound
to represent the interest of a specific geographical
region.
In addition, an excerpt from the Board of Fisheries
review committee dated February 23, 1988, [says] in
1975 the legislature enacted a new statute which split
the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game, the
members of which must be appointed by the governor and
confirmed by the legislature "without regard to
political affiliation, or geographical location" (ch.
206 ... SLA [1975]).
TAPE 01-42, SIDE B
[Not found on the tape because of the tape change, but contained
in Mr. Shadura's written testimony, was the following:
"However, despite the explicit aforementioned statutory
prohibitions, from more than a quarter of a century, Alaska
governors aided and abetted by the legislature have appointed
individuals to the board because of their identification with
special interests or geographical areas."]
MR. SHADURA continued:
Reappointing board members for two or three terms does
not adhere to any diversity of interests and, in fact,
would solidify or ingrain the inherent bias or
idealism of one member from one area and from ... only
one perspective or resource user. If we are
attempting to reduce [the] temptation of an
administration or body from exerting political
philosophies on board members that are ... not to be
considered by a political affiliation, ... then it
would seem proper that new blood and new ideas would
help to ensure that there would be less collusion and
a stronger attempt for ... Board of Fisheries members
to balance the decisions they promulgate.
Have decisions made by this board member resulted in
sweeping losses to resource users? In the Kuskokwim
region, this area will now be closed for real
conservation reasons. This is Mr. White's backyard;
yet in six years, which included his time as chairman,
he could not find a solution and has severely impacted
the economic viability for the fishing families of the
region.
Number 2900
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked Mr. Shadura how he could assert
that Dr. White is the reason that there is a salmon disaster [in
Western Alaska.] She said his testimony sounded both offensive
and personal.
MR. SHADURA responded:
I didn't mean that to be personal. I just said, as
the chairman of the Board [of Fisheries], there [were]
no solutions that have averted this calamity that's
happened at this point. And taking responsibility for
his position is what I was talking about. I was not
talking about Chairman White by himself.
MR. SHADURA continued reading his written testimony:
In Cook Inlet in August 2001, Mr. White failed to
approve ... an emergency petition that resulted in a
surplus stock of pink salmon in excess of 20 million
[fish]. Information from local ADF&G personnel gave
the Board [of Fisheries] their best available
information on the need for surplus fishery, and
assessments that the conservation species that the
board had been concerned about were returning in
record numbers. In the final analysis, [it was] the
best return to the Kenai River in 20 years.
MR. SHADURA indicated Dr. White was instrumental in deflecting
the responsibilities for the decline of chum salmon away from
his turf and placing the blame elsewhere. He mentioned that
board member [Dan] Coffey had alluded, in a recent legislative
committee report, to the fact that these new regulations will
not make the Kuskokwim whole [again]. [In keeping with the time
limit for testimony, Mr. Shadura did not read the rest of his
testimony, but offered to answer questions.]
Number 2765
CO-CHAIR MASEK moved that the House Resources Standing Committee
forward the name of Dr. John White to the joint session for
consideration of reappointment to the Board of Fisheries.
Number 2745
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE noted the considerable amount of
controversy surrounding [Dr. White's] appointment. She
encouraged members not to impede the discussion, but to allow it
to be carried forward, in order to allow all legislators to have
an opportunity to "weigh in."
Number 2708
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked if there were any objections to Co-Chair
Masek's motion. There being no objection, the confirmation of
Dr. John White was advanced.
Number 2699
CO-CHAIR MASEK moved that the House Resources Standing Committee
forward the name of Russell Nelson to the joint session for
consideration of reappointment to the Board of Fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE reiterated her statement regarding the
considerable amount of controversy surrounding this appointment,
and allowing all members of the full body to have an opportunity
to weigh in.
Number 2674
CO-CHAIR SCALZI clarified that by signing, a committee member is
just recommending that the appointee's name be forwarded [to the
joint session for consideration].
Number 2635
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked if there were any objections to Co-Chair
Masek's motion. There being no objection, the confirmation of
Russell Nelson was advanced.
Board of Game
Number 2605
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the committee would consider the
confirmations of three appointees to the Board of Game: Dr.
Julie Maier; former Representative Ben Grussendorf; and William
H. "Chip" Dennerlein.
Number 2544
JULIE MAIER, Ph.D., Appointee to the Board of Game, came forward
to testify. She informed members that she has a Ph.D. in
wildlife management from the University of Alaska Fairbanks,
where her research focused on caribou. Since then, she worked
for eight years on moose research, for the most part in the
Interior, and lived in Kodiak for 18 months, where she
volunteered for [the Alaska Department of] Fish and Game (ADF&G)
doing technician work sealing bear hides, answering questions,
and so forth.
DR. MAIER noted that she has held hunting licenses and has
hunted; although she hasn't hunted since her babies were born,
she said she intends to continue once her children are old
enough to come along or once they are in school. She said her
husband also hunts, and they eat exclusively wild game and fish,
without buying beef.
DR. MAIER stated her belief that her variety of skills and
knowledge, when combined, will make her an effective member and
a good choice for the Board of Game. She cited as examples her
education and experience in wildlife biology; her commitment to
public service; her love of people and willingness to talk to,
listen to, and learn from people; and perhaps most important,
her dedication to the resource.
DR. MAIER informed members that her first and foremost concern
will always be the health and long-term viability of wildlife
populations in Alaska. She said she believes that humans are a
natural component of the ecosystem. She stated, "Every time I
vote, I will vote for healthy populations of wildlife, which in
turn will allow for consistent and long-term use of wildlife by
humans, and also other uses as well - nonconsumptive and
consumptive."
Number 2365
CO-CHAIR MASEK referred to the recent spring meeting of the
Board of Game; she said the area biologist had presented
information demonstrating that the moose population is in severe
decline in Unit 13, and that the only way to reverse it is
through "predator-prey management," primarily on wolves. She
asked why the Board of Game didn't act on that information.
DR. MAIER answered that in Unit 13 the biologist, Bob Tobey,
told [board members] the proposals before the board were to just
change the "brow tine" requirements; as a result, [the board]
changed the requirement from three brow tines to four. There
was no proposal to implement wolf control; there already is a
wolf management plan for [Unit 13] that just hasn't been
implemented, which she suggested is up to the ADF&G to do; she
added that as far as she knows, there is nothing more the board
can do in that regard.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Dr. Maier what, if any, actions she would
take to restore the moose population in Unit 13.
DR. MAIER answered that she believes the wolf-control plan
should be implemented in Unit 13. She offered that there should
be an attempt to remove more brown bear and possibly black bear
from the area as well; she noted that the take on brown bears
has been increased by allowing one bear a year for residents,
which would not have a very large impact because "most folks
don't want a bear every year." She suggested that legislative
action also could be taken, such as removing the guide
requirement in [Unit] 13 for nonresidents for [hunting] bears,
which isn't a Board of Game issue. She suggested that bear
hunting is as liberalized as feasible, and that further
liberalizing it for residents will make no difference.
Number 2224
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Dr. Maier whether she had voted on any
issue relating to the predator-prey management and controls on
wolves in Unit 13.
DR. MAIER answered that there were no wolf or predator
management issues that she recalled in Unit 13.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Dr. Maier how she would vote if there were
such an issue before the board.
DR. MAIER responded that in [Unit] 13, she would support those
measures. She restated that she supports the wolf-control
implementation plan in place now, and that the key now is
implementing it, which - to her understanding - is out of the
board's hands.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked whether Dr. Maier would support the stand
of the governor and the administration regarding not using same-
day-airborne shooting of wolves to alleviate the moose problem.
DR. MAIER answered that she believes the [passage of] the recent
initiative made it illegal for a citizen to land and shoot, but
that she would support having the ADF&G or one of its agents use
that technique.
Number 2140
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Dr. Maier whether she would support
the proposal before the Board of Game at the May meeting to
reduce moose populations in that harvest by half.
DR. MAIER answered that she hadn't looked closely at the
proposals that would be before the Board of Game in May, since
she might not be a member [if her appointment isn't confirmed];
however, she believes the proposal to reduce the harvest by 50
percent was the recommendation of the McGrath adaptive
management team. She asked whether that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he wasn't really sure.
DR. MAIER proposed that before getting to that board meeting,
she would have to look into the issue more carefully in order to
know what the reasoning was and where the data came from that
suggest the need for that; questions would include what the
historical high [number of moose] was, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE noted that there also is a proposal to make
a buffer zone in what is called the "Wolf Township" right next
to Denali National Park; it would expand the current size by
approximately three and a half times. He said both the Board
and Game and the National Park Service biologists have indicated
no buffer zone is needed, even though there is a real effort to
make a buffer zone. He asked Dr. Maier how she would vote on
that.
DR. MAIER replied that she had not studied those proposals, but
believes that particular proposal was submitted by ADF&G.
However, her approach to the Board of Game will primarily be as
an analyst who makes sound "biological decisions" based on data.
Dr. Maier offered her present understanding that the home range
of "that pack" does not extend any further than the current
buffer zone. She would need to study the information, but at
this time would lean against voting for it, based on the fact
that it does not sound necessary. Dr. Maier emphasized that she
abstained from voting "on a couple of votes in Anchorage"
because ADF&G had no data to show her, due to the fact that it
was an out-of-cycle issue. She described that she would feel
irresponsible if she had voted on an issue without first
studying all the available research, just as she would feel
irresponsible giving a definitive answer to [Representative
Fate's] question right now.
Number 1929
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Dr. Maier if she believes there is as
an inherent conflict between [allowing animals to be hunted and
preserving them for viewing].
DR. MAIER said no.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Dr. Maier if she believes there are
adequate places for viewing [wildlife] in the national and state
parks.
DR. MAIER responded that [60] percent of Alaska sounds adequate
to her.
Number 1895
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated her interest in learning how Dr.
Maier looks at issues and makes her decisions.
DR. MAIER responded that the first stage of her approach has
been biological: ferret out all the data; talk to as many
biologists as possible who have been involved in the both past
and current research; talk to hunters and people who have been
"out there" for a long time; and take notes. She likes to
listen to people, enjoys the "characters" she has met at
meetings, and is most comfortable in a multicultural
environment; her diverse upbringing included being an "Air Force
brat" in Germany and Greece, having an adoptive grandfather who
is half Paiute, and having a grandmother who is one-quarter
Kiowa. Her approach is to listen to all sides while bringing in
as much data as possible in order to make a reasonable decision.
She added, "I will vote on the issue at hand; I am beholden to
nobody."
Number 1746
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Dr. Maier if she could also "live
by the statutes and the regulations."
DR. MAIER answered, "I will support the statutes; it's the law."
In addition, she said, she meets the qualifications of the Board
of Game's statute, which says a member should have an interest
in public affairs, good judgment, knowledge, and ability in the
field of action.
Number 1635
BEN GRUSSENDORF, Appointee to the Board of Game, came forward to
testify. He stated that although he was reluctant to accept
appointment to the Board of Game at first, he became "attracted
to the process" after looking at the materials and attending a
ten-day meeting; he said the people [involved] and the subject
are "absolutely fascinating," and have always held his interest.
MR. GRUSSENDORF alluded to the great number of critical public
opinion messages (POMs) that had been sent to the House
Resources Standing Committee regarding his [appointment], and
noted that none of the comments were in reference his voting
record. He told the committee that with a total of 185
proposals and amendments and 400 votes before it, the Board of
Game was divided on its vote only 15 percent of the time, never
on any single topic, species, or geographical area. The only
area where there was a "split" was the issue of motorized
access, submitted to the Board of Game by the public.
MR. GRUSSENDORF highlighted the fact that the Board of Game
[task force] was unanimous in its resolution and ten proposals
regarding McGrath and "19 D/E," the wolf management predator
control issue. He noted that included in those proposals was a
comprehensive package encouraging the activity of bear-baiting;
he indicated [the Board of Game] would like to implement much of
the package in May 2001.
MR. GRUSSENDORF referred to a comment for which he was
criticized regarded HB 144, which addresses the issue of [guides
for nonresident moose hunters]. He said he personally thought
[HB 144] was a good idea, although it had "some upsides and
downsides to it," but the question [before the Board of Game]
was, "What if the legislative body passes it?" Even though HB
144 had some merit, Mr. Grussendorf said he felt it would run
into "some political flack." He clarified that his comment had
been, "If the legislative body - House and Senate - approves
that piece of legislation, they will also have to be aware of
the fiscal notes that would be attached, as to the loss of
revenue, and maybe find some other funding sources." He pointed
out [the irony] that his opponents had called him "naive," even
though [as a former state Representative] he was on [the House
Finance Committee] for 10 [to] 12 years.
MR. GRUSSENDORF explained an issue - in which he believed
Representative Scalzi to be involved - for which he was
criticized: the McNeil River [State Game] Sanctuary. He
singled out Representative Scalzi to receive his explanation as
follows: A group of fishermen from Representative Scalzi's
district had approached Mr. Grussendorf because the [U.S. Army]
Corp of Engineers was seeking an injunction against them in
regard to monies the fishermen had received for a project. He
said, "The Friends of McNeil also felt that I might be a good
arbitrator." He stated that he liked both fish and bears.
MR. GRUSSENDORF said he approached both the Representative and
the Senator of that district and called Mayor Don Gillman; he
asked whether they had any objections to his involvement in the
issue, and they said, "Have at it." He recalled thinking that
[solving the issue] would be easy. His first idea was to make
the entire area, which included the McNeil sanctuary and the
Paint River, a sanctuary. He said the fishermen and the Friends
of McNeil favored the idea, but Bill Holesworth (ph), from the
Miner's association, [objected to it]. Mr. Grussendorf said he
realized then that "back up in the Paint River" there are some
mineral claims, which would be untouchable if the area were
designated with sanctuary status. He recalled thinking, "OK,
Mr. Solomon, how do we handle this?"
MR. GRUSSENDORF stated that he gave the Paint River "refuge"
status and, in anticipation of objections from the Friends of
McNeil, squared off the boundaries for the sanctuary, including
a strip on the beach that left the bears vulnerable. Because of
the injunction, he said, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers still
wanted the provision [left in] proscribing the shooting of brown
bear in the refuge. Mr. Grussendorf said, "It got to the point
where something was going to have to give." Mr. Grussendorf
explained:
So when I went up to the House Finance [Committee]. I
laid it out to them. I said, "Here's the problem:
The Corp of Engineers, because of the injunction ...
by the Friends of McNeil, would like the bear thing
in. The Department of Fish and Game doesn't want it
in, would like the Board of Game to do it." I left
the meeting, ... fish and game, saying, ... "Here, go
ahead and do it, whatever you do." Mark Boyer, I
believe, made the amendment to delete it. McKie
Campbell, who's the representative from the Department
of Fish and Game, said that the sponsor had no
objection to that amendment. And also, I believe, in
the Senate Finance [Committee], Senator Schultz, who
was in the House at one time, asked whether I was
happy and (indisc.) said, "Yeah, I'm happy."
MR. GRUSSENDORF asked Representative Scalzi [to understand] that
he did not push his nose in [the issue], and stated his belief
that he thought he had done a wonderful thing by making
everybody a little bit happy. He admitted that the project was
not that successful from the fishing point of view. He
expressed his hope that he would be given a chance to answer to
his critics in the future, regarding legislation.
MR. GRUSSENDORF mentioned a Board of Game meeting [in Anchorage]
where three of the people on the board had not been confirmed,
but where the dynamics were excellent and each knowledgeable
person had something to offer to the process. He stated that
good decisions were made at that meeting.
Number 0993
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN talked about statistics the committee had
seen regarding the cause of death of game animals, saying he
believes 3 percent were killed by hunters. He mentioned
[Senator] Pete Kelly and a presentation that had been given.
MR. GRUSSENDORF replied, "Without a doubt, the greatest 'taker'
of wildlife is the weather and weather conditions. This is a
key factor - and then, also, what is happening to the habitat in
regard to that." He referred to an earlier question regarding
the decreasing numbers of moose, from 6,000 to approximately
3,500; when there was an historical high in "that area," it was
eight years after a major burn, he said, which was good for the
habitat. The national government did an extensive poisoning
program, which wiped out black bear, brown bear, wolves, coyotes
- "everything." Mr. Grussendorf explained, "We can't do that
anymore." He said biologists are saying the historical high set
back then was too high for the realities that must be dealt with
now. He agreed that the amount [of game] that humans take for
consumption is very small.
Number 0843
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested there were case studies of the
fact that wolf packs will eradicate certain species, and
certainly will cause deterioration due to killing their prey,
then abandoning it without consuming it. He asked Mr.
Grussendorf, "How would you view situations like 16 B, where you
take a group of hunters - closure - and put them in an area like
13, which is probably already in trouble?" He said that is in
contrast to considering how to deal with the effect of predators
other than man.
MR. GRUSSENDORF answered that "we" were faced with the decision
"in that area" of dropping into Tier II. He predicted that
nonresident hunting would be closed in many areas, after which
[the board] would have to work on predator control to avoid
dropping into Tier II. He talked about an estimation on March 1
[2001] that about 100 wolves existed in [Unit] 19 D/E; that
number would have to be reduced to 40 percent, with at least 20
percent remaining by "pupping" time. He mentioned there are
already Tier II hunts in relation to caribou near Anchorage and
said, "In my mind, that particular herd has been turned back on
itself so many times by hunting pressure that ... they have
problems." He mentioned the low weight and productivity rate of
those caribou.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he understood that Mr. Grussendorf's
recommendation for [Unit] 16 B would be to first limit
nonresident hunters, then to look at predator control. He asked
whether he would recommend the same program order for other
areas.
Number 0508
MR. GRUSSENDORF replied, hypothetically, that in many cases [the
Board of Game] would probably look at predator control before
going to a Tier II phase.
Number 0427
CO-CHAIR MASEK stated that Mr. Grussendorf's past record [as a
legislator] shows he voted against most of the measures brought
before the House of Representatives having to do with, for
instance, wolf control, which made her question whether he would
be a good Board of Game member; she said he appeared to be
representing the other side of the issue, rather than protecting
the people's right to hunt.
MR. GRUSSENDORF answered that Co-Chair Masek would not see that
in his present voting record in regard to 19 D East. In
response to a follow-up statement from Co-Chair Masek that she
was referring to his vote in the House on wolf predator control,
Mr. Grussendorf stated, "We have to separate this into intensive
game management and predator control." Regarding predator
control, he said the voters of the state were against "land and
shoot," and he is driven by public opinion. He mentioned a bill
and an amendment he supported, which would take out the words,
"as their agents." Regarding intensive game management, Mr.
Grussendorf clarified that he had objected to it when it was an
ambiguous proposal, but now that it is law, he would abide by
it, even if he may object to it. He summarized that intensive
game management and wolf predator control are laws now, no
longer a proposal for discussion.
Number 0115
CO-CHAIR MASEK asserted that Mr. Grussendorf's record still
reflects that he voted "no" consistently for any hunting issues
that have come before the legislative body.
MR. GRUSSENDORF replied, "Madam Chair, you'll find that is not
so."
CO-CHAIR MASEK continued, stating that Governor Knowles sent a
letter to the "previous" [Board of Game] members, [dated]
February 29, 2000, in which he stated: "The time to establish
significant and appropriate areas of complete protection for
wolves is long overdue." She also read the following: "Alaska
needs additional areas where bear populations are protected and
where bear viewing is a priority use." She asked Mr.
Grussendorf if he would be operating under the same orders from
the governor about the Board [of Game's] direction on management
policy.
MR. GRUSSENDORF responded that he was familiar with the letter,
and mentioned looking at factors and "game unit upon game unit."
TAPE 01-43, SIDE A
MR. GRUSSENDORF said [someone on the board] has stated that "we"
do not allow fires to burn anymore. Down in "your" area there
is, for example, blue joint (ph) grass, which is changing the
habitat and other things.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if Governor Knowles's direction that he
gave to the board is why no action was taken on the wolves in
Unit 13.
MR. GRUSSENDORF responded that a program has been established,
but unfortunately it cannot be implemented by the mandates of
the public. He stated that [Governor Knowles's direction] was
not one of the main issues. Each game unit is different. There
are areas where the moose are flourishing and areas where they
are floundering. He said around the Anchorage area there are a
tremendous number of people hunting. He added that everything
varies by pressure and he could not give a stock answer.
Number 0181
CO-CHAIR MASEK stated that a discussion took place at the spring
meeting concerning four-wheelers and other motorized methods of
transportation. The statute that created the Nelchina public-
use area states that motorized access for the purpose of
hunting, fishing, and trapping shall be allowed. She asked if
Mr. Grussendorf, as a board member, would uphold this provision
of law or consider action to eliminate motorized uses in the
Nelchina Basin, as some environmental groups have pressed for.
MR. GRUSSENDORF answered that [the Board of Game] has had
several proposals in regard to this; the board, after looking at
it, decided not to close those areas. However, he said, that
doesn't mean there is not a problem. In a couple of seasons
that herd swung back into the area that already had been browsed
and worked over.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if he would consider taking action to
eliminate motorized uses, specifically in the Nelchina Basin.
MR. GRUSSENDORF responded yes, he would consider it.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked why he would consider that if [the area]
was created as a public-use area in the statutes, which allows
motorized access for the purpose of hunting, fishing, and
trapping.
MR. GRUSSENDORF replied, "Action is one thing, but what you do
with that motorized vehicle after you have gotten your access
and pursue [it] as a rodeo or that type of thing is another
question." [The Board of Game] was asked to close some areas by
some groups but did not. He remarked that there are some
concerns, and [the Board of Game] has been shown pictures of the
Kenai area of what has happened to some of the terrain and
stream crossings. There are a lot of people who have different
ideas of what hunting is, he concluded; that needs to be taken
into consideration.
Number 0456
CO-CHAIR MASEK stated that also at the spring meeting an area
biologist presented information demonstrating that the moose
population in Unit 13 is severely on the decline, and that the
only way to reverse it is predator-prey management, primarily on
wolves. She asked Mr. Grussendorf, in his opinion, why the
board did not act on the information provided by the area
biologist.
MR. GRUSSENDORF answered that he does not believe there was a
proposal to that fact, other than a report.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked what actions he would take to restore the
moose population in Unit 13.
MR. GRUSSENDORF responded that, unfortunately, one of things
[the board] had to do was remove nonresident; then it went to a
spike-fork, and then 50 inches with four brow tines. He stated
that this is pretty restricted: it's bull-only. He explained
that it was very difficult in dealing with that, and that he
supposed [the board] could have said "55 inch ... with four brow
tine on each side." However, there would have been a lot of
people out there hunting, but would not have been able to shoot
a legal moose.
Number 0589
REPRESENTATIVE FATE commented that if only 3 percent [of game]
is taken by humans, then that would reduce the take in [Unit] 13
to less than that. He said, "You're feeding the wolves and
taking the moose away from the people." He asked Mr.
Grussendorf if he would expand the buffer zone around the
northeast corner of Denali Park called the Wolf Townships. He
added that there is a move to do this, and that biologists have
said that they do not need the buffer.
MR. GRUSSENDORF responded that if the biologists are saying that
a buffer isn't needed, and if people are satisfied in relation
to the preservation of that pack, then he probably would not.
He added that in order to gain predator control, there might
have to be some "give and take" in some areas where there is not
a prey problem.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Mr. Grussendorf if it was true that he
would not subscribe to strict predator control unless it was in
an intensive game management area.
MR. GRUSSENDORF answered that Representative Fate had
misunderstood, [possibly because] he had been trying to separate
the issues of predator control and intensive game management.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said intensive game management leads to the
other question of sustained yield, about which the constitution
is very clear. He asked Mr. Grussendorf if he would agree that
whether the [issue] involves an intensive game unit or not, [the
Board of Game] must apply the sustained yield principle, which
intermittently may involve predator control.
MR. GRUSSENDORF reminded the committee that when [Co-Chair
Masek] had previously asked about his voting record, he had
divided the voting issues into two categories: intensive game
management and fixed-wing predator control by people other than
the department. He suggested some confusion might have resulted
from having done that.
Number 0792
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned a priority for subsistence, the
reduction of hunters due to more frequent Tier II hunts, and the
3 percent take from hunting. He asked Mr. Grussendorf if he
thought it would be possible to reduce the other predators
through proper management and thereby avoid the necessity for
Tier II hunts in the state. Representative Green pointed out
that on Adak Island, where there are no predators other than
man, the caribou are approximately one-third to one-half again
as big as in other parts of the state. He added that [those
caribou] "impact the habitat area; it doesn't seem to have
caused them any problem." He questioned whether the conflict
statewide was due to habitat and other related [causes], or was
truly caused by predation. He asked whether there would be a
chance, if "we" were more aggressive on predator control, of
avoiding Tier II hunts.
MR. GRUSSENDORF responded that he would like to say "yes," but
gave an example of how many things were beyond "our" control in
dual [federal-state] management; he said the Board of Game can
try to manage for the health of game, but would be overshadowed
by the plans of the national government. He mentioned a
"customary and traditional" [standard], established in 1950 and
used on goats in Kodiak; he said the [Board of Game] can limit
hunting to [males] only, while the "feds" can say "any goat,"
which could be a [female] goat with kids. He cited other
examples, including the management of ewe and ram sheep, and cow
and bull moose. Mr. Grussendorf stated that dual management is
causing a problem in balancing these, even when predator control
is practiced.
Number 1101
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that the federal government owns
twice as much land as [the state] does. He mentioned the 44
million acres [in the Native land selection]; when added to [the
104 million acres controlled by the state], it adds up to
approximately 150 million acres, or one-third of the state,
[with the other two-thirds of Alaska being federally owned
land]. Although there is no control over the federal
government, it would help to take active predator control in the
areas that [the state] does control. He offered that the
[state] is only dealing with the symptoms, rather than attacking
the cause.
MR. GRUSSENDORF indicated his belief that on the federal land
one cannot "land and shoot," and that although the ADF&G has
been authorized to do some of that, it is not on federal lands.
He clarified that before the Board [of Game] makes a decision,
it first gets the opinions of legal counsel, the enforcement
agencies, and the biologists. He concluded that the [Board of
Game] process is an interesting process that he enjoys.
Number 1267
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Grussendorf why he wants to
serve on the board.
MR. GRUSSENDORF replied that he is interested in the subject.
He likened the experience to sitting around a campfire listening
to stories of people with the same interests.
Number 1282
CO-CHAIR MASEK stated her intent of hearing Board of Game
appointee Chip Dennerlein's opening statement, then moving on to
HCR 17.
Number 1375
WILLIAM H. "CHIP" DENNERLEIN, Appointee to the Board of Game,
testifying via teleconference, told the committee he has family
in Alaska and has been both resident and hunter in Alaska for 27
years, enjoying "watchable" to "edible" wildlife. Mr.
Dennerlein disagreed with a line from an article by Mike Doogan,
from the Anchorage Daily News, stating that Alaskans are just
"Americans who live here" and who don't have a real Alaskan
identity. Conversely, Mr. Dennerlein suggested that [Alaskans]
do have an identity, at the core of which is a very powerful
connection to fish and wildlife. He said, historically,
wildlife has sustained Alaskans and drawn people to move to
Alaska.
MR. DENNERLEIN stated that how [the board] meets the challenges
of today would determine whether healthy wildlife populations
can be sustained throughout the state for all users. He said it
was important for the Board [of Game] and the committee to
consider the following factors: federal management of land in
Alaska; growth in population; changes in land ownership,
including state, private, and Native; changes in land use and
economic use that affect access and habitat; changes in weather
patterns, wildlife populations and distributions; new challenges
dealing with moose in Gustavus and the Yukon/Kuskokwim Rivers;
changes in laws from the legislature, legal constraints by the
courts, and initiatives from the public; and changes in economic
and hunting habits, for example, less trapping than in the past.
He said subsistence is vital in Alaska, but many people do hold
jobs in a mixed economy, and it takes a great deal of work to go
out and run trap lines for four weeks at a time, "especially
when it comes to predators."
Number 1630
MR. DENNERLEIN told listeners that the challenges are real and
affect how [the Board of Game] has to think about game
management; tough decisions have led to bitter debates and often
have hampered, delayed, or complicated management. He shared
three firm beliefs: [The board] can meet the challenges; the
solutions are not mutually exclusive in a great majority of
situations; and [the members] can find solutions when there is a
balanced board committed to sustaining subsistence, sport, and
personal use and recreation and wildlife viewing.
MR. DENNERLEIN emphasized the importance of framing the issues
for the public so they can understand the often-controversial
management actions that need to be taken. He suggested looking
at the "whole toolbox" of management tools, and being willing to
use the tools in effective combinations. He mentioned habitat,
as well as a fire policy combined with hunting regulations and
active predator management, "whether nonlethal, in the
Fortymile, or lethal, as we have suggested in 19-D."
MR. DENNERLEIN recommended acquiring additional tools by working
with biologists, the public, and the legislature. He mentioned
the need for a tool to regulate air transport, which is emerging
as a major issue in some areas. He also mentioned the names of
some groups which, he said, could work cooperatively [with the
Board of Game]: the Board of Fisheries, the Federal Subsistence
Board, and Native landowners, who own tremendously important
lowland and riparian habitat through the [Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA)].
MR. DENNERLEIN cited his involvement in the successful effort of
creating a sheep management plan in Chugach State Park, which
now sustains, annually, one of the finest trophy hunts for sheep
in the state. He also mentioned his involvement in creating
safe pullouts on the highway for viewing of Dahl sheep;
migratory bird treaty efforts that have successfully restored
goose populations; and the "19-D East" plan, which Mr.
Dennerlein predicted would move forward and use predator control
to be successful, and about which he offered to answer questions
from the committee.
Number 1868
CO-CHAIR MASEK reminded committee members that they would listen
to testimony and ask questions regarding Mr. Dennerlein's
appointment on Friday [April 27, 2001].
Number 1883
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to statements made by Mr.
Dennerlein regarding lethal/nonlethal [methods] and the
Fortymile [caribou] herd. Representative Green said the
Canadians had successfully used sterilization for wolf control
for several years; he asked Mr. Dennerlein for his view on
sterilization as a compromise between eradication and "just
letting wolves proliferate."
Number 1921
MR. DENNERLEIN answered that [sterilization] is a recent tool
that "we" are learning more about. He pointed out that the
Canadians hadn't known whether a sterilized alpha male or female
would defend its territory anymore. He said, "We learned - and
contributed to the science - that [it] would." Mr. Dennerlein
continued:
What happened, I think, to be honest, is that
sterilization/nonlethal work, as a public program,
combined with continued trapping -- there were wolves
on the outskirts that otherwise would have filled that
vacuum that trappers took, under "trapping and legal
harvest." So, that's what I mean by a combination of
tools, if that's helpful.
MR. DENNERLEIN referred to his previous points about
[biologists] and using new tools while working with the public.
He stated that it was those key points that contributed to the
results in the Fortymile.
[The confirmation hearings for the Board of Game were held
over.]
HCR 17-SALE OF NATURAL GAS TO POWER DATA CENTERS
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 17, Expressing the
legislature's support for sale of a portion of Alaska's North
Slope natural gas for electrical generation to power data
centers within the North Slope Borough.
Number 2102
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 8:
Strike "is seeking"
Insert "has proposed"
Rationale: This still recognizes that Netricity is
the only company that has approached the state with
this idea, but does not assert any propriety to the
company for future sale.
Page 2, line 2:
After "a portion of"
Strike "Alaska's North Slope"
Insert "The State's Royalty Natural Gas from Alaska's
North Slope"
Rationale: This incorporates Royalty Gas, and leaves
the resolve to the generic sale of the gas, with no
companies mentioned.
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
CO-CHAIR MASEK called a brief at-ease at 3:18 p.m. She called
the meeting back to order at 3:20 p.m.
Number 2195
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN offered Amendment 2 [which was Senator
Torgerson's Amendment 1 to SCR 10, the companion resolution in
the Senate]. Amendment 2 read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 1:
After "natural gas resources;"
Insert
"WHEREAS AS 38.05.183 mandates that any sale
of the state's oil and gas royalty "shall be by
competitive bid" unless the commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources: (1) determines, in
writing with specific findings and conclusions, that
the best interest of the state does not require
competitive bidding or that no competition exists and
(2) gives notice to the Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas
Development Advisory Board;
WHEREAS AS 38.05.183 mandates that if the
commissioner determines to sell royalty oil or gas
non-competitively, the commissioner must consider the
criteria in AS 38.05.183(e) and 38.06.070;
WHEREAS 11 AAC 03.03.010 mandates that the
commissioner [sic] before the sale of royalty gas is
completed, whether by competitive bid or not, the
commissioner must make a public finding that the sale
is in the best interests of the state
WHEREAS AS 38.06.050 requires that before
any long-term, substantial sale of the state's oil or
gas can [sic] made, the sale must be reviewed by the
Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board
and it must issue a written recommendation to the
legislature about the sale;
WHEREAS AS 38.06.055 requires that before any
long-term, substantial sale of the state's oil or gas
can be made, the sale must be approved by the
legislature;"
Page 2, line 3
After "natural gas"
Insert "at a competitive, reasonable price"
Page 2, line 5
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State
Legislature requests that the commissioner determine
in a written finding whether the state's royalty share
of North Slope natural gas must be competitively bid
at this time, and, if it must, conduct a competitive
sale;
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State
Legislature requests that, if the commissioner
determines that the state's royalty share of North
Slope natural gas need not be competitively bid, the
commissioner: (1) enter into negotiations with
Netricity, L.L.C., or other qualified purchaser, for
the sale of the state's royalty share of North Slope
natural gas consistent with the procedures and
policies set forth in AS 38.05.183, AS 38.06.010 -
.080, and 11 AAC 03.010 - .250; and (2) by the first
day of the 2nd session of the 22nd legislature, either
present the legislature with a contract for the sale
of the North Slope royalty gas for approval or a
report explaining why the state should not sell its
royalty gas.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained that Amendment 2 would not
conflict with the previous amendment, but was, in a sense, an
addendum. While the state is very receptive to the offer made
by Netricity, it wants to make certain there is no
misunderstanding: it wants to protect its resources while
getting the absolute best value that it can. He added, "I think
that was incumbent upon us when we took the oath."
Number 2295
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2.
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 2319
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE made a motion to move HCR 17, as amended,
from committee with individual recommendations. There being no
objection, CSHCR 17(RES) was moved out of the House Resources
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:23 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|