Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/16/1994 08:15 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 16, 1994
8:15 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Pat Carney
Representative John Davies
Representative David Finkelstein
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eldon Mulder
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Johnny Ellis
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Curt Menard
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SB 77: "An Act relating to the powers of the Board
of Game and to intensive management of big
game to achieve higher sustained yield for
human harvest."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
SJR 13: Opposing the ban on the export of Alaska
North Slope crude oil; endorsing HR 543,
legislation removing restraints on the
export of Alaska North Slope oil; requesting
the Congress of the United States to pass
legislation to permit the export of Alaska
North Slope crude oil; and requesting the
President of the United States to present
to the United States Congress a recommendation
to lift the ban on the export of Alaska
North Slope crude oil.
NOT HEARD IN COMMITTEE; WILL BE RESCHEDULED
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR BERT SHARP
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 514
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3004
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor SB 77
DAVE KELLEYHOUSE, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 465-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the concept of SB 77
NOEL PUTNAM
Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club
846 Brown Deer
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Phone: 225-0687
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77
KATHERINE SMITH
Kachemak Bay
1193 Cooper Court
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-5448
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
NANCY HILLSTRAND
P.O. Box 170
Homer, Alaska 99603
Phone: 235-2572
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
RICHARD MACINTOSH
909 Mission Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone: 486-3087
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
MARY FORBES
418 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone: 486-2685
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
BILL HAGER
431 Gaffney Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Phone: 452-6295
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77
TED LEONARD
55 Mile Salcha River
Salcha, Alaska 99714
Phone: 452-5484
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77
MIKE TINKER
P.O. Box 25197
Ester, Alaska 99725
Phone: 479-2561
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77
JOEL BENNETT
114 W. 6th
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-1255
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
WILLIAM BURK
P.O. Box 240742
Douglas, Alaska 99824
Phone: 780-6019
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
JOHN GEORGE
Territorial Sportsmen
9515 Moraine Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 789-0172
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77
DAVE CLINE
National Audobon Society
11930 Circle Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Phone: 276-7034
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
TED RAYNOR
13801 Schubert Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Phone: 345-0608
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
CATHY GLEASON
4211 Bridle Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Phone: 248-0442
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
DICK BISHOP
1555 Gus's Grind
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Phone: 455-6151
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77
PETE BUIST
P.O. Box 71561
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Phone: 457-7189
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77
PETE SHEPERD
1012 Galena Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Phone: 474-4685
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77
CAROL JENSEN
8451 Granhill Way
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Phone: 344-7078
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
TRACY ABELL
Alaska Sierra Club
13030 Bates Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Phone: 345-0132
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
SANDRA ARNOLD
P.O. Box 200606
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
Phone: 276-3670
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
ROD ARNO, President
Alaska Outdoor Council
P.O. Box 2790
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Phone: 376-2913
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77
OLIVER BURRIS
2801 Talkeetna
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Phone: 474-0437
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77
TOM SCARBOROUGH
1676 Taroka Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Phone: 479-4312
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77
GREG MACHACEK
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association
P.O. Box 56245
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Phone: 488-4534
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77
MARY VAN DUESEN
3510 W. 30th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Phone: 243-7550
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
STEPHEN WELLS
Alaska Wildlife Alliance
P.O. Box 202022
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
Phone: 277-0877
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
TERRY BURRELL
3716 Wesleyan
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Phone: 563-4454
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
GEORGE MATS
Anchorage Audubon Society
14345 Cody
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
GORDON HABER
Denali Park, Alaska 99755
Phone: 683-2761
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 77
SHORT TITLE: INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME RESOURCES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP,Frank,Taylor,Miller;
REPRESENTATIVE(S): Therriault,James
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/29/93 188 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/29/93 188 (S) RESOURCES
02/03/93 227 (S) COSPONSOR: MILLER
02/10/93 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTRVICH RM 205
02/10/93 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/19/93 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTRVICH RM 205
02/24/93 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTRVICH RM 205
02/24/93 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/26/93 500 (S) RES RPT CS 2DP 3DNP 1NR
NEW TITLE
02/26/93 500 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB &
CS (F&G)
02/26/93 (S) RLS AT 01:15 PM FAHRENKAMP
RM 203
03/09/93 (S) RLS AT 12:15 PM FAHRENKAMP
RM 203
03/09/93 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/10/93 710 (S) RULES RPT 3 CAL 1NR 3/10/93
03/10/93 719 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/10/93 719 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/10/93 719 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y9 N10 E1
03/10/93 721 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG FAILED
Y11 N8 E1
03/10/93 721 (S) THIRD READING 3/11 CALENDAR
03/11/93 756 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB77(RES)
03/11/93 756 (S) PASSED Y11 N8 E1
03/11/93 756 (S) DONLEY NOTICE OF RECON
03/12/93 783 (S) RECON TAKEN UP-IN THIRD READING
03/12/93 784 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION
Y11 N8 E1
03/12/93 786 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/15/93 643 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/15/93 643 (H) RESOURCES
03/15/93 658 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): THERRIAULT
04/17/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/19/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/21/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
01/13/94 2056 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): JAMES
02/16/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SJR 13
SHORT TITLE: EXPORT OF ALASKA OIL
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S)ELLIS,Kelly,Rieger,Frank,Leman,
Donley,Kerttula,Sharp Pearce,Little,Duncan,Phillips,Miller;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Green,Grussendorf,Nordlund,Porter,
Finkelstein,Navarre
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/11/93 14 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 15 (S) RESOURCES, JUDICIARY
03/24/93 933 (S) COSPONSOR(S): DONLEY
03/31/93 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTRVICH RM 205
03/31/93 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/31/93 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/05/93 1100 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP NEW TITLE
04/05/93 1100 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB &
CS (REV)
01/21/94 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ RM 211
01/21/94 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
01/26/94 2595 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP NEW TITLE
01/26/94 2596 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO CS
PUBLISHED (REV)
01/26/94 (S) RLS AT 11:30 AM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
01/26/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
01/28/94 2614 (S) RULES RPT CS 5CAL AND DP
NEW TITLE
01/28/94 2614 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES TO
CS (REV)
01/28/94 2624 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
01/28/94 2625 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
01/28/94 2625 (S) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA, SHARP,
PEARCE
01/28/94 2625 (S) LITTLE,DUNCAN,PHILLIPS,MILLER
01/28/94 2625 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
01/28/94 2625 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME
CSSJR 13(RLS)
01/28/94 2626 (S) PASSED Y16 N- E4
01/28/94 2626 (S) Kelly NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
02/01/94 2642 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
02/01/94 2643 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/02/94 2212 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/02/94 2213 (H) O&G, RESOURCES
02/02/94 2230 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): GREEN,
GRUSSENDORF
02/02/94 2230 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): NORDLUND
02/07/94 (H) O&G AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/09/94 2314 (H) O&G RPT 5DP
02/09/94 2314 (H) DP: KOTT,SITTON,OLBERG,G.DAVIS,
GREEN
02/09/94 2314 (H) -PREV. SEN. ZERO FISCAL NOTE
(REV) 1/26
02/16/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-16, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by
Chairman Bill Williams at 8:21 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Bunde,
Davies, Green, and James. Members absent were
Representatives Carney, Finkelstein, and Mulder.
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced there is a quorum present.
He noted that the committee is on teleconference with
Fairbanks, Anchorage, Ketchikan, Homer, Kodiak, Tok, Delta
Junction, Cordova, Mat-Su, Glennallen, and Bethel. He said
the committee will take up SB 77. He advised that the
sponsor of SB 77, Senator Bert Sharp has provided a draft
committee substitute. This is the first hearing on SB 77 so
no action will be taken.
Number 046
SB 77 - INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME RESOURCES
SENATOR BERT SHARP, PRIME SPONSOR SB 77, stated he will be
speaking to the bill which came from the Senate, CSSB
77(RES). He explained the draft House committee substitute
is similar; it is restructured and has a legislative intent
added.
SENATOR SHARP read his sponsor statement: "The primary
thrust of SB 77 is to provide clear legislative direction to
the Board of Game in regard to priority management goals and
mission of the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G),
particularly in the management of the larger species of
game. Recent political actions accentuate a dire need for a
strong legislative mandate, something which has never been
addressed for big game in the state.
"For close to 30 years, the mission of the Board of Game and
ADF&G has gradually become distorted and the result has been
a steady decline in the populations of the game resource in
many areas of the state. The value and use of biologically
sound aggressive scientific management has been severely
eroded, resulting in Alaska's current game management
policies that manage people first, not the resource. The
management process presently employs only passive techniques
such as shortening hunting seasons, changing methods and
means, establishing permit only hunts and just flat out
closing seasons entirely. Each of these have contributed to
the reduction in hunting opportunities for vast numbers of
Alaskans.
"The stark reality is that every reduction in hunting
seasons without corresponding reductions of predators has in
fact been a reallocation of the resource from people to
predator. These past passive management actions have
created the current situation where the Alaskan people
harvest two to three percent of the game, while predators
take 80 to 90 percent." Senator Sharp requested committee
members to look at a diagram in their folders showing
harvest ratio. (On file.)
Number 087
SENATOR SHARP continued with his sponsor statement: "Time
and time again, surveys and studies of game populations have
revealed that during the first 30 days after calving season,
up to 90 percent of the newborn are gone. Do the mothers
suddenly abandon them? Do they starve? Does a plague
decimate only the newborn? The answer is none of the above.
The answer is the same today as it was five years ago, or
ten years ago, or twenty years ago. Predators are very
selective and efficient in killing newborn caribou, moose
and sheep. Absolutely no question about it. We have
literally spent tens of millions of dollars doing population
surveys and watching it happen.
"The lack of a clear legislative direction encourages
administrations, the board, and the department to play it
safe by continually needing just a couple more years to
obtain more studies to support any proposed changes from
passive management to effective, positive hands on
management action. Serious habitat deterioration has
occurred both naturally and by human actions--primarily
forest fire control action. There has been very few uses of
controlled burns and when they have been used, they have
been very effective. Other proven habitat enhancement
methods have been seldom used. These actions probably would
increase game populations more than predator reduction
efforts. They are intensive management tools.
Number 112
"Today's volatile problem of allocating existing game
resources could be minimized and in many cases eliminated by
increasing game populations up to historically proven
maximum sustainable levels. Abundant game levels are the
common sense answers to solve the current personal use,
sport hunting and viewing needs. This bill states a clear
legislative intent in marking the course and setting goals
of game management for the board and department. It
requires the maintenance of the state's game resource at a
high sustainable yield level. It restates the necessity of
including the human harvest factor into the sustained yield
formula.
"Alaska long ago took this course in the management of its
fisheries that put fish into the nets of fishermen and
dollars into the pockets of fishermen by aggressive
intensive management. Let us do the same to put meat into
the cooking pots of thousands of Alaskans. This resource
has the potential to provide hundreds of millions of dollars
in consumptive use value for the people throughout Alaska.
I ask for your support of this legislative effort."
Number 130
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY felt predators become game also,
and asked if there is a way to differentiate between
productive meat animals and their predators when defining
game.
SENATOR SHARP replied that big game is defined as bear and
wolf, which are the primary predators. Intensive management
of bear can be accomplished by liberalizing the seasons when
the prey population is in severe decline. It is more
difficult to manage wolves as they have not been
aggressively pursued by trapping because of the low price of
fur and the remoteness of most activity.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVES
CARNEY and FINKELSTEIN joined the committee at 8:25 a.m. and
8:35 a.m. He also noted that REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA had
joined the committee.)
Number 159
SENATOR SHARP stated that intensive management is more of a
quick response mandate and it is up to the game managers to
decide which portion of it will be most effective and
identify population areas. He said when looking at the
diagram, it is like a house fire. If you show up at a house
fire, and you only put water on 2 1/2 percent of the house
fire, it is not very effective. The only way to regroup is,
once you get down to the foundation, you can build it again.
He said to control only 2 1/2 percent of the harvest by
intensive management is like fighting a house fire.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked Senator Sharp, if the
committee adopts SB 77 as drafted, does he believe the
department will still have the discretion to make decisions
relating to predator controls, etc., or will they be
directed to some outside intent.
Number 179
SENATOR SHARP replied CSSB 77, in conjunction with many
comments from ADF&G, includes wording changes which allow
for discretion. He said on page one, line nine, the bill
reads "where the board has determined..." On page two, line
21, it reads "requiring the department, within the
department's ability..." On page two, line 24, the bill
reads "where the board has determined..." And, on page two,
lines 29 and 30 read "enhancement of abundance or
productivity of the big game population is feasible." He
stressed those are areas where the board will still maintain
discretionary options based on information supplied to them
by ADF&G. He added that amendments will be acceptable to
clarify that the board does retain emergency closure rights
in case of severe biological decline.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked, referring to the harvest
ratio diagram, where road and railroad kills are shown.
SENATOR SHARP answered those appear in the natural mortality
section.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES felt the definition of intensive
management emphasizes predator control and asked if that is
correct.
SENATOR SHARP replied in reality that is correct. The fact
is that all predators, including humans, should be
addressed. Predators have to bear their responsibility for
restoration of abundance in a declining situation. He
reiterated the board still maintains discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES inquired what source was used for the
information contained in the diagram.
SENATOR SHARP stated the information was supplied by
advocates of the bill and noted that on the diagram, it
states the data is from ADF&G, and is dated 1991.
Number 268
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed concern with the analogy of
SB 77 to a fire. He said the natural relationship between
predators and prey has existed for a long time and this
issue should not be characterized as a fire. He stated if
one looks at a smaller portion of a management unit where
the human take is a much larger percentage, closures make
sense. When looking at the diagram, he could not understand
why closures would ever be important.
SENATOR SHARP replied that the Constitution says wildlife
and other resources shall be managed under the sustained
yield principle. He said sustained yield for game has never
been defined. Therefore, ADF&G, the board and anyone else
can make their own definition and justify in their mind what
that definition is. This bill defines sustained yield. He
stressed an allocation problem will exist if natural cycles
occur. If the human harvest element is taken out and there
is a reallocation to the remaining predators, the predators
will force the prey population down to a severe level where
the prey move out or starve out. The human element is
inflicted with periods of extreme critical shortages. The
object of SB 77 is to bring the bottoming out of the natural
cycle up to a point where there is a limited time of
scarcity.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN said in looking at the
context of the entire bill, it seems there is a mixture of
people in the state interested in both consumptive uses and
nonconsumptive uses. There is a set a laws which allows the
Board of Game to make decisions to allocate resources based
on that--to engage in predator control and other means to
achieve the goals which best suit the interests of all
people. He stated he does not understand what is being done
in the bill that the board is not already doing under law.
SENATOR SHARP replied many people think the necessity for SB
77 is the fact that there is no legislative guidelines. The
Constitution mandates sustained yield, but it has never been
defined. It has been defined in other resource managements
by statute. He believed it is unfair to expect changing
administrations and personalities within the department to
not have a guideline on the definition of sustained yield,
which is the primary goal of managing any resource that is
replenishable in the state. The wolf control issue is a
current issue, but if one were to look back in history, they
will find wolf control has only been utilized twice in
twenty years. Legislative intent is important in that it
allows the board to have the option of determining if
predator control is a problem. If it is not, they have the
latitude to determine whether it is feasible, practical and
applicable by identified game populations.
Number 391
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stressed that Senator Sharp is
describing tools which ADF&G and the Board of Game already
have and decisions they are already making. He asked
Senator Sharp if he is unhappy with the decisions they are
making and therefore wants to impose a mandate to restrict
their future options.
SENATOR SHARP stated in the past, previous administrations
have ignored board orders and countermanded them on
decisions they had made, based on scientific evidence. He
did not feel politics should interfere with the board's
decision. The bill defines sustained yield for the first
time and is a recognition that the human harvest element is
an important factor to be considered. The human harvest
cannot be eliminated and reallocated to other predators,
because if it is reallocated, it is not an effective control
method.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he did not mention politics,
but is saying all the powers already exist within the board
and the tools are already available to them. The definition
of sustained yield is just one sentence at the very end of
the bill. He pointed out that many people feel the
legislature should not be imposing mandates on the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game. If the boards already have
the power and the ability to use the tools, and mandates are
imposed, the will of the legislature is being imposed on a
decision which they already have the authority to make.
People believe the legislature should express their views
through who gets on the boards. If the legislature is
unhappy with the steps the boards have taken or the tools
they have used, the confirmation process should be used
instead of imposing mandates.
Number 432
SENATOR SHARP agreed that the boards have options to
consider any means proposed to them. Many times, what is
proposed is not followed through on, based on scientific
information. He felt the legislature owes it to the board
and the public, for public necessity and need, to have a
clear legislative direction on the goals to manage the
resource, to leave enough discretionary latitude for the
board and the department to determine, based on scientific
information where the problem is, and only exercise
corrective action on the problem areas. He said the board
has that now, but it is not working.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated he did not view the proposed
legislation entirely as a mandate. He said Administrative
Procedures Act 44.62.030, provides for the consistency
between regulations and statute. He views SB 77 as a policy
statement which says the Board of Game now considers
identified big game population regulations, where the board
has determined that consumptive use is preferred use. He
does not view it as a mandate, but rather as a strong
intent.
Number 474
SENATOR SHARP responded that is correct. He said the new
wording in the proposed legislation allows for discretionary
board decisions on feasibility, determination, identifying
the game species involved and identifying proper action.
The bill says if the allocation for human harvest is
reduced, the other predators which are responsible for 85
percent of the take should be looked at.
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA said page two, line 23 of the
committee substitute reads "requiring the department to
conduct intensive management programs" and in looking at the
changes ADF&G recommended, it says "within the department's
ability."
SENATOR SHARP replied that language is in the draft House
committee substitute and he is only addressing the Senate
version.
Number 515
DAVE KELLEYHOUSE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, stated the
division supports the concept of intensive management and
has worked closely with Senator Sharp. On the Senate side,
many of the division's concerns have been incorporated. He
said the division's official position on the bill is
neutral, pending additional amendments.
MR. KELLEYHOUSE noted that he had reviewed the draft House
committee substitute for SB 77 and found the version which
passed the Senate to be preferable. The department
recommends several amendments. In Section 1 (a), the
department recommends that the words "it considers advisable
in accordance with" be retained and eliminate the word
"under". He also felt that changing the word "may" to
"shall" provides the stronger legislative intent. On page
two, line 21, the department recommends substituting the
word "authorizing" for the word "requiring". They feel that
change will maintain the discretion needed as a department
and did not feel it proper for a board to direct and
prioritize departmental resources. On page three, line six,
the department recommends substituting the word "effective"
for the word "ineffective" and "appropriate" for the word
"inappropriate".
MR. KELLEYHOUSE stressed a demonstration of the collective
will of the legislature is needed to ensure that the board
and future administrations encourage Alaska's wildlife
managers to responsibly enhance game populations in certain
areas. In this manner, much of the divisiveness between
Alaska hunters over needlessly scarce or unproductive game
populations can be avoided. He believed SB 77 will give
clear legislative intent for game managers in the state to
do what they do best.
Number 700
NOEL PUTNAM, KETCHIKAN SPORTS AND WILDLIFE CLUB, KETCHIKAN,
expressed strong support for SB 77.
KATHERINE SMITH, KACHEMAK BAY CONSERVATION SOCIETY, HOMER,
testified via teleconference, and expressed opposition to SB
77. She said the bill (indiscernible) wildlife management
based on population and harvest data and (indiscernible)
area residents with a legislative red meat mandate. By
placing the burden of high sustained yields on managers, SB
77 disregards the professional expertise of game biologists
in the department, it disregards knowledge of residents, it
disregards customary, religious, and cultural uses of
wildlife by Natives, it disregards the ecological value of
(indiscernible) ecosystem systems, and it also disregards
the constitutional mandate to manage wildlife for sustained
yields.
TAPE 94-16, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. SMITH continued that SB 77 does not promote multiple use
sustained yield management or a good stewardship on the
state's resources. She felt the proposed legislation will
be perceived by the outside world as another predator
eradication scheme and the legislative heated frenzy toward
it will hurt Alaska. The state's crazed image outside will
continue to grow, which is a detriment to the state's
visitor industry. She urged the committee to reject SB 77
and let the competent biologists decide what their preferred
use of game is. She told committee members to not go
against science, common sense, and public opinion by
legislating a red meat mandate.
NANCY HILLSTRAND, HOMER, testified via teleconference, and
expressed opposition to SB 77. She felt the Board of Game
already has the power to adopt regulations for all Alaskans
to balance the wildlife populations. She believed the Board
of Game is a democratic process which assures all Alaskans
have a voice. She said SB 77 is definitely a mandate. She
reminded members there are a lot of Alaskans, not just a
certain group, who may utilize game for consumptive use.
Ms. Hillstrand stated that SB 77 tells people not to
participate in the Board of Game and she felt it is a
politically motivated bill. She urged the committee to take
no action on SB 77.
RICHARD MACINTOSH, KODIAK, testified via teleconference, and
expressed his opposition to SB 77. He said although the
bill deals with predator control, it also mandates the use
of fire and other techniques which are weighted in favor of
human harvest. He felt the bill minimizes other important
uses of the state's game. He said one major influence on
game populations in the state is habitat degradation of
various types through human development. On page three, the
bill states if the game population is reduced and there is
protectional restrictions on human harvest, the board must
implement intensive management procedures. Even though 50
percent of the habitat in an area is destroyed, this bill
mandates intensive management to make up for that and to
bring populations back to a historical level, which may
never realistically be achieved because of human
disturbance. He urged committee members not to pass SB 77.
Number 056
MARY FORBES, KODIAK, testified via teleconference, and
expressed opposition to SB 77. She does not believe that
management of resources belongs in the hands of the
legislature. It belongs in the hands of the hired
professionals. She disagrees with what is considered best
use of the resource and how that is determined. She felt SB
77 is a special interest bill, sponsored by the hunters.
BILL HAGER, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference, and
expressed support of SB 77. He said he was responsible for
the information contained in the diagram in the members'
folders. He stressed SB 77 will enhance the Alaska
constitutional basis. He noted that four years ago the
constitutional directors started to develop game resource
rules and reasons to prevent shortages from occurring. The
legislature was supposed to pass a sustained yield
definition, directing the Board of Game to manage and
prevent the department from mismanaging the state's game
resource. It was discovered that the legislature had not
passed the definition and that is why SB 77 is in front of
committee members.
MR. HAGER stated SB 77 had passed the Senate and is
constitutionally sound. He stressed the legislation is for
the Board of Game, not the department. The bill will
prevent bureaucrats and technocrats from arbitrarily
manipulating the board and deceiving people into believing
there is an uncontrollable reason for the shortage. There
was an attempt to reverse the shortage within the system at
the November 1992 Board of Game meeting, but the department
out-foxed that attempt. He urged committee members to pass
out SB 77.
Number 110
TED LEONARD, SALCHA, testified via teleconference, and urged
committee members to pass SB 77 to implement and emphasize
the sustained yield clause of the Constitution. Many people
rely on game as a major source of protein in their diets,
not only because of the economic importance, but because
wild game is healthier, lower in calories and fat, and is
without chemical residues. He added that hunting is an
important part of his culture and tradition. He noted there
have been hard feelings in the Interior between the
(indiscernible) and others who live in the country because
of the shortage of game. If the resources were more
properly managed and predators controlled, there would be no
shortage and no cause for conflicts.
MIKE TINKER, CHAIRMAN, FAIRBANKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
testified via teleconference, and urged committee members to
pass SB 77. He said the overriding problem is that
management has not been responsive to human needs;
consumptive and nonconsumptive users. One only has to look
at the controversies, subsistence priorities and wildly
fluctuating seasons and bag limits and the regulations which
go along with them. It is easy to defer to the politics of
the moment. He felt a stable policy is needed on the
direction and emphasis for game managers.
MR. TINKER stated the number of Alaskans is growing,
especially in the bush, so the resource user groups and the
visitor industry will be impacted. The state needs a
direction to manage game species and their habitats to
ensure that uses which are taken for granted by the framers
of Alaska's Constitution are in place. Sustained yield for
use by humans was so obvious to early Alaskans that they did
not specify sustained yields in the fish and game titles as
it is specified, for example, in the Department of Natural
Resources statute.
MR. TINKER felt it makes sense to promote policy and
emphasis which result in a better public understanding,
better public input into the process, and better acceptance
of the management concepts and guidelines. He stressed now
is the time to redirect the policy and solve the problems of
subsistence shortages and confusion over the prioritizing of
users. Mr. Tinker felt SB 77 states the intention of the
state's constitutional framers; that is, the uses were
intended for the public. He emphasized SB 77 does not limit
that, it just ensures there will be plenty of game for
however many people want to use it.
Number 165
JOEL BENNETT, JUNEAU, told committee members he is an active
hunter and fisherman, has been interested in responsible
game management since becoming a state resident 25 years
ago, and served on the state Board of Game for 13 years. He
urged the committee to reject SB 77. He felt the Board of
Game has sufficient authority now and the bill is
unnecessary. It confuses existing language with terms that
are vague. He believed SB 77 is ill-advised because
mandating predator control is not sound game management.
Predators are also classified as big game animals and may be
pushed below safe population levels. Sustained yield has to
operate for their benefit as well. It is not known which
predators are responsible for reduced game populations, if
in fact predators are responsible at all.
MR. BENNETT said SB 77 simply states predation - it could be
black bears, grizzly bears, wolves - all need to be accorded
sustained yield principles as well. Bears are valuable as
commercial resources and deserve to be protected at high
levels for commercial hunting as well as for other user
groups. He felt the bill is flawed as it fails to specify
which predators. He noted there was mention of maximum
sustained yield and stressed it is not a concept which is in
Title A of the Constitution. It was intentionally left
vague at that point so latitude could be accorded to the
board or other authorities charged with implementing the
concept. To define sustained yield in a maximum way, like
the committee substitute does, is going way beyond what the
legislature should do.
MR. BENNETT pointed out that this kind of action is what is
contributing to federal efforts to close federal lands to
various forms of predator control. He felt the proposed
legislation is unnecessarily provocative, serves to further
divide and polarize the general public, subject to predator
control, is complex and must be carefully considered by the
board through its own public process with an in-depth
analysis by the department. He urged committee members to
leave the authority where it is.
Number 220
WILLIAM BURK, JUNEAU, said he strongly opposes SB 77. The
present predator control of wolves in the state is going to
cost the state in excess of $200,000, which he felt is a lot
of money especially since the state is having budget
problems. He stressed since the majority of Alaskans are
not hunters and do not have a need to hunt for food, there
is no need to bow to the whims of the minority. Predator
control has been tried before and has never worked and added
that wolves have been completely eradicated from the
lower 48.
MR. BURK also opposed giving so much power to a board
elected by the Governor and which is a political
appointment. He said the present board members are all
hunters. There are no environmentalists and no biologists,
so naturally they will decide to make more sustained yield
for killing and using meat. He felt the Board of Game
should be made up of an equal number of environmentalists
and biologists.
Number 247
JOHN GEORGE, TERRITORIAL SPORTSMEN, JUNEAU, expressed
support of SB 77. He stated there are radical swings not
only in the game species, but also in the predator species;
when there is something for the predator to eat, the number
of predators increase. When the predators have eaten all of
the game, they begin to starve. He stressed that SB 77
stabilizes the number of predators, as well as the number of
game animals available for harvest. Game is a renewable
resource and if the renewable nature is maximized, there
will be a good population to be harvested and for the
predators to eat. It will be a win/win situation. He felt
the ecosystem people have made predator control an expensive
program. There are efficient ways for predator control but
unfortunately, the fair chase methods have been used, making
it inefficient.
Number 275
DAVE CLINE, NATIONAL AUDOBON SOCIETY, PROFESSIONAL WILDLIFE
BIOLOGIST, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and
stressed that SB 77 is a very bad bill. The bill separates
special interests predator control legislation, is bad for
wildlife, and is bad for the majority of Alaskans and other
Americans who should have a say on how wildlife is managed
in the state. He stated SB 77 is bad for wildlife because
it puts game species at risk of over harvest. Alaska is too
big to adequately determine and enforce maximum sustained
yield. As history shows, as over harvest occurs,
populations take many years to recover. This legislation
will also lead to over harvest of predators with high
aesthetic appeal, like wolves and bears. Those populations
will also take many years to recover.
MR. CLINE said putting most the state's scarce wildlife
resources in (indiscernible) for a few favorite game species
will jeopardize conservation efforts for wildlife species
and populations which are in trouble. He felt widespread
predator control will embroil Alaska, further the national
controversy and further damage the state's image as a
preferred tourism destination. Alaska's grand wildlife and
wild lands deserve much better treatment by the state than
what will occur under the proposed meat market approach to
wildlife management. He stressed SB 77 is ecologically,
economically, socially, and politically unsound and
encouraged committee members to reject it.
Number 310
TED RAYNOR, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and
said contrary to the notion that those who oppose predator
control are outside or antigun, antihunting, antifishing
fanatics, etc., there are many people who oppose SB 77, who
were born and raised in Alaska and continue to feed
themselves with fish and game. He stated some Board of Game
officials and many other elected officials got their
collective egos bruised when public outcry forced Governor
Hickel to back off his aerial wolf killing plan. He felt
wolves being shot currently are being done so out of spite,
to assure those outcriers that they cannot tell the state
what to do. He said the wolves are just innocent bystanders
in this war of wills.
MR. RAYNOR wondered how far the predator control issue will
be taken and gave examples of such. He said humans are
predators and any predator control program must include them
or it will be pure hypocrisy. Some experts believe the
population of Alaska will double to over one million people
by the year 2015. When this happens, issues and
controversies can be expected making the wolf control issue
seem like nothing. He encouraged members to stick SB 77
into a lame hold trap and shoot it.
Number 340
CATHY GLEASON, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and
stated she agreed with former testimony questioning why the
state is spending any time on SB 77, when the state is in
such a fiscal crisis. People in Juneau should be
concentrating on resolving budget problems rather than
sponsoring bills such as SB 77. She wondered what the cost
will be to intensively manage and identify big game
populations and asked where the money will come from.
MS. GLEASON stressed the minority of people in the state
kill animals and felt SB 77 does not represent her views as
a nonhunter or the views of the majority of the people in
the state. Nonconsumptive users are not being treated as
valid users of the state's animal resources. She felt SB 77
is strictly geared toward hunters, and she cannot understand
how this bill can be justified since it only caters to an
extremely small special interest minority. She asked
committee members how they came up with the obtuse statement
in Section 1, which says the legislature (indiscernible)
maximum sustained yield is the highest and best use of the
game resources of this state. She stressed the legislature
should be representing the people of Alaska which includes
her, and she emphatically stated she does not agree that
maximum yield is the highest and best use of game resources
in the state. She urged committee members to reject SB 77.
DICK BISHOP, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, FAIRBANKS, testified
via teleconference, stating the council strongly supports SB
77. He stated the council has worked with Senator Sharp,
ADF&G and members of the public on refinement of the bill.
He remarked that SB 77 is important, as the existing statute
fails to provide adequate direction for management of
wildlife in order to meet the constitutional intent to
manage on a sustained yield principle. In some
circumstances, intensive management is necessary to provide
adequate opportunity for human consumptive uses. SB 77
recognizes that need and requires the Board of Game and
ADF&G take action to meet the needs.
MR. BISHOP said game species are invaluable resources which
provide food and recreation as well as contribute to
maintaining cultural, spiritual and philosophical values
through hunting and other uses. Managing big game for food
is ecologically correct and environmentally conservative
compared to commercially produced food sources. SB 77 will
not disadvantage wildlife viewing, photography or similar
uses; more likely it will enhance them. SB 77 does not
mandate that Alaska become a big game farm, rather it
provides the framework and the directive for effective
management. He stated many Alaskans have been frustrated by
the refusal of past boards and administrations to take
action when big game populations were depressed. SB 77 will
go far in relieving these frustrations, at least in areas
which are not federally ruled. The council urges the
committee to pass SB 77.
Number 416
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE
CURT MENARD had joined the committee.)
PETE BUIST, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference, and
urged the committee's support for SB 77. He said
consumptive users are being asked to contribute more and
more money for a decreased opportunity. The decreased
opportunity seems to be the result of political pressures
and wildlife managers who are anxious to design wildlife
management regimes which favor nonconsumptive uses and
values. He noted allocations for predators seem to outweigh
the allocation for humans. He pointed out that hunters are
being asked to pay for management regimes which are actually
detrimental to their interests. Passage of SB 77 is the
only fair thing to do. There are millions of acres of
national parks where nature can take its course. This
proposed legislation will mean that a few areas can be
actively managed to provide meat for Alaskan families. He
urged committee members to support SB 77.
(CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that SENATOR JOHNNY
ELLIS has joined the committee.)
PETE SHEPERD, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference, and
urged passage of SB 77. He said framers of the Constitution
saw a mechanism which would assure the system equal access
and sustainable utilization of Alaska's renewable resources.
Sustained yield has acquired political meanings adverse to
managed use of the state's replenishable resource. These
physiological uses are far from the original understanding
and clear meaning of Article 8, Section 4. Over the years,
the framers' intentions have been subverted by a lack of
guidelines for sustainable wildlife management.
MR. SHEPERD stated (indiscernible) constitutional mandate to
manage replenishable wildlife resources for maximum
sustained yield has become common with those who advocate a
no-action preservation and philosophy. (Indiscernible)
forward and does not suggest conserve and preserve, and
requires maintenance of replenishable resources at higher
levels of productivity. Rather than for Alaska to design
the opportunity, there are millions and millions of dollars
in economic, (indiscernible) and subsistence benefits from
consumptive use and replenishable wildlife resources.
(Indiscernible) Constitution mandates action by the
legislature and state management agency. He told committee
members they can be assured that the needs of all user
groups will be met by simply following the original
understanding of maximum sustained yield. Passage of SB 77
will redirect management of the state's replenishable
resources to the benefit of all.
Number 485
CAROL JENSEN, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and
stressed that SB 77 is only fair to the Fairbanks and Tok
areas for their recreational hunters. It completely ignores
the desires and wishes of the remaining people in Alaska and
those in the lower 48 who own the wildlife. It goes without
saying that the only selfish people being heard from are the
sport and recreational hunters urging passage of SB 77. She
stressed that subsistence hunting is allowed in national
parks and in all refuges, sanctuaries and monuments, sport
and subsistence hunting is allowed. She said she plans to
fax the rest of her testimony to the committee. She
expressed her opposition to SB 77.
Number 515
TRACY ABELL, ALASKA CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB, ANCHORAGE,
testified via teleconference, and stated the club is opposed
to passage of SB 77. She said the club is against a policy
which will artificially boost game species populations at
the expense of other animals. It is particularly disturbing
that no attempts will be made to reduce hunting pressure or
to study other alternatives before predators will be
systematically killed. She stressed it is bad public policy
to mandate the killing of a species as the first and only
wildlife management tool. Alaska's wildlife should not be
managed for the full benefit of hunters and trappers.
Predator control programs are short sighted and can only
result in a damaged ecosystem.
SANDRA ARNOLD, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and
expressed her strong opposition to SB 77. She said she is
not against hunting, she is not an animal rights fanatic and
she is not against wildlife management. She stressed she is
against intensively micromanaging wildlife to benefit a
small percentage of Alaskans, up against artificially
inflating game species in certain fixed areas all at the
expense of other species.
MS. ARNOLD stated she cannot understand why the state wants
to perpetuate this controversy, further dividing Alaskans,
and making a mockery of the public process for setting
wildlife decisions. She said a letter received from
Representative James stated that the committee values
Alaska's uniquely open, public process for setting wildlife
regulations, yet SB 77 shuts out the public by stripping the
Board of Game of any flexibility. The State Constitution
says wildlife belongs to all Alaskans and no where does it
say that it will be intensively managed in such a way to
benefit one special interest group.
MS. ARNOLD pointed out that the goal of SB 77 is not to
increase wildlife for everyone but to increase hunting. She
believed that SB 77 also increases hunting convenience and
guarantees success as well. She asked why the state is
considering a bill which will erase the challenge of hunting
which by definition includes the possibility of failure.
Many people have said, in defense of SB 77, hunters pay fees
and hunters pay for game management, so therefore wildlife
belongs to them. She stressed wildlife belongs to all
Alaskans. She felt SB 77 is a welfare bill for people who
eat meat. Nonconsumptive users of wildlife will gladly pay
their way into having a say in wildlife management if given
a meaningful way to do so.
MS. ARNOLD said in regard to high levels of sustained yield,
that is an oxymoron. Contemporary wildlife journals say
that sustained yield is not definable, yet Senator Sharp
purports to define it in a three page bill. She stated
while she realizes that wildlife must be managed, she
believes the language in SB 77 does more to reflect a
political agenda which provides for the long term viability
of Alaska's wildlife. She urged committee members to reject
SB 77.
Number 590
ROD ARNO, PRESIDENT, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, PALMER,
testified via teleconference, and urged passage of SB 77.
He said he would like the opportunity to continue his
Alaskan lifestyle as an active participant in the local
ecosystem. As a part of the statewide comprehensive outdoor
recreation plan of 1992, a survey was completed. In that
survey, 35 outdoor activities were listed and Alaskans rated
their preference. In fifth place on the survey was that
Alaskans want more hunting opportunities; on activities
Alaskans did not get to participate in, sport hunting was
14th; and wildlife watching was 35th. He stressed Alaska
residents would like to continue the opportunity to hunt.
MR. ARNO stated currently there are numerous indicators
there will be a decline in hunting opportunities,
particularly on federal land and gave examples of the
indicators. He said the opportunity for any game management
on federal lands, which is over 60 percent of the state, to
enhance wildlife population for human use is threatened by
national drives for biodiversity, ecosystem management.
Intensive game management for human use on state owned land
is the best plan. The inability of the Board of Fisheries
to address the need of sport fishermen adequately is a clear
indicator of the need for a legislative mandate to the Board
of Game to manage game intensively for human use. He urged
passage of SB 77.
Number 668
OLIVER BURRIS, TANANA VALLEY SPORTSMENS ASSOCIATION,
FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference, and stated the
association firmly supports the committee substitute for SB
77.
TAPE 94-17, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. BURRIS stated there are depressed wildlife populations
in the interior and the Board of Game needs policy direction
from the legislature and an interpretation of the
constitutional mandate for sustained yield.
TOM SCARBOROUGH, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference,
and expressed support of SB 77. He felt the Board of Game
needs a clear direction on management. SB 77 allows for
flexibility in intensive management. Intensive management
will benefit all users, both consumptive and nonconsumptive,
particularly the visitor industry.
Number 033
GREG MACHACEK, ALASKA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION,
NORTH POLE, testified via teleconference, and expressed
support of SB 77. He echoed concerns which Senator Sharp
stated regarding the lack of present management. He agreed
with Mr. Kelleyhouse that the definition will prevent
shortages in most cases, and might help resolve the
conflicts between rural and urban hunters. In order to
hunt, there must be plenty of animals.
Number 045
MARY VAN DUSEN, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and
expressed opposition to SB 77. She felt most Alaskans
oppose SB 77. She stated she might go outside and let
people know on national television that not all Alaskans
support SB 77. She stressed this is her state and some of
it belongs to those outside.
STEPHEN WELLS, ALASKA WILDLIFE ALLIANCE, ANCHORAGE,
testified via teleconference, and stated the alliance is
opposed to SB 77. This bill will require the Board of Game
to adopt regulations for intensive management. If wildlife
management direction is legislated, why pretend a value or
consider public input into the decision making process.
Regardless of whether or not there is an agreement on how
wildlife should be managed, it should be agreed that
everyone deserves to have a voice. He stressed SB 77 is a
regressive attempt to stifle public input.
MR. WELLS said the cost of conducting state funded predator
control programs are extremely high. The current wolf
reduction program is less than halfway completed and the
cost to date is $163,000. The state has claimed to have
killed 84 wolves so far which means the state has spent
almost $2,000 per wolf. The dollar figures do not include
trips made to Washington, D.C., promoting wolf control or
wolf control related litigation. Predator control programs
have always been and will always be expensive to the state.
MR. WELLS questioned why there is no fiscal note attached to
SB 77. He also questioned the need for the bill. He
pointed out that the Board of Game has the power to
authorize all of the action called for in the bill. The
Board of Game has not only shown its willingness, but its
exuberance in authorizing intensive management action,
including predator control. He stressed there is no lack of
consideration by the board in the interest of consumptive
users of wildlife. He said he did not understand why the
legislature should create an even more unfair situation by
forcing extreme management actions such as predator control,
and disregard public input. He said the alliance urges
committee members to reject this attempt to circumvent
public process and reject SB 77.
Number 095
TERRY BURRELL, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and
expressed opposition to SB 77. She said SB 77 asks Alaskans
to redefine sustained yield and to substitute a mandate for
higher human harvest at any cost. She urged committee
members to reject SB 77.
GEORGE MATS, ANCHORAGE AUDUBON SOCIETY, ANCHORAGE, testified
via teleconference, and expressed opposition to SB 77. He
read several lines from the bill. He said intensive
management is expensive management. He added if there is a
need to improve the availability of moose, road kills should
be looked at.
GORDON HABER, PROFESSIONAL WILDLIFE SCIENTIST, DENALI PARK,
testified via teleconference, and urged committee members
not to pass SB 77. He felt a better alternative could be
used to accommodate diverse interests with regard to the use
of wildlife resources without resorting to intensive
management, which means wolf and bear reductions. Referring
to game management unit 28, he said ADF&G has said by
reducing wolves in that area, it can assure a stable caribou
population and harvest, but added there is nothing known
about the biology of caribou to give assurance that is
possible. He noted the caribou population in the state has
tripled in number over the past 15 years. He stressed there
is a hunter distribution problem, not a caribou supply
problem.
MR. HABER asked committee members to consider one of the
self defeating ironies of the intensive management of unit
28. ADF&G's objective is to produce more harvest
opportunities, but in fact, the caribou population is 20-30
percent above its most productive size and as it continues
to increase, the maximum sustainable yield will continue to
decrease.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will meet Friday,
February 18, at 8:15 a.m. to hear SB 46, HB 401 and SJR 13
if time permits.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting
at 10:05 a.m.
BILLS NOT HEARD
SJR 13 - EXPORT OF ALASKA OIL
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|