Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/08/1997 09:22 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
March 8, 1997
9:22 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON GOVERNOR'S APPOINTMENTS TO:
Board of Game
Gregory P. Streveler
Nicole Whittington-Evans
Lori Trent Quakenbush
Michael R. Fleagle
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
GREGORY P. STREVELER, Appointee
Board of Game
P.O. Box 94
Gustavus, Alaska 99826
Telephone: (907) 697-2287
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding his appointment to Board
of Game.
NICOLE WHITTINGTON-EVANS, Appointee
Board of Game
HC02 Box 7019A
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 746-7019
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding her appointment to Board
of Game.
LORI TRENT QUAKENBUSH, Appointee
Board of Game
P.O. Box 82391
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-3210
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding her appointment to Board
of Game.
MICHAEL R. FLEAGLE, Appointee
Board of Game
P.O. Box 33
McGrath, Alaska 99627
;Telephone: (907) 524-3385
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding his appointment to Board
of Game.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-23, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:22 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Ogan, Masek, Dyson, Green,
Nicholia and Joule. Representative Barnes arrived at 9:35 a.m.
Absent were Representatives Hudson and Williams.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that public testimony would be taken after
all appointees had the opportunity to speak and answer questions
from the committee. He asked appointees to remain on
teleconference throughout the hearing. There would be a future
meeting if public testimony was not completed.
CONFIRMATION HEARING: GREGORY P. STREVELER, BOARD OF GAME
Number 0186
GREGORY P. STREVELER, Appointee, Board of Game, testified via
teleconference. Currently self-employed as a teacher and resource
consultant, he said previous employment included being a wilderness
guide, carpenter and professional gardener.
MR. STREVELER said he had been asked by previous board members to
serve on the Board of Game. He stated, "My qualifications I think
are that I've had 30 years' residence in northern Southeast Alaska.
During that time, I've lived a semi-subsistence lifestyle where
I've supported my family partly by fishing and hunting, and filling
my freezer that way, and filling the root cellar with vegetables
with my garden."
MR. STREVELER stated, "I have pretty broad experience as a
biologist. I worked for about seven years for the National Park
Service in Glacier Bay as a[n] ecologist. And I've worked as a
professional biologist in my own (indisc.) here since 1980, mostly
on resource issues, some of those related to mammal populations.
And I feel pretty strongly that the game populations of this state
should be managed by people that have local experience. So I threw
my hat in the ring."
Number 0366
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked about an entry on Mr. Streveler's
resume that read, "Contractor, to National Audubon Society, to
prepare environmental education materials on natural history of
Beringia, 1991-92."
MR. STREVELER said he and his wife had spent time in the Russian
Arctic and were looking for ways to follow that up. At that time,
the Audubon Society was cooperating with what was then the Soviet
government, looking at conservation in the Arctic; they wanted to
prepare bilingual natural history resources for schools in Nome and
Providiniya, for example, so the children could study the same
ecosystem. He and his wife had helped prepare some of those.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether it was a research program or
simply a conversion from Russian to English.
MR. STREVELER said it was a combination. He had spent three weeks
in the Arctic with a Russian botanical team. His wife, a
wilderness guide, had spent time along the coast. The two then
spent part of a winter "picking people's brains" from the North
Slope Borough and through their Russian contacts, to establish the
natural history of the area in a broader context than their own
personal histories allowed. Then they had written some brochures.
Number 0501
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked about Mr. Streveler's experience as a
contractor on the A-J Mine.
MR. STREVELER said, "I just terminated that. I was a subcontractor
with a company named Ch2M Hill, and the pertinent purpose of that
company's mandate was to prepare environmental impact analyses for
the possibility of that mine. And my little company's role was to
evaluate the upland resources and the marine bird resources."
Number 0553
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked for a brief overview of the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and possible effects of that
mine on birds and other animals.
MR. STREVELER replied, "It depends which alternative you looked at.
One of the possibilities was the upland dry tailings site on south
Douglas. And that one we decided would have some moderate-to-
important impacts, depending on the species you looked at, on the
uplands. But in a regional sense, it was probably reasonably
characterized as minor. And then for the marine tailings disposal,
when we looked at the marine birds, I think it's fair to say that
the impact on marine birds would seem to be pretty small."
Number 0603
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Streveler, "What is your
familiarity with wolf control issues in Interior Alaska?" She
further asked, "Do you have a position on this issue and on the
ballot initiative which passed this past fall?"
MR. STREVELER responded, "I've watched the issue pretty close, but
being from the Southeast, I wasn't directly involved in it. But I
guess my closest involvement was that during that time, I was
contracted by Audubon Society and Dave Clonbuck (ph) from Audubon
was on the planning team. And so I was able to get some direct
information by just talking to him. As far as I could tell, from
a distance, that was a pretty good process. I guess I was kind of
disappointed when the process didn't seem to really settle the
issue very well."
MR. STREVELER said, "As far as my personal feeling about wolf
control, I'm just going to have to learn more about it on a case-
by-case basis as they come up here. For instance, it seems pretty
clear to me, just on first look, that there are situations, at
least here and there in the Interior now, where you can make a
pretty good argument that some sort of intensive predator
management is necessary. But I'd want to look at that on a case-
by-case basis. But I'm not categorically opposed to it."
Number 0714
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked what the sustained yield principle mandated
in the state constitution meant to him.
MR. STREVELER replied, "It means that the wildlife resource should
be utilized to the extent possible, so that it's there for my kids
and your kids and their kids and their kids' kids."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler had read the sections
of the constitution relating to sustained yield and common use.
MR. STREVELER said he had, but he could not quote them.
Number 0768
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN read from the Constitution of the State of Alaska,
Article VIII, Section 3, which says, "Common Use. Wherever
occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are
reserved to the people for common use." He added, "And of course
our Supreme Court has interpreted that no particular group can have
an exclusive use of that, with exception of, of course, of limited
entry, which was a constitutional amendment."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN read from Article VIII, Section 4, which says,
"Sustained Yield. Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all
other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be
utilized, developed and maintained on the sustained yield
principle, subject to preferences among beneficial users." He
asked whether Mr. Streveler was aware he must take an oath to
defend the Constitution of the State of Alaska in order to serve on
the Board of Game.
MR. STREVELER said yes.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler was willing to uphold
those portions of the constitution.
MR. STREVELER said yes.
Number 0846
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to AS 16.05.255(e) [inadvertently called
AS 16.05.257], which outlines the legislature's interpretation of
the sustained yield principle and intention to accomplish that
through intensive management. He read from the statute, which
states, "The Board of Game shall adopt regulations to provide for
intensive management programs to restore the abundance or
productivity of identified big game prey populations as necessary
to achieve human consumptive use goals of the board in an area
where the board has determined that, 1) consumptive use of the big
game prey population is a preferred use".
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that the statute continues. He said the
legislature, which sets state policy, mandated that the Board of
Game manage on a sustained yield principle using intensive
management, which included predator control of bears and wolves.
He asked whether Mr. Streveler was willing to follow the
constitution and legislative intent in these matters.
MR. STREVELER said yes and added, "One of the principle things I've
done since my appointment - and I've had time to study up - is to
try to really get my mind around this act because it seems like a
real central thing in spelling out your folks' intent to us." He
said the act "puts some pretty difficult questions and trade-offs
before us." He stated his belief that since it was state law, he
must interpret it in good faith.
Number 0096
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK referred to the constitution and said,
"It is intended to keep the majority from trampling on the inherent
rights of others. And one of the main tenets of the First
Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the protection of one's beliefs
from persecutions by others." She asked Mr. Streveler, "Do you
believe urban populations who represent the majority of Americans
now have the right to curtail or eliminate the culture heritage of
hunting and trapping held by other Americans for reasons or
purposes other than biological considerations?"
MR. STREVELER said no. He had lived in a community of a couple
hundred people most of his adult life. He also lived across Icy
Strait from one of the biggest Tlingit communities in Southeast
Alaska. "So I'm pretty familiar with this stuff, and I believe
very strongly that local cultures and local subsistence needs are
real important," he said.
MR. STREVELER stated, "Having said that, I would say that it seems
to me pretty clear that my role on the game board is to try to look
at all legitimate users and balance their needs and hear everybody
out on ... what uses of the countries they propose and to see what
a person can do to accommodate those."
Number 1087
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated her belief that over the past few
years, the Board of Game had increasingly acted to prevent hunters
from accessing wildlife populations by restricting access into
certain areas. She said in recent examples, no biological concerns
were involved but closures were enacted anyway, "based on giving
one group's viewpoint precedence over others." She said similar
proposals would be before the Board of Game and asked, "Will you,
as a board member, protect the public's right to access common
property resources, or will you continue the trend of imposing the
views of one group on all other Alaskans?"
MR. STREVELER replied, "In all honesty, I don't know if I would
characterize the trend that way, but I think that I guess our role
on the board is to allow any uses that aren't destructive of the
country and the resources, and that respect other users. It's kind
of a balancing act, as I see it."
MR. STREVELER said he had lived in fairly remote country most of
his life and understood the advantages of having access to it.
However, he also understood the problems that wide-open access can
sometimes cause. Board members' jobs included trying to clearly
see the trade-offs; determining whether game populations and
habitats were in good enough shape to allow access; and determining
whether the protection of the resources was "up-to-snuff enough"
that if more access were allowed, the situation could be watched
carefully and regulated properly.
MR. STREVELER believed it was complicated. He said access seemed
to be an ever-more-central question in much of Alaskan game
management. Rather than saying categorically, "Well, we either
want more or we don't want more," he believed individual game
management units needed to be considered, as well as the trade-
offs.
Number 1214
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asserted that it was a yes-or-no question of
whether Mr. Streveler, as a board member, would protect the
public's right to access common property resources.
MR. STREVELER replied, "I guess honestly I can't give you a
categorical yes or no on that. I would say that I certainly
believe in protecting the public's right of access, no doubt about
that. And I would even go farther and say that I agree that the
public has a right to increase the access, but only under
circumstances where we see that the implications of that access
aren't destructive to the wildlife populations or wildlife habitat.
That's our mandate."
Number 1274
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "Also, will you continue the -- I say
a trend because that's what's really happening here, imposing the
views of one group on all other Alaskans. What is your views on
it? I didn't quite understand if you were in favor or against
that?"
MR. STREVELER responded, "I'm not in favor of ever imposing the
views of one group. But it seems to me that (indisc.-- coughing)
role on the board is to balance these views and to look for ways to
accommodate use, not to push forward the agenda of one group."
Number 1314
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to his earlier question about
Beringia. He asked, "Did you do any work with the United Nations
or any work that was used by the United Nations in ... that area
where they ... tried to declare an international biosphere?"
MR. STREVELER replied, "Not that I'm aware of. No, I certainly
didn't work with them directly. I'm not sure whether they got any
of our materials."
Number 1348
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES referred to Representative Masek's
characterization of board action as a "trend of imposing the views
of one group on all other Alaskans". She asked how Mr. Streveler
would characterize that instead.
MR. STREVELER said he was fairly new to the board and did not know
every action they had taken. However, he believed he had a basic
understanding. "And the way I view what the board has done is kind
of like I described how I'd like to do it, which is to look at
things on a case-by-case basis and see ... how the arguments fall,"
he said. "And since the amount of proposals before us seem to be
increasing for and on access-related questions, it gets to be a
tougher and tougher balancing act ... to accommodate everybody's
uses. So as I look at the past record of the board, I see it
getting more complicated because there's more people wanting to do
more things, and it's harder to figure out a way to do that. But
I don't see necessarily that the board has been tilting in favor of
one user group. I could stand to be corrected if you see it
otherwise, but that's how I read it."
Number 1418
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "The constitution, as it is presently
written, do you support it, or do you support amending the
constitution to give one group of Alaskans a priority over the
other?"
MR. STREVELER said he neither supported nor opposed it. He said he
was aware, from his personal life and the lives of his friends, of
the importance of access to subsistence resources, for instance.
"And I really very much hope that this divisive subsistence issue
can get behind us," he said. "But I don't claim to have any
crystal ball on what the best way to do it is, ma'am."
Number 1474
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated her belief that the constitution, as
written, gave all Alaskans, through the Uses section, access to
fish and game for the purposes of subsistence. "However, often,
when the legislature involves itself of the management of fish and
game, it is often said that that is not the role of the
legislature," she said. "I would like you to tell me how you see
the role of the legislature."
MR. STREVELER replied, "Well, as I see it, you folks have the right
and responsibility to guide us through legislation, and then we
implement the laws that you set up as constitution mandates."
Number 1520
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "The constitution and the laws actually
say that this legislature has sole control over the resources of
this state, be it fish, game, water, land or any other resource.
We delegate some of our responsibility. Through statute, you do
not have a constitutional right. Through statute, we delegate some
of our responsibility to the Board of Fish[eries] and to the Board
of Game to manage those resources." She asked him to comment.
MR. STREVELER responded, "Well, I agree that that's the way it is.
And I assume the reason you've delegated to us is because you
assume we know something about fish and game. And so I guess I see
our role as trying to bring the knowledge of seven people that have
spent part of their lives trying to understand these things to bear
on an issue. And so I guess, in a phrase, I see our role as trying
to interpret in an intelligent fashion, related to a given piece of
land, the intent of the legislature."
Number 1583
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether Mr. Streveler had a hunting
license, when he last hunted, and for what.
MR. STREVELER indicated he had a license and had last hunted three
months ago for deer. He added that he hunted almost every year for
a couple of deer for his freezer.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked how long he had lived in Alaska.
MR. STREVELER said, "Since 1967."
Number 1617
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "Now, you've been appointed by the
Governor, and you're up for confirmation by the legislature. If
you're confirmed, what is your understanding of who you work for?
Do you work for the Governor or for the legislature?"
MR. STREVELER replied, "Well, to be perfectly honest, sir, I think
I work for the people of Alaska. And I interpret the legislature's
laws as they're on the books with regard to game, but it seems to
me that our mandate is to try to make the best sort of unencumbered
decisions we can within the framework of the law."
Number 1656
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked to whom Mr. Streveler felt responsible,
other than the people of Alaska. He asked, "Are you once confirmed
and then an independent agency, is that what I hear? Or are you
listening to input from either the Administration or the
legislature?"
MR. STREVELER said he was sort of feeling his way through that.
"It seems really clear to me that the legislature is the body that
sets the framework under which we operate," he said. "We're a
member of the public, and because the Governor appoints us, ...
there's a certain relationship we have with the Governor. But I'm
pretty clear in my mind that the Governor is not the boss."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that constitutionally, the
legislature was responsible and had delegated that authority in
1974. "But there is the final reside with the legislature," he
added.
Number 1715
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler knew how many acres in
Alaska were off-limits to hunters.
MR. STREVELER said he did not know a total figure.
Number 1731
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said 54 million acres of national parks in Alaska
did not allow hunting, possibly more than that in some areas. He
asked, "Would you ever support restricting hunting for watchable-
wildlife opportunities?"
MR. STREVELER replied, "Well, I'd certainly consider it. I don't
think I could say categorically `no, I wouldn't.'" He pointed out
that he had worked for the National Park Service and had a pretty
good idea how they were run. However, he had made a conscious
decision to stop working for the National Park Service "because I
was a little uncomfortable with their way of dealing with local
people," he said.
MR. STREVELER continued, "And I realize that we do have a lot of
reserves. I'm not ecstatic about increasing them." He said at the
same time, he and his wife had worked as wilderness guides, and he
understood the tourism industry somewhat. "And there's various
uses for wildlife, and it seems maybe we've got to balance those,"
he stated. "So I can't say categorically that there shouldn't be
additional areas closed to hunting, or that there shouldn't be
additional areas opened to hunting. I'd like to look at it on a
case-to-case basis. But I would say, just in a generic sense, that
I'm aware we have a lot of areas closed."
Number 1800
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN indicated he believed some of these statements
conflicted. He noted that Mr. Streveler had affirmed he would
defend the state constitution and follow the statutes.
Representative Ogan believed it was clear under Title 16 that
consumptive use of the big game population is a preferred use. He
expressed concern, given Mr. Streveler's tourist background as a
wilderness guide and his wife's business, that Mr. Streveler might
continue the board's "trend of closing opportunities to hunt." He
said, "I think there's a proposal by the Wildlife Alliance before
the board this upcoming board meeting. What are your leanings on
that proposal, or are you aware of that proposal to close bear
hunting on parts of Kodiak Island?"
MR. STREVELER said he had read it. However, he wanted to hear all
the "ins and outs" before giving a firm answer. He believed it
would be jumping the gun to do otherwise.
Number 1865
MR. STREVELER referred to Representative Ogan's first statement.
He said having worked for the National Park Service, and having
decided not to work for them, had if anything made him more aware
of the down sides of closed areas. He did not "jump into them"
without a lot of premeditation. "I fill the freezer from deer that
are just outside Glacier Bay National Park, and I have to go to
places outside the park to do that," he said. "So I'm aware of the
way it cramps local people when you make a reserve sometimes."
MR. STREVELER noted at the same time, many people in Gustavus made
a good living because the park was closed to hunting and had
viewable wildlife. Referring to Kodiak Island, he said its bear
resource was world-class to people for a variety of reasons. "And
I honestly think we have to look at those various reasons before we
jump one way or another on a question," he said.
Number 1913
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated, "I would submit to you that it's world-
class because the tax on hunting and fishing licenses and
ammunition and supplies has paid for the management of that
resource. And Kodiak has been one of the longest-hunted bear areas
in the world. And in spite of that, and because of good
management, it is a world-class area." He asked, "Are you aware
that when you take a large boar out of the population, you're
actually increasing bear populations because the large boars will
actually kill the cubs?"
MR. STREVELER said yes. Having spent a summer on Kodiak, he knew
that country a little. He stated, "I basically agree with what you
said, and I think the management has been pretty good as far as I
can tell. It's world-class for the hunting, that opportunities are
there. But it's world-class also for other reasons. And it seems
to me that I have to be aware of those as a board member."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler saw hunting and
viewing as incompatible uses.
Number 1975
MR. STREVELER replied, "Do it every day. I sure don't. I was on
Lemesurier Island three months ago hunting deer, and I was sitting
around there. Half the time, I miss a deer because I'm too busy
watching the other wildlife. So no, it's sure not incompatible in
many cases."
MR. STREVELER referred to Pack Creek on Admiralty Island and
explained, "There, when you've got big predators like bears, for
instance, sometimes it makes good sense to have one small
population that has a few bears in it that have become ...
conditioned to sticking around people, because then folks get sort
of a natural thing where you don't have to be a real good
outdoorsman to kind of sneak up on a bear or something, but you can
just get off the plane or off the boat (indisc.--coughing). And if
you've been around people that have a chance to do that, I'm pretty
impressed with ... the profound meaning it can have for somebody to
watch a bear fish in a stream or something like that."
MR. STREVELER said when he went south, he realized how glad he is
to live in Alaska. "And a lot of people I see coming up from down
south are pretty amazed at the opportunities they have here to see
wild country and bears fishing and stuff like that," he said. "And
part of the meaning of this state, I think, to the world, is to
offer those opportunities."
Number 2043
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she had introduced HB 168, which only
allows restriction on access if there is a biological justification
that cannot be mitigated by usual management techniques, such as
seasons and bag limits. She asked whether Mr. Streveler opposed or
supported HB 168.
MR. STREVELER replied, "I don't do either right now. I've read the
bill and that's about all I've done. I really haven't had a chance
to talk to people about it. But I will say this in all honesty.
I hope that you folks will see enough value in the people that are
appointed to the board that you give us the tools we need to do our
job. And one of the things that I see is that there are a lot of
instances where the questions before us are kind of complicated.
And if we have the ability, and hopefully we'd use it with great
moderation and respect for the people that would be affected by it,
but I hope that we have the ability to design a management scheme
for a given place that can really work."
MR. STREVELER said being kind of green on the board, he did not
know how he would come down on some of these issues. "But I guess
in just being green, I hope that we will have a pretty broad array
of tools to work with," he said. "I hope you give us the chance to
do that. And I don't know right now if that cramps us in a way
that would be hard for us or not. I've got to study that."
Number 2122
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler's comments about being
green referred to political leanings or lack of experience.
MR. STREVELER laughed and clarified he meant lack of experience.
Number 2133
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "Given that answer, if you had the choice
of where you're kind of sitting on a fence on the issue, would you
err on the side of the watchable-wildlife crowd or the hunting
crowd?"
MR. STREVELER replied, "I'd try to err on the side of the animals."
He said as he saw it, the board's first responsibility was to the
habitat and the animals. If those populations were healthy, a lot
could be done with them by any user group. He said he would not
come down "on the side of one folks or the other."
MR. STREVELER indicated he, his wife and all his neighbors hunted.
They depended on that, as well as on the fish in Icy Straits and
other resources. "But at the same time, you know, my next door
neighbor's a charter boater, my wife's a wilderness guide, the guy
down the road's a commercial fisherman, you know, the fellow down
the road a little farther has got an airplane and he's a fly-in
hunter-and-fisher guide. So a lot of people around me make a
living through ways that don't exactly relate to hunting but have
kind of that flavor to them. So I don't see it as one group versus
another in Gustavus."
Number 2195
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said, "Let me try to pin you down on this a little
more. So let's assume, just for the case of discussion, that
there's no biological reason to restrict hunting. There's adequate
populations. There's not going to be compromise in any way.
There's a proposal to restrict hunting access for viewing wildlife.
Would you come down on the side of the hunter or the wildlife
viewer?"
MR. STREVELER replied, "I'd have to have a specific."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked which side he would come down on.
MR. STREVELER said, "I guess if you need a categoric answer, I
can't give you one. I'd tell you in all honesty that in the Pack
Creek situation, there was not a strict biological reason. The
bears weren't in jeopardy. But so many people felt really, really
strongly that both for economic reasons and for personal reasons
they wanted one small spot on Admiralty that was open to bear
viewing, I voted for that. So I'm not going to tell you in all
honesty I would be against that in every case. But being a hunter
myself, I'm going to be pretty careful about the times I vote that
way."
Number 2245
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES read from Article VIII, Sections 3 and 4 of
the state constitution, which Co-Chairman Ogan had read earlier.
She said Co-Chairman Ogan had asked Mr. Streveler how he "would
come down as it relates to beneficial uses under the constitution."
She requested a general answer to that, followed by an answer to
her own question: "Do you believe, for example, that the folks in
urban Alaska have as much right to go hunting to feed their
families, to put food in their freezer, as do those that live in
the rural areas of the state?"
MR. STREVELER said, "I think everybody in the state has an equal
right to fish and wildlife in the state."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked him to again answer Co-Chairman Ogan's
question.
MR. STREVELER asked for clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Co-Chairman Ogan to restate his
question.
Number 2343
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said, "I asked you the question whether or not, if
there was no biological reason to close an area to hunting, and
there was a proposal to close an area for wildlife viewing, which
side would you come down on. And you haven't been able to answer
that specifically."
MR. STREVELER replied, "With respect, sir, I think I did. I gave
you a specific instance of where I did come down, where there was
not a biological reason necessarily, but there was another reason
that had to do with tourism and which had to do with peoples'
desire to have one small part of Admiralty for a different purpose,
that I did come down."
MR. STREVELER continued, "But I also said that because I'm a hunter
and because I'm aware of the effect the national parks can have on
hunting and stuff like that, I'm not a kind of person that's going
to just do that all the time. I'm going to look at it; the
justification's going to have to be pretty solid. So I'm not
categorically opposed to closures to hunting for other reasons, but
... I'm not going to be the kind of person that just is ... wildly
in favor of it every time I hear about it. It's going to have to
be something that's very darned justified for a pretty tight
reason.
MR. STREVELER said in the case of Pack Creek, they had received
hundreds of letters from locals and from people all over the world
saying, "That place is really important to us; please don't open it
up." "And so we didn't," he said. "And I think we've got to
listen to folks like that too. So I'm not trying to evade the
question. I'm trying to give you an honest answer to something
that I think's a tough call on it." He emphasized that although
there would be times when he could see doing that, he would be
"pretty darned careful not to overdo it."
Number 2412
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler had, at any time,
received coaching or input by the Governor's office on how to
answer questions from the committee.
MR. STREVELER replied, "I've had some conversations with people in
the Governor's office. But I try to keep my own mind to myself on
this because I think it's between me and you guys."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN clarified he wanted to know whether Mr. Streveler
had received any direct coaching from the Governor's office on how
to answer questions for the hearing.
MR. STREVELER said no.
Number 2450
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler had been advised by
the Governor's office on what type of questions might be asked.
MR. STREVELER said yes. "And they gave me some general things to
be considering," he said. "But as far as specific issues, no."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether he had been advised on how to answer
those questions.
MR. STREVELER indicated he had talked with people from the
Governor's office and had several telephone conversations. They
had described the committee process, for example.
TAPE 97-23, SIDE B
Number 0006
MR. STREVELER said he had not asked for, nor received, any specific
advice on specific issues.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked when he last had a conversation like that.
MR. STREVELER said, "Yesterday."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if other people were involved in that
conversation.
MR. STREVELER said no.
Number 0021
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "Do you feel it would be proper for the
legislature to, once you're a board member, to influence your
decisions on the board?"
MR. STREVELER replied, "I'll tell you what my hope is. My hope is
that you'll end up trusting us enough that you'll abide by our
decisions and feel that we've well-served your mandates. ... I
guess that's what I think the board process is about. I guess I'm
not very interested in being on the board if we're just given such
a tight rein we can't use our own heads."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated, "I can assure you, if we trust you, we'll
confirm you." He asked whether Mr. Streveler felt it would be
proper for the Governor's office to apply pressure or try to
influence his actions as a member of the Board of Game.
MR. STREVELER said no.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler knew of anyone from
the Governor's office applying pressure or trying to influence the
Board of Game prior to decisions being made.
MR. STREVELER replied, "Well, they haven't tried to do that to me
yet. And I'd resist it if they did."
Number 0061
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "Can you make a commitment to contact me
should any such influence or contact occur while you're a member?"
MR. STREVELER said yes.
Number 0073
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE asked whether Co-Chairman Ogan's
question applied solely to people from the Governor's office or to
people from either the Governor's office or the legislature.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, "I would go on record as saying
Governor's office and the legislature."
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked Mr. Streveler, "And that was the answer
to both of them?"
MR. STREVELER said, "Yeah, I see no reason I can't tell you about
that. It would seem to me something you have a right to know
about."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN responded, "I would appreciate it, as chairman of
this Resources Committee, to hear about it if anyone leans on you,
from ... either body."
Number 0100
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said she was curious about that last
question. "It doesn't seem to me that it's mandated that he has to
call you about anything like that," she said. "I guess that would
just be a personal request?"
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, "That's a personal request as chairman of
the Resources Committee. I want to know if there's influences
being put on the game board members by members of the legislature
or the Governor's office."
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said in all the years she had been in the
legislature, she had never heard that question asked of an
appointee to the Board of Game who was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she had served on the committee many
more years than other members and had heard that question asked.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked Mr. Streveler and called on Nicole
Whittington-Evans.
CONFIRMATION HEARING: NICOLE WHITTINGTON-EVANS, BOARD OF GAME
Number 0158
NICOLE WHITTINGTON-EVANS, Appointee, Board of Game, testified via
teleconference. She had started working in Alaska as a wilderness
guide for the National Outdoor Leadership School, based in Palmer,
and taught climbing and backpacking skills on month-long wilderness
trips in the Chugach Mountains, Talkeetna Mountains and Alaska
Range. She had also done numerous wilderness expeditions in the
Brooks Range and sea kayaking on Prince William Sound.
Furthermore, she had worked as a raft guide on the Kenai Peninsula
and summited Mt. McKinley twice since 1988.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said since moving to Alaska, she had worked
hard on wildlife issues in the conservation community; as a team
member of the Fortymile Caribou Herd Planning Team; and on the
Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee, which unanimously
supported her. She voiced her commitment to bringing people
together from diverse backgrounds and working to create positive
solutions for the state and its wildlife resources. She noted that
she has a Master of Science degree in Environmental Studies with a
concentration in wildlife policy and conservation.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS stated, "I am a good team player and will
work hard as a board member to listen to all interests expressed by
the public to make the best decisions I can for the state and for
the resource. I feel my committee experience, commitment to
wildlife and commitment to fair process make me a good candidate
for the Board of Game. I am capable of reviewing scientific
information and data and will make the best decisions possible,
with an open mind."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said she hoped the committee would not
categorize her but instead listen to what she says and who she
really is.
Number 0256
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated when the committee met the previous
fall, there was discussion of devastation by the spruce bark
beetle, especially in the Kenai Peninsula area. He said testimony
from scientists indicated removal of the dead trees was beneficial
for young growth, which provided browse for "several of our more-
desired critters." However, a letter Ms. Whittington-Evans signed
the previous May, opposing logging on the Kenai, stated that
logging activities have a proven track record of adversely
impacting wildlife habitat. He asked her to reconcile those.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I understand that, particularly for
moose habitat, young undergrowth and logging can at times be
beneficial for that species and other species. What I intended in
writing that statement in that letter was to indicate that logging
and road building, which is a portion of logging activities, can
and does have an effect on wildlife resources and habitat. And
that is substantiated in other parts of the world, and has also
been substantiated in Alaska."
Number 0332
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he assumed she was familiar with the
moose range in Kenai, which had roads and yet was a favored viewing
areas for moose.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said she was.
Number 0342
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that whereas her signed statement used
the word "adversely," she had not said that in her reply. He asked
whether she was now saying she had meant road building, and whether
she was saying road building adversely affects moose populations.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "That is one way of interpreting
it."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked her to tell him, so he did not have to
interpret.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS responded, "Road building is an activity of
logging which can affect and impact wildlife habitat. It does not
do so in all situations. And clearly you have mentioned one area
where road building has not adversely affected the moose
population."
Number 0391
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked her to reconcile why in one case she
said it adversely affected moose populations, while in other areas
she said it did not.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "It's my understanding, from
biologists that I have spoken with, that moose are a very different
species than, say, brown bear. And road building and brown bear
habitat, and impacts to brown bear populations, do have
correlations with a negative or adverse impact."
Number 0395
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated few brown bear roam that area. He
stated that whereas she had said "logging activities," that was now
confined to "road building and associated logging activities" being
adverse to wildlife habitat.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS responded, "To clarify my statement, logging
and road building can have adverse impacts to wildlife populations.
In this specific incident that you have brought up, road building
has not affected the moose population, and I recognize that."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that did not answer his question.
Number 0473
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted a proposal currently before the Board of
Game related to a one-bear-per-lifetime bag limit for brown bear.
It suggested the brown bear bag limit and permitting requirements
in Unit 13 were too liberal. He stated, "Unit 13 has been
identified for intensive management, according to the sustained
yield principle of the constitution, which you'll take an oath to
defend. And this proposal was submitted by the Wildlife Alliance."
He asked whether, on December 13, 1982, Greenpeace had changed its
name to Wildlife Alliance.
Number 0533
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said that was her understanding.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she was former Executive Director of
the Wildlife Alliance.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said yes.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she had testified before the board
on numerous occasions in that capacity.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said yes.
Number 0554
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "Could you generally categorize that you
testified in favor of expanded hunting or in favor of restricted
hunting?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I cannot categorize my testimony in
that way. During all of my testimony with the Alaska Wildlife
Alliance, I started out stating that I was not anti-hunting and
that I was not testifying to oppose hunting. ... I guess I wouldn't
categorize my testimony in either of those camps."
Number 0600
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether it would be "pro-wildlife-viewing or
pro-hunting."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "Well, the mission of the Alaska
Wildlife Alliance is to represent nonconsumptive use. And in that
context, I would have to say that it was primarily for wildlife
viewing, not at the exclusion of hunting."
Number 0628
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if that was her mission on the board.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS responded, "Not at all. I understand clearly
the difference between the role of advocating for an organization
and the role of being a board member for the Board of Game, where
I would not be advocating any position at all. I would not be an
advocate. I would listen to all interests that were brought forth
to the Board of Game on any issue and try my best to respond to
concerns that are raised and to create the best solutions that I
can, given the information before me."
Number 0668
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN posed a hypothetical situation in which the
Department of Fish and Game says there is no biological reason to
close an area to hunting for the purpose of wildlife viewing, nor
would there be harm to the sustained yield principle mandated in
the constitution. He asked, "Would you fall on the side of the
watchable-wildlife or the hunter?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I think I have a proven track
record in the Anchorage advisory committee of working to create and
improve opportunity for hunters."
Number 0707
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said that did not answer the question. Again
posing the hypothetical situation, he specified that no detrimental
effect to the population in question would happen because of
continued hunting. If there were a question of whether to close an
area to allow wildlife viewing, he wanted to know whether she would
"err on the side of the hunter or the wildlife viewer."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I would take the information that
the Department of Fish and Game has presented and use it to the
best of my ability in creating the best solution for both -- for
all users of the wildlife resource."
Number 0750
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Chris Evans was her husband.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said yes.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said Mr. Evans had left a message on his recorder
in support of Nicole Whittington-Evans as a Board of Game
appointee, which stated in part, "I believe that she would give a
good, balanced representation to the game board, which it needs
especially in regards to tourism and other-than-consumptive-use
types of issues."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said her husband's name was actually Chris
Whittington-Evans, but she assumed it was his message. "I think
that what he is intending to say is that I would bring a
perspective to the Board of Game which would include a, you know,
a tourism perspective, which up 'til now is not currently on the
board," she said.
Number 0826
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that Alaska has 54 million acres in federal
parks that are off-limits to hunting. Hunters are in the field
about 30 days of the year, usually after the tourists have gone.
In addition, hunters have for decades supported, through user fees
and taxes, wildlife organizations including the Department of Fish
and Game. He asked, "And so you're telling me that ... we need
people on the board that have more of a wildlife viewing
perspective, given the fact that we have ample opportunity in the
state? Or do you think we need more opportunity?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I did not say that we need more
people on the board who represent viewing wildlife or watchable
wildlife. I believe that we need to increase hunting opportunity
where it is appropriate, and I will work to do that. And I have a
proven track record of doing that in the advisory committee."
Number 0896
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it appeared Ms. Whittington-Evans was a
member of the Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association
and currently employed by the Alaska Center for the Environment as
Western Gulf Coordinator for the Alaska Rainforest Campaign. He
asked what that campaign was about. He further asked how she could
avoid influence from the organization for which she worked.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I was a member of the Alaska
Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association, and I have resigned
my position as a board member of that organization. I do currently
work for the Alaska Center for the Environment, and my job there is
primarily coordinating community organizing for the Western Gulf
portion of Alaska. And what we have focused on primarily is
forest-related issues in the Prince William Sound area and on the
Kenai Peninsula."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS continued, "My work at the Alaska Center for
the Environment is not related to wildlife issues. I have kept my
work, both on the Fortymile Caribou Herd Management Planning Team
and with the advisory committee in the last two years, separate,
completely separate from my work at the Alaska Center for the
Environment."
Number 1007
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated her work as an advocate for the
Alaska Rainforest Campaign and for nonconsumptive users pointed at
her being focused in "perhaps the wrong direction for most
Alaskans."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said she did not believe that was true, nor
did she know how to respond.
Number 1061
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested her background, what she was
advocating or had made written statements about, and the
organizations to which she belonged indicated she was anti-hunting,
despite her assertions to the contrary. He asked whether she had
lived in Alaska since 1992.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether she had spent significant time
in the woods or off the road system "other than just viewing
critters."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I've spent a lot of time off the
road system as a wilderness guide, teaching mountaineering and
backpacking skills in the Chugach, Talkeetna and Alaska Ranges."
Number 1138
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether hunters were permitted to take
game in those areas.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I witnessed numerous hunts in the
Talkeetna Mountains, in Management Unit 13, Nelchina caribou and
moose hunts and sheep."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether this was as a guide, hunter or
observer of hunters.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said, "As a wilderness guide, I observed
these hunts."
Number 1168
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether that adversely affected those
she was guiding.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS recalled an incident in 1989 where 4,000
permits had been issued within a period of three-to-five days. She
was backpacking in the Talkeetna Mountains and was in the
Chickaloon drainage. "And we were, I would have to say, inundated
by hunters," she said. Airplanes were flying in every 20 to 30
minutes, dropping off hunters. They heard gunshots on a regular
basis during the three days. "And we had both very positive and
some negative incidents as a result of that," she said. "But it
was a very good, thought-provoking and educational experience for
everyone involved."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what time of year that occurred.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said August. She specified it was a three-
day hunt, one of many hunts she had witnessed in the Talkeetna
Mountains.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, "So this doesn't occur, then, during
the summer, during a lot of the viewing ... periods?" He also
asked whether this intense hunting occurred statewide.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said she believed it was "a one-shot kind of
deal." She had never witnessed a similar hunt. In general, hunts
tended to occur over longer seasons, with hunters more distributed
or widely dispersed over time. "I just brought that up as an
example of a very interesting situation that occurred that was a
great educational opportunity," she explained.
Number 1340
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that was in 1989, three years before she
moved to Alaska.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "And you have that experience, which
was, as you say, educational. And you still moved up here. And
you still are employed by ... an environmental group. And yet you
maintain that you would be perfectly objective and scientifically-
oriented, rather than opinion, in your deliberation?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "That's correct. I moved up here
because I love this state. I love the wildlife resource that's
available to all of us, along with the land resource. I started
coming up here in 1984. I worked as a wilderness guide here before
I moved up here. That experience was very profound for me, and it
has definitely affected me, and it has not turned me away from
hunting. It has not turned me away from working with these issues,
and I will do my best to review the scientific data."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said she had a Master of Science degree and
would objectively review the scientific data and incorporate that
into her decision-making. She would not be influenced by opinions
and would do her best to review all the information before her.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that her degree was in environmental
studies.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS concurred.
Number 1451
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK assured Ms. Whittington-Evans that comments
and concerns about her were just part of the process and discussed
the necessity of carefully choosing board members.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said within the last 20 years, Americans had
become increasingly urbanized, resulting in an increasing
detachment from natural systems and cultural views different from
those held by rural people toward wildlife and wildlife management.
She said, "Some leaders within the environmental movement are now
admitting that they were mistaken in their views on major policy
questions involving America's wildlife wild lands. And those same
individuals are admitting that `environmentalist' is really nothing
more than a new religion that has more to do with controlling the
lives of other Americans than it does with protecting natural
values."
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to a book entitled, "No Turning
Back," by Wallace Coffman (ph), and indicated it said
environmentalists care less and less about reason and science, and
increasingly more about controlling the future. She asked whether
Ms. Whittington-Evans felt the environmental community continues to
make constructive contributions through the public process in areas
of wildlife management, or whether she felt, as did Mr. Coffman,
"that they are no longer basing their position on good science."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS responded, "It's hard to generalize for the
entire environmental community. And I work in a community that is
made up of individuals with a lot of differing opinions. And there
are different types of approaches to working within the
environmental community. And to answer your question about whether
or not the environmental community is continuing to make
substantive and legitimate, I can't remember the exact words you
used, but ...."
Number 1684
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK restated her question.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I do feel that the environmental
community does provide a constructive contribution to the entire
process. As you were saying earlier, the things that have gone
around about me are part of the whole process, and we need to hear
from all opinions and perspectives of Alaskans. They, like any
other constituents, present a constructive part of this process.
That is not to say I necessarily personally agree with what the
environmental community in this state has done with regards to
wildlife management. I hope that answers your question."
Number 1775
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said, "Well, not entirely." She asked, "Do
you believe that urban populations who represent the majority of
Americans now have the right to curtail or eliminate the cultural
heritage of hunting and trapping held by other Americans, for
reasons or purposes other than biological considerations?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I don't agree with any one group
overriding any other group. And I believe that we need to have
wildlife resources available to all types of people and users. So,
to clarify more, I don't agree necessarily with an urban
perspective taking over a rural perspective."
Number 1842
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "Will you, as a board member, protect
the public's right to access common property resources, or will you
continue the trend of imposing the views of one group on all other
Alaskans?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I will protect that right, ...
always considering the conservation of the resource."
Number 1880
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said, "Alaskans with a history and a culture
tie to hunting and trapping, you know, we have to make that equal
with the subsistence issues. And the question is whether residents
of Anchorage, Fairbanks or Juneau, et cetera, should enjoy the same
protections from such anti-hunting views." She clarified that she
was speaking of "Alaskans with a history and a cultural tie" living
in those cities.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said she very much supported individuals who
have a cultural tie or history using the resource, and she also
would respect all users of the resource.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "So whether they're living in Anchorage
or Fairbanks or Juneau, if they have the history and a cultural tie
to hunting and trapping, do you believe they should enjoy the same
protections from such anti-hunting views?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I do."
Number 2016
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK briefly described HB 168 and asked her
position on it.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said she neither had read the bill nor had a
position on it. "It sounds to me like a reasonable approach," she
added.
Number 2070
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "Well, how do you feel about access to
hunting and fishing in this state? Would you be in favor of
closing down a certain area without any biological justification
that cannot be mitigated by usual management techniques?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS responded, "In general, I would say no. I
would not favor closing down an area without biological or
sociological reasons that are legitimate. But again, I believe as
a member of the board, I need to look at these situations on a
case-by-case basis, listen and learn as much as I can from all of
the information presented before me in order to come up with the
best solution."
Number 2156
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK mentioned subsistence and asked whether Ms.
Whittington-Evans supported amending the state constitution to
"comply with the federal law that's ANILCA on having a priority to
rural-versus-urban hunting and fishing in Alaska."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS discussed dual management, saying, "... the
way it is set up right now, with double sets of regulations and
overlapping advisory boards, I do not feel that this is ultimately
the best thing for wildlife, wildlife habitat, or for those who use
the resource. I believe wildlife should be managed by the state.
I believe as a board member, my role will be to do the best I can
to implement the regulations which carry out the statutes and court
decisions that are relevant to wildlife issues. And we need to, as
board members, carry out the full intent and spirit of legislation
that is relevant to board issues."
Number 2280
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK requested a yes-or-no answer.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS stated, "I think that we need to work on a
constructive solution, and I think that a compromise from both the
federal and the state governments are going to be the only solution
to this dilemma."
Number 2345
VICE CHAIR MASEK took over the meeting in the absence of the co-
chairs.
Number 2362
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked about the make-up of the Anchorage Fish
and Game Advisory Committee when Ms. Whittington-Evans joined.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "When I got on, it was pretty much
entirely made up of sport hunters, trappers, sport and commercial
fishermen. And it was my understanding that I was the only member
of that committee who could be categorized as a nonconsumptive
user."
Number 2432
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked, "Upon your arrival to that committee,
did you have a feel of what the reception of that committee was to
your presence, knowing of your involvement in things like the
Wildlife Alliance?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said overall, it was difficult to say. Some
members had been very welcoming. [Answer cut off mid-speech by
tape change.]
TAPE 97-24, SIDE A
Number 0006
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to a letter from the Anchorage Fish
and Game Advisory Committee, which gave her unanimous support. He
asked, "Were all of the members that were there two years ago, that
were skeptical with you coming on to the system, they're still
there? And they're ones that are supporting your appointment to
this board?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "In large, the majority of them are.
There were a couple of members that were elected off during the
most recent election, and they are no longer with us, or with the
committee, but ... they were not actually the ones that were the
most skeptical."
Number 0073
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether some who were initially more
skeptical were still on the committee.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked, "How would you say that they've come to
be able to support you for this nomination?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I think that I've worked hard to
create a constructive working relationship with all of the members
of the committee. And I have listened and learned from and
incorporated their input into decisions that I have made and votes
that I have taken."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN rejoined the committee.
Number 0151
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked, "During the period in which you were
the director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, what was your
involvement in the wolf control issue, and how would you explain
this association and the stance of the Wildlife Alliance on
predator control to those rural bush residents who consider wolf
control to be vital to their subsistence lifestyle?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "When I worked for the Alaska
Wildlife Alliance, that was during the '92 wolf control proposal by
the state. And the board of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance opposed
those proposals for a number of reasons. Probably the most
critical was a question of fair process regarding the
recommendations made by the wolf management planning team and the
actual outcome of these proposals, and how the recommendations [of
the planning team], in the eyes of the board members of the Alaska
Wildlife Alliance, ... were not properly reflected in the
proposals."
Number 0346
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked what her involvement was in that.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said, "My involvement as the Executive
Director was to testify on behalf of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance
in front of the Board of Game, opposing those proposals."
Number 0371
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked, "In your present work as the Western
Gulf Coordinator for the Alaska Center for the Environment, how
would you approach the wolf control issue now?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "Well, my participation on the
Fortymile Caribou Herd Management Planning Team demonstrates the
type of process that I am interested in being involved in, where
diverse interests, very diverse interests, come together and sit
down and work out constructive solutions to a dilemma or problem
that is facing an area. And I worked closely with rural Alaskans
on that plan, and I feel that my positions currently regarding wolf
control are quite different than what they were when I was working
for the Alaska Wildlife Alliance."
Number 0487
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked what the difference was.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said, "The difference was that I was
representing a board with the Alaska Wildlife Alliance that
opposed, unanimously opposed, all of the proposals before the Board
of Game in 1992. Out of that context, and as ... a citizen, a
member of the public, I am willing to work with people to analyze
and understand situations, incorporate all of the information and
try to come up with the best solutions for an area. And I think
those two are very different."
Number 0554
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked about Ms. Whittington-Evans' personal
position on the type of predator control in the wolf initiative.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said, "It might be helpful to know that I
support the concept of obtaining food from the resources available
immediately surrounding us, such as moose, caribou, fish and other
things such as vegetables (indisc.) from a garden. I believe
ultimately we are all consumptive users. And obtaining food from
our surroundings, where there is sufficient supply to support these
activities is, in my mind, the most energy-efficient and least-
impacting way to live, and one that is ultimately the best for the
state and for the environment. It is also a necessity for rural
subsistence users."
Number 0664
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "You did not answer my question."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS concurred and said that was background.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she did not want background but her
personal position, then and now.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS began, "At both times, I was not anti-hunting
and ...."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES interjected, "I didn't ask you that. I asked
you what your position was on wolf control, as it relates to a
predator on a food source. Your personal position."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS stated, "My personal position is that I think
we need to have sound scientific justification, a potential for
prey to increase, a habitat that has the capacity to support an
increase, and the impacts of predator populations on prey species
...."
Number 0773
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said Ms. Whittington-Evans was incapable of
a direct answer. She asked what "traditional use" meant to her.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "Traditional use means using the
wildlife resource to subsist and having had a history of doing so
and a cultural tie to doing so."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked what she meant by "history" and
"cultural tie."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said, "Both a personal history and,
potentially, a family history."
Number 0826
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested most Alaskans, and even people who
came to America on the Mayflower, had a history of living off the
land or eating wild game. She asked whether traditional use meant
an urban resident who subsists from game or one specific group of
people.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I don't think it's necessarily one
specific group of people. I think that it can be somebody living
in an urban area that has, over time, used a wildlife resource for
their own subsistence."
Number 0886
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to Ms. Whittington-Evans' reply to
the question of amending Alaska's constitution. She asked, "And
would you tell us what your constructive solution is?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "As a board member, I'm not sure
that it's relevant whether or not I support amending the
constitution."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES retorted, "It's relevant whether you get my
vote or not, and it takes a number of us to confirm you." She
asked for an answer.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said, "I support a constructive solution. I
am not an expert on this issue at all. There have been people
working very hard, [with] much more background and experience in
this than I do, for many years."
Number 0979
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "What is your constructive solution,
then?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "The closest thing ... that has been
brought to my attention that might be a possibility is the
suggestion or proposal by Lieutenant Governor Fran Ulmer a year
ago. I personally do not have my own constructive solution."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES noted that a portion of the Lieutenant
Governor's constructive solution was to amend the constitution.
Number 1022
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to letters not included in the
committee packets. He said he would read excerpts from these,
which were signed by Ms. Whittington-Evans within the last year.
Acknowledging these were forestry issues, he said, "I think we have
established in this record, and certainly on numerous occasions in
this committee, that habitat is best served when mature trees,
especially dead mature trees, are removed and allow browse to
grow."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN read: "We're losing our Kenai Peninsula.
While most of us go about the normal routine of our lives, Kenai
Peninsula forests are being clear-cut at an alarming rate." He
read another excerpt: "Perhaps we've visited the Homer Spit in the
last year and seen the logs and mountains of wood chips lining the
spit, waiting for transport across the seas." He said, "I presume
you're aware those were from dead trees."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said yes.
Number 1102
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN again read: "If this continues unchecked, we
can say good-bye to the Kenai Peninsula as we know it. Logging
activities, including road building, have a proven track record of
adversely affecting fish and wildlife habitat and water quality.
Together, we are making a difference in Alaska's forests.
Sincerely, Nicole."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN again read: "Stevens, Murkowski and Young
have continued their attacks on our environment. Stevens,
Murkowski and Young are attempting to undermine the 1990 Tongass
Timber Reform Act. Our delegation is helping to reverse this
situation. Your delegation. End Ketchikan Pulp Company's long-
term contract. Don't extend it. For more information, please call
Nicole."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN read a final excerpt about her: "The
Rainforest Coordinator, ... Nicole Whittington-Evans, says `just
say no to any more logging on the Chugach.'"
Number 1142
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated the committee kept trying to
determine, to no avail, her current views. Seeing those articles
by and about her made him question the credibility of her answers.
He asked, "Would you please come out and refute these articles or
accept the fact that this committee may not be inclined to support
you? Because we're not just sure what your answers are."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I think it's important to remember
that that was written under the context of the salvage rider that
was passed in July of '95. And all of those statements were
related to logging under the salvage rider, which I think a number
of Alaskans have shown that they felt this was ... not a
constructive piece of legislation. And so ... when I was quoted as
saying `just say no to logging on the Chugach,' or `to any more
logging on the Chugach,' that was under the context of the salvage
rider."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS clarified, "I do not oppose all logging. And
I do not oppose all logging on the Chugach. So I think it's
important to remember that within the context that it was written
in."
Number 1243
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether that also applied to the Kenai.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, "So you're refuting these things, then,
as not having applicability in the future?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said that was correct.
Number 1257
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that if there was no time for public
testimony, there would be ample opportunity in the near future.
Number 1301
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked whether Ms. Whittington-Evans saw
hunting and viewing as incompatible uses.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said no.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked whether she would oppose closing any
more areas for hunting to allow for viewing only.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "As with other issues that have been
raised, I think that each individual situation needs to be ...."
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK interjected, "Well, in general, Ms. Evans, do
you view ...?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said in general, no.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK restated her original question.
Number 1335
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "In general, I would not support
closing hunting to allow for viewing areas only."
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked whether she believed in using scientific
data to make sound management decisions where predator-prey
relations are concerned.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "Absolutely."
Number 1378
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "Would your views also go along with
that of Mr. Gordon Haver (ph)?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "No, not necessarily."
Number 1394
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she had been advised by anyone in
the Administration regarding this hearing.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said, "I have had conversations with the
Administration about this, and ... they have been trying to prepare
me and others in doing the best job we can during these
confirmation hearings. And they have tried to indicate, to the
best of their knowledge, what types of questions might come up and
have given me advice to be honest and open and do the best job I
can."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether they had advised her on how to
answer those questions.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said no.
Number 1449
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she felt it would be proper for the
legislature to apply pressure, after she was a confirmed member, to
influence her actions as a board member.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said no.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she felt the same way about the
Governor's office.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said, "I do."
Number 1464
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she had any knowledge of the people
in the Governor's office applying pressure or trying to influence
the Board of Game before decisions were made.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said no.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "If you're feeling pressure from any
legislators or the Governor's office, would you make a commitment
to contact me about it?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said yes, she would make that commitment.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN responded, "Well, you have my commitment I'm not
going to try to influence you after. ... The only appropriate way
that I think it should be done would be something from the
legislature or the committee about following either constitutional
mandates or statutes. But it would be an official action, and I
wouldn't oppose the Governor's office doing that, either." He said
he adamantly opposed any private influence.
Number 1505
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "I would like to know who in the
Governor's office is coaching you."
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS responded, "I've had discussions with Heather
Bradner."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "Is that the only one?"
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "She and her office mate last night
spoke with me about this hearing."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked the office mate's name.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said she believed her name is Cindy.
Number 1544
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether the briefings of appointees had
been given together or separately.
MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said separately.
Number 1561
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked Ms. Whittington-Evans and called on Lori
Quakenbush.
CONFIRMATION HEARING: LORI TRENT QUAKENBUSH, BOARD OF GAME
Number 1581
LORI TRENT QUAKENBUSH, Appointee, Board of Game, testified via
teleconference. A research associate with the University of
Alaska, she is a 24-year resident of Fairbanks with a bachelor's
degree in wildlife management and a master's degree in biology.
She has worked in Alaska as a biologist for at least 15 years,
including work in the Pribilof Islands, Kodiak, Sitka, the
Fairbanks area, Kotzebue and the North Slope.
MS. QUAKENBUSH said she is a hunter whose family basically lives on
moose, salmon, halibut and so forth. She said she believes her
interest in Alaska and her background, including her background in
biology, would serve her well as a member of the Board of Game.
Number 1645
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she considered her background as a
federal biologist a conflict with state management of fish and
game.
MS. QUAKENBUSH said no. She said he was referring to the six
years, from 1990 to 1996, when she worked as a wildlife biologist
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She had worked mostly in
wetlands permitting and worked a lot with oil companies on the
North Slope, basically to try to minimize impacts on wildlife
resources, migratory movement and things like that. "I recognize
the type of conflicts that you're worried about, but I don't see
that there's any problem there," she added.
Number 1688
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, if there was a proposal to close hunting in
favor of wildlife viewing but no biological basis for it nor impact
on the resource from overhunting, whether she would "err on the
side of the wildlife viewer or the hunter."
MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "Well, I don't view that as a yes-or-no
question, either, which I know you're going to be upset to hear
about. But what I would actually like to do is not to separate
those groups of people. I myself am a hunter and a wildlife
viewer, and I think the majority of the hunters you ask will also
say they fall in both categories." She did not believe those two
categories or activities were mutually exclusive. "And I think we
deal with actually the same individuals in both groups of people,"
she said.
MS. QUAKENBUSH continued, "Even if you are looking at separate
people, ... I think there's plenty of situations where you can do
both in the same areas. And I think it's useful to try to do that
as much as you can. I think it's important for people who only
view wildlife to understand why and what hunting is all about, and
vice versa. So I guess as a solution to that, I would actually try
to accommodate both user groups if they are separate, or both types
of activities in the same places, as much as possible."
Number 1767
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "So you don't have any strong feelings that
the fact that we have 54 million acres plus that are off-limits to
any hunting, that that's an adequate amount of wildlife-viewing-
only?" He took issue with her statement that it's the same
individuals. He believed they were talking about people who did
not come here to hunt, who were tourist-oriented and perhaps had
never picked up a gun in their lives.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN suggested hunters may have more opportunity to
view animals than nonhunters, because the former spend a great deal
of time learning the habits of the animals. He believed hunting
areas and opportunities had been continually eroded and compromised
in Alaska. He expressed concern about appointing people to the
Board of Game who would be biased towards wildlife viewers.
MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "Well, I don't have a bias towards wildlife
viewers, and I don't necessarily have a bias ... towards hunters.
I see my role as a member of the Board of Game as ... looking at
all of the different types of activities that people want to do in
those areas and deciding on those things. But like I said, I think
the people that you're talking about, who have never picked up a
gun, are exactly the types of people that you might want to ... not
have a separate viewing area for."
MS. QUAKENBUSH believed many people come to Alaska to see wildlife.
It was important for them to recognize that we hunt and trap, for
instance. "And I think that adds to their visit to Alaska," she
said. "So I would not look to, you know, to close down certain
areas to hunting. But, you know, I don't think that it's
necessarily either-or. I think there's some other solutions to
specific instances. And I'd look at them on a case-by-case basis."
Number 1901
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether Ms. Quakenbush was willing to
utilize "good science" in the wake of possibly hundreds or
thousands of letters, phone calls, or other pressures being brought
from an emotional standpoint rather than scientific facts.
MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "I am a scientist. So I recognize science,
both the good and bad, and I think I'd be a good judge of what the
science would be. I understand a lot of the issues before the
board are likely to be very emotional and contentious. And I view
my job as, you know, looking at all of those things and all the
information that's available and trying to make the best decision
I can, with six other members of the board, for the resource and
for the people of Alaska." Recognizing some issues would be very
emotional, she saw looking through that emotion as part of the job.
Number 1979
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "I'm sure you've been listening to the
questions that have been asked."
MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "I have."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether Ms. Quakenbush believed the
state constitution should be amended.
MS. QUAKENBUSH said, "I don't subscribe to either amending it or
not amending it. I've been in Alaska for a long time. I have seen
this issue come up over and over again. I'm not an expert on the
issue, and I don't even pretend to have a solution to this problem.
I think if there was an easy solution to this problem, it would
have been solved by now."
Number 2015
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said in her opinion, there was an easy
solution. However, people would have to be willing to accommodate
each other for the solution to be found, because she believed it
existed under the Uses section of the state constitution, as
written. She asked how Ms. Quakenbush would vote if she voted
today on whether to have a constitutional amendment.
MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "Well, I like to pride myself on being an
informed voter. And I would have to do a lot more background and
a lot more looking into, you know, what's already been brought up
about this issue before I would like to vote on it."
Number 2061
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked how long she had been a biologist.
MS. QUAKENBUSH said since 1982.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "And you have worked in the biological
field in Alaska most of that time?"
MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "All of that time."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said this issue had been around all that
time. She asked, "As a biologist working in the field, you have
not, at any time, decided to yourself, nor acquired the knowledge,
as to how you felt about one group of Alaskans being able to use
the resources over another?"
MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "I think there is merit for both arguments.
I guess what I would say right now [is] that dual management for
wildlife is a difficult way to manage wildlife. But as a board
member, my duty is to uphold the state constitution and work within
the state constitution as it fits now. And I don't really see, you
know, how I personally feel about the issue, if I knew how that
was, as being relevant to my job as a board member."
Number 2109
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said it was relevant because of the complex
issues as the constitution relates to Alaska's fish and game and
the different user groups. She noted that Ms. Quakenbush would be
asked to make decisions based upon different uses and the different
user groups.
MS. QUAKENBUSH responded, "And I will do that, based on the
constitution as it reads now."
Number 2124
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "And do you believe that the
constitution, as it reads presently, allows for the different
consumptive uses of the resource as it relates to a subsistence
lifestyle?"
MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "I think that it does, to a certain extent,
from the part of the constitution that you've been quoting, Section
4, about sustained yield. ... The last part of the sentence of that
is `subject to preferences among beneficial users [sic],' and that
might be where the preferences that you're talking about might be."
Number 2151
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded, "That and the section in the
constitution just before it that relates strictly to the fact that
the resources belong to all the people for their common use. And
based upon that, you would have a reason to distinguish among user
groups? And do you believe then, that as it relates to feeding
one's family, subsistence off of the resource, that one user group
should have priority over another?"
MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "Well, that's the way it is right now. If
we have healthy wildlife populations, and there's enough for
everybody, that's not something we need to worry about. But we do
have subsistence regulations or laws or whatever. And the way fish
and game issues are set up now, that's how it works. And I can't
change that, as a board member or as a member of the public."
Number 2192
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "If you had to make a choice between
commercial use of the resource or personal use, what would you do?"
MS. QUAKENBUSH asked her to define "commercial use of the
resource."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "That means that somebody who hunts for
it for -- makes a living off of hunting for it, to sell, or to sell
their services, or for people to feed their families."
MS. QUAKENBUSH said, "I definitely think that for people to feed
their families is an important -- is a priority of the resource
(indisc.).
Number 2230
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether, if she thought feeding one's
family was the first priority, that applied to all Alaskans or just
one particular group of Alaskans.
MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "For all Alaskans."
Number 2240
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked about her commitment to states' rights
in another arena. He referred to a recent executive order that
"created a tremendous lock-up of land" in a state which, like
Alaska, had few electoral votes. Although it did not directly
affect the Board of Game, he believed it had a direct bearing on
her views. He expressed concern that western states were being
sacrificed for votes in the eastern United States "through the
environmental consideration." He asked for Ms. Quakenbush's view
of that, indicating she did not have to answer.
MS. QUAKENBUSH said she would like to be able to answer but was
unfamiliar with that issue.
Number 2297
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained that the Antiquities Act "locked up"
a significant part of Utah, including some small towns, and shut
down a couple of mines. He stated his belief that Alaska is
vulnerable from that same standpoint. He wanted to know Ms.
Quakenbush's feeling about that attitude of federal encroachment on
states' rights.
MS. QUAKENBUSH said she could address that in some manner. She
stated, "There are a lot of lands in Alaska that are federally
managed. And they manage their wildlife resources differently than
the state does. I look upon that as a positive thing in a lot of
ways. We can argue whether we think there should be, you know,
less land that's being federally managed. But one of the things
that that allows us, as wildlife managers, to do in Alaska is to
know that there are places in Alaska that act as refuges for
wildlife populations, and also places where the ecosystems are
being allowed to fluctuate more naturally, which gives ... more of
us an opportunity to intensively manage or try to manage
populations for sustained yield and in other parts of the state."
MS. QUAKENBUSH continued, "I recognize that, you know, we could
still argue about how much of that in the state is necessary. And
it would be nice to have more areas opened for hunters and other
uses. But I really do think that having a blend of those types of
management schemes in a state like Alaska is actually, overall,
it's very beneficial."
Number 2392
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said, "When you take an oath to defend the
Constitution of the State of Alaska, part of that, I believe, goes
along with being able to defend the statehood compact. In the
statehood compact, we were given the right to manage fish and
wildlife in our state, and I believe, with every ounce of my
belief, that the federal government has exceeded their authority to
manage fish and wildlife in our state and are violating the
statehood compact. And I'm very concerned about how you -- you
said you look on it as a positive thing to have federal management
in some ways."
Number 2417
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES commented that President Carter had locked up
54 million acres in Alaska with the Antiquities Act.
MS. QUAKENBUSH referred to the question asked of other appointees
about whether or not anyone from the legislature had tried to
influence board opinions.
TAPE 97-24, SIDE B
Number 0006
MS. QUAKENBUSH said she had specifically requested information
about types of questions that might be asked, the format, and what
questions had been asked in the past. "I was not told how to
answer," she added.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she would feel it would be improper
for the legislature or the Governor's office to apply pressure to
influence her actions as a board member on specific issues.
MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "Yes, I do. I think that the game board is
set up to be independent of those two entities, and hopefully to
serve the public. And I do think that it would be inappropriate."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she had any knowledge of that
happening from the Governor's office.
MS. QUAKENBUSH said no.
Number 0035
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she would be willing to commit to
letting Co-Chairman Ogan know if she was being influenced
inappropriately by either the Governor's office or the legislature.
MS. QUAKENBUSH said, "Yes, I would, and I guess I would have to let
you know that I have already -- feel like I've been approached from
a legislator's office in that regard."
Number 0052
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said he believed it was appropriate for
legislators to talk to her prior to confirmation. He said, "The
way we influence you the most is by the statute, and ... I think
if, in the legislature's opinion, the game board is not following
the statutes or the constitution, I would take the liberty to
publicly raise that question through the committee process. But
... after you're confirmed, I think if you're contacted by
legislators or the Governor's office on a specific issue, you know,
you should have a fair amount of autonomy, but ...." Co-Chairman
Ogan called upon Representative Barnes.
Number 0082
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES noted that Ms. Quakenbush had said she had
already been contacted by legislators. She asked, "And does that
mean that they contacted her about this confirmation process, or
questions that might be raised, or game-related issues as it
relates to actions on the board?"
MS. QUAKENBUSH responded, "Yes, it was specifically related to a
proposal that would be coming before the board."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked Ms. Quakenbush and called upon Michael
Fleagle.
CONFIRMATION HEARING: MICHAEL R. FLEAGLE, BOARD OF GAME
Number 0150
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that because only 15 minutes of the
meeting remained, he reserved the possibility of Mr. Fleagle
returning for questioning at a later date.
MICHAEL R. FLEAGLE, Appointee, Board of Game, testified via
teleconference, saying he was a lifetime rural Alaskan resident
with a long history of traditional, cultural use of resources.
MR. FLEAGLE stated, "I understand the importance of maintaining a
healthy population of fish and game resources for all Alaskans'
use, particularly those that reside in remote areas that rely on
the resource as a primary food source. I believe in responsible
predator management to maintain the proper balance in our predator-
prey ratios. Our state resource managers have been able to
accomplish this for over 35 years, with the private citizens being
among some of the best of these managers, until the recent move to
restrict harvest methods of predators."
MR. FLEAGLE continued, "I strongly believe in the public process
system currently in place to achieve these goals, namely, the state
Board of Game and the state Department of Fish and Game. I would
like to see the state resume responsibility for all fish and game
management on all lands in Alaska, as I feel the dual management
system we currently have to be inefficient and cumbersome. I am
opposed to game management by referendum or public opinion,
especially from outside of Alaska, and feel that all efforts should
be made to return the management duties to this state. We need to
rely more on the experience, oral tradition and sound advice of
people that live in areas that may be affected by regulations."
MR. FLEAGLE advised that he wrote his position statement in
October, when first being considered for appointment, and still
maintained these positions.
Number 0307
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "Mr. Fleagle, you indicated in your
statement that you would not be one of those who might yield to
pressure. I'm wondering how you would handle a situation, since
you will be, in effect, in a position of allocating game take to
areas of rather intense hunting, like Tyonek or Ninilchik or
something like that, where there are a lot of urban hunters who
want to go into those areas, because as Alaskans, ... certainly the
majority of us enjoy game meat. How do you feel that you would
handle areas like that, where you have such intense pressure on
certain herds?"
MR. FLEAGLE replied, "We're limited in how we can allocate these
uses. And I guess I would have to come down in favor of the game
resource itself. But personally, I do strongly believe that people
that reside in the area don't have the same economic ability as
somebody coming from outside the area to harvest that game." He
said in McGrath, a moose was worth a lot to locals for the amount
of meat it provided, as opposed to having to buy it from the grocer
at $5 to $8 per pound. "So I don't see that this would be a
decision that the game board would be able to make, though, in the
current mandate," he stated.
Number 0307
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, "Mr. Fleagle, since we can't buy game
as such in the urban areas, we do buy salmon. And salmon will sell
anywhere from $9 to $10 a pound. And so there are certainly
significant numbers of people in urban areas whose economic status
is pretty low. It's a marginal existence. And if they had an
opportunity to hunt in these other areas, where the people who live
there also are of a low economic standard and rely heavily upon
game meat, would you still maintain your attitude that there should
be a preference locally?"
MR. FLEAGLE replied, "Well, yes, I think I would, sir. Having come
from the bush, knowing the economics of the people out there -- and
I'm talking rural areas. I'm not talking -- I don't know the road
system. You might have a whole different case of scenarios there.
But we don't have the ability to go to the supermarket and buy our
meat for one to -- you know, the cheap meat, at any rate. I think
I would maintain that position."
Number 0358
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "Will you, as a board member, protect
the public's right to access common property resources, or will you
support imposing the views of one group on all other Alaskans?"
MR. FLEAGLE replied, "I am opposed to any special interest group
trying to get any special access privileges or any of this sort.
And I would definitely be in favor of remaining open to access to
all Alaskans, as far as the resource can handle that access."
Number 0384
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to HB 168 and briefly described it.
She asked his opinion and whether he supported it.
MR. FLEAGLE replied, "Obviously, we are mandated to regulate fish
and game resources -- or, excuse me, game resources, by biological
concerns and not access or special interest pressures. And so
therefore, I wouldn't ... recommend closing an area to access
unless there was a real biological reason."
Number 0429
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "What's your opinion on the co-management
of the resources, i.e., the federal takeover of fish and wildlife
management on federal lands, and the statehood compact, the
constitutional questions we've discussed previously, and -- but
specifically, the co-management?"
MR. FLEAGLE replied, "As I stated in my position statement, I am
opposed to the dual management system. I call it dual management.
I don't see a co-management. We're working apart from each other.
And I think it's wrong. I think that the state needs to maintain
control of the resources. I believe in the statehood compact, and
I believe that they had in the best interests of the residents of
this state and -- when they agreed to that compact -- and I think
that we should return to that."
Number 0470
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, if there was an issue involving no
biological justification for closing an area to hunting in favor of
wildlife viewing, whether he would lean towards the hunter or the
wildlife viewer.
MR. FLEAGLE replied, "I'm on record at the Board of Game meeting in
Sitka as stating that I would be opposed to any closing of areas to
hunters. The proposal that that statement was made with was
dealing with reopening an area that had previously been closed for
a long period of time. I saw no justification to reopen that area.
But I would be opposed to closing any new areas."
Number 0508
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked him to reflect on questions to other
appointees relating to the state constitution. She asked whether
he supported amending it and how he viewed Sections 3 and 4 of
Article VIII.
MR. FLEAGLE replied, "I don't feel that we need to amend our
constitution to arrive at the place that we need to be as far as
game management. I think that if we are allowed to manage our game
resources, we will not have a situation to where we have to fight
over allocation issues. I believe that those game resources are
available for all, and that -- I don't agree with the
constitutional amendment (indisc.). I think that we already have
measures in place that allow for harvests to be allocated in
certain ways."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said that was the first answer she had
received all day that was not wishy-washy and that she believed he
had read and understood the constitution.
Number 0581
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that three minutes remained. He thanked
the public for listening and encouraged people to return when
public testimony was scheduled. He also encouraged the public to
fax or send written comments to the committee.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Fleagle had been advised by or
had discussions with the Governor's office.
MR. FLEAGLE said no. He had been invited to attend a briefing the
previous night, but had declined.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether he felt it would be proper for the
legislature or the Governor's office to influence his decisions on
the Board of Game once he was confirmed.
MR. FLEAGLE said, "No, sir, I feel that any of that type of
pressure would be inappropriate, except that in the case that
legislation may be passed that we would be obligated to follow,
that would be the only time that I think it would be appropriate."
Number 0661
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "And if you hear inappropriate influence,
would you be happy to contact me about that?"
MR. FLEAGLE replied, "Certainly."
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked Mr. Fleagle.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0679
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 11:59 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|