04/08/2002 01:15 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 8, 2002
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Joe Green
Representative Mike Chenault
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 266
"An Act establishing and relating to the Joint Federal and State
Navigable Waters Commission for Alaska; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 266(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
3d SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 178
"An Act relating to the powers and duties of the commissioner of
fish and game, the Department of Fish and Game, and the Board of
Game, to taking and use of certain game animals, and to
consideration of the budget of the Department of Fish and Game
by the legislature; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 48
Relating to federal land withdrawals.
- MOVED HJR 48 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 266
SHORT TITLE:FED/STATE NAVIGABLE WATERS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)PORTER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
05/02/01 1481 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/02/01 1481 (H) RES, FIN
05/02/01 1481 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
05/03/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
05/03/01 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/29/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/29/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/01/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/01/02 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(RES)
04/08/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 178
SHORT TITLE:MANAGMENT OF FISH AND GAME
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)FATE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/13/01 0560 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/13/01 0560 (H) RES, FIN
03/16/01 0636 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
04/05/01 0860 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
04/05/01 0860 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/05/01 0860 (H) RES, FIN
01/18/02 2002 (H) 2D SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED
01/18/02 2002 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/18/02 2002 (H) RES, FIN
03/25/02 2668 (H) 3D SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED
03/25/02 2668 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/25/02 2668 (H) RES, FIN
03/25/02 2668 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
04/01/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/01/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/08/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 48
SHORT TITLE:TERMINATION OF FED LAND WITHDRAWALS
SPONSOR(S): RLS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/01/02 2740 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/01/02 2740 (H) RES
04/08/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
RON SOMERVILLE, Consultant
to the House and Senate Majority
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 266 on behalf of
Representative Porter, sponsor.
ROD ARNO
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
P.O. Box 1410
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 266; testified
in support of intent of 3d SSHB 178 and passing it out of
committee.
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed serious concerns about provisions
of 3d SSHB 178; answered questions.
MATT ROBUS, Deputy Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to 3d SSHB 178;
testified that a general, flexible, sustainable-yield approach
would be preferable.
VIC VAN BALLENBERGHE
8941 Winchester Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: As wildlife biologist, expressed concerns
about 3d SSHB 178; cautioned against trying to manage for
maximum sustained yield and suggested the bill might work
counter to the goal of producing wildlife abundance.
MICHAEL PURVIANCE
P.O. Box 1656
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on 3d SSHB 178, provided a
farmer's perspective on damage caused by moose and other
animals.
JOEL BENNETT
Defenders of Wildlife
(No address provided)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to 3d SSHB 178.
JUDY OHMER, Staff
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 48 on behalf of the House
Rules Standing Committee.
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association, Incorporated
3305 Arctic, Number 202
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 48.
SANDRA SINGER, Realty Services Section
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1050A
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 48.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-26, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. Representatives Masek,
Fate, Stevens, and Scalzi were present at the call to order.
Representatives Kapsner, Kerttula, and McGuire arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 266-FED/STATE NAVIGABLE WATERS COMMISSION
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the first order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 266, "An Act establishing and relating to the Joint Federal
and State Navigable Waters Commission for Alaska; and providing
for an effective date." [In packets was a proposed committee
substitute (CS), version 22-LS0966\C, Cook, 3/27/02.]
Number 0108
RON SOMERVILLE, Consultant to the House and Senate Majority,
Alaska State Legislature, speaking on behalf of Representative
Porter, sponsor of HB 266, noted that he'd discussed the bill at
length at the [April 1] hearing; he highlighted materials
addressed during that hearing. He told members that since
statehood in 1959, the state has had considerable problems
getting title to the approximately 60 million acres of submerged
lands it received at statehood under the equal footing doctrine
and the Submerged Lands Act. First, he said, the Quiet Title
Act is "kind of schizophrenic" in that the state can give a 180-
day notice, as required by law, to quiet title, but if the
federal government doesn't actively assert its interest, the
courts have ruled that the courts no longer have jurisdiction.
He added, "You can't sue the federal government unless they
agree to it, so you can't quiet title." He offered an example
and referred to his testimony at the previous hearing. Noting
that the other difficulty is the navigability criteria, he said:
Even though there have been several court cases that
the state has won, we've essentially outlined what the
criteria are for navigability established by the
courts. And one case that probably is the paramount
one is the Gulkana case, which ... was decided in
1987, appealed, and later affirmed by the 9th Circuit
Court [of Appeals] in 1989. So the criteria
[themselves have] been very difficult to get a handle
on, in order to force some sort of criteria
determination by BLM [Bureau of Land Management], in
particular, and/or the courts.
The other thing is, BLM surveys that have been
conducted up 'til 1983 were not consistent with their
own manuals, so a lot of land ... was conveyed in
title, particularly to corporations, which ... leaves
a cloud ... on the title because they didn't use their
own manual surveying instructions. In other words,
[for] lakes less than 50 acres and streams less than
3 chains - 198 feet - they should have done a
navigability determination; they did not.
So the implication was, when they conveyed some of the
lands to the corporations, that the ... submerged
lands belonged to the corporation, when, in fact, the
state has claimed that many of them are navigable and
thus, if they were navigable at the time of statehood,
they, in essence, ... belong to the state. So [for]
any land conveyed prior to 1983 that doesn't fit the
Gulkana decision and criteria, in essence, there's a
cloud on the title.
Number 0472
MR. SOMERVILLE continued:
To illustrate the problem, the state had submitted
about 200 rivers to the federal government, gave 180-
day notice that they intend to quiet title under the
Quiet Title Act. And then taking three rivers - or
the Kandik, the Nation, and the Black [Rivers] - out
of ... those 200, they filed a lawsuit and [tried] to
force the federal government ... to release the title,
in essence, of the three rivers, again, the purpose
being to establish some precedent, if you will, in
establishing navigability.
Nine years later - and a million dollars, federal and
state money - two of the rivers, we quieted title to
them because the federal government had asserted an
interest. And we can prove that in court, so we
quieted the title on the Kandik [River] and the Nation
[River]. The Black River, the federal government was
successful in convincing the court it didn't have
jurisdiction, [and so] they couldn't quiet title to
it. And so ... for two rivers, it took us nine years
and a million dollars. If you consider the fact
[that] we have 22,000 rivers and a million lakes, the
rivers alone, it'll take us 99,000 years to resolve
our navigability and title issues. That may be an
overexaggeration, but that's the rate at which we're
doing it.
Why do we need title? Because if the state wishes to
utilize the submerged lands in any way, such as
leasing for gravel, oil and gas, or whatever - if you
wish to manage it - the jurisdictional aspects that go
with managing the water ... column [are] involved when
you own title to submerged lands.
This particular proposal ... is designed for one
purpose, ... to try to create a cooperative federal-
state commission to sit down and identify those rivers
which are navigable and those which are nonnavigable.
And those you don't agree [about], you have to fight
out in court - and then with the idea that working
with the Secretary of Interior and Congress, and
possibly even coming back to the legislature, if it's
necessary, to certify which rivers are navigable and
which are nonnavigable. And this particular group has
no authority, in essence, to declare them; it just has
the purpose [of] sitting down and saying, "We agree
that these rivers meet the Gulkana criteria for
navigability; these clearly are nonnavigable," and
develop those two lists. That way, the
recommendations will go from the body - the federal
and state body - to the Secretary [of the Interior],
through Congress, and to the legislature for further
action.
Number 0699
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Mr. Somerville whether he was
comfortable with the fiscal note, and what the $250,000 covers.
MR. SOMERVILLE answered that the fiscal note is a guess. The
last time the federal-state land-use planning commission was in
existence, in 1979, "it was about ... $670,000 ahead," he said,
indicating it costs more today to do things [because of
inflation]. He added that the federal-state land use planning
commission created in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) had a much broader agenda: it was looking at all land
and water uses; at the subsistence issues; and at "a wide
variety of things related to the potential withdrawal of 80
million acres, which was in the law, which ended up being a 120-
million-acre withdrawal at 1980." He indicated both
Representative Porter and Senator Halford had said this is a CIP
[capital improvement project], and he remarked that the
legislature can add money to it if ... "it's doing a good job
and there's need for additional funds." He added:
So it certainly will probably get us through the first
year. But you don't look at a whole, big staffing,
for instance, for a two-year project. You're talking
about using DNR [Department of Natural Resources]
staff, [Alaska Department of] Fish and Game staff,
Department of Transportation [& Public Facilities],
[and] DEC [Department of Environmental Conservation]
in the state - and ... [U.S. Department of]
Agriculture [and U.S. Department of the] Interior, in
particular, in the federal agencies - to provide the
background information that is already on the records;
you can already make that decision.
Number 0853
ROD ARNO, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), told members he would
reiterate from the last hearing on [HB] 266. He said, "Our
membership in the [AOC] depends on these waterways for access
for hunting, for fishing - for recreation. So we do support
passage of this legislation and hope that the state, then, can
receive title to as many of the public waterways as possible."
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked whether anyone else wished to testify; she
then closed public testimony.
Number 0945
CO-CHAIR SCALZI moved to report HB 266 [version 22-LS0966\C,
Cook, 3/27/02] out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal note. He spoke in favor of
resolving the submerged lands issue in an expedited manner in
order to avoid becoming further and further detached from the
original guidelines for determining "navigable water and the
lands beneath it." He also expressed support for the attached
fiscal note as described by Mr. Somerville.
CO-CHAIR MASEK emphasized the importance of the legislation in
order to get this commission up and working, but expressed hope
that it wouldn't require more resources [than in the fiscal
note].
Number 1034
CO-CHAIR MASEK requested adoption of the proposed CS.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded, "So moved."
Number 1044
CO-CHAIR SCALZI renewed his motion to report [version 22-
LS0966\C, Cook, 3/27/02] out of committee with individual
recommendations and the attached fiscal note. There being no
objection, CSHB 266(RES) was moved out of the House Resources
Standing Committee.
HB 178-MANAGMENT OF FISH AND GAME
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the next order of business, 3d SPONSOR
SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 178, "An Act relating to the
powers and duties of the commissioner of fish and game, the
Department of Fish and Game, and the Board of Game, to taking
and use of certain game animals, and to consideration of the
budget of the Department of Fish and Game by the legislature;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 1176
REPRESENTATIVE FATE, sponsor, explained that the bill provides
for a maximum sustained yield of game animals based on an
"historic high population," which is clarified in the bill, and
it takes into account the habitat and the historic climates. It
mandates active management of wildlife resources to comply with
the "maximum benefit clause" of the state constitution, he
asserted, adding that the bill allows for not only "high human
harvest," but also high game populations, "increasing the
aesthetic value of having large numbers of animals." He said a
harvest goal is 15 percent to 33 percent of surplus animals,
which would be "identified from after calving and after the
survival rate of after calving."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE told members the bill reconfirms and
clarifies the duty of the commissioner and the board. One
change, he said, is that the statute says something to the
effect that it is the board's duty to manage, whereas he
believes it is the administration's duty to manage. Therefore,
the bill uses the word "allocate" instead. Furthermore, the
bill removes the ability to hire specific enforcement officers,
but retains the right of the state troopers who have fish-and-
game protection and enforcement responsibility. Furthermore, it
retains the responsibility of the commissioner to deputize those
people in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) who are
in the field, and clarifies those people who are in the field
who have the ability to enforce game laws. He concluded, "In
the main, this bill just simply mandates active management of
fish and game with a priority for a goal of high human harvest."
Number 1467
REPRESENTATIVE FATE, in response to Representative Kerttula,
said the 15-to-33 percent is in line with "other game taking of
other states." He added:
At the present time, ... the human harvest of game is
so low that it's almost ... negligible, somewhere in
the neighborhood of maybe 3 percent. And this is an
endeavor ... to not specify how much you have to take
- because nobody knows how much is going to be taken -
but at least establish some kind of a goal which goes
along with the active management for high yield, for
abundance of the game animal - as it says, the
harvestable surplus, which is usually considered after
the survivability of the ... calf population of that
particular year. So it's ... simply designed to make
that a goal of human harvest, rather than to try to
dictate what that human harvest is going to be.
Number 1577
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to Section 2, page 2,
[paragraph] (1), with regard to the commissioner's powers. She
said, "I'm not sure if that really changes what we have at this
point, but I was reading the language together. Is ... your
goal to change how the commissioner is now allocating or not,
with that language?"
REPRESENTATIVE FATE answered that one of the primary duties of
the Board of Game is to make allocations. He added:
When I mentioned that before, there was, in several of
the duties enumerated in the original bill, one of
them was to manage. We feel it's not the board's
responsibility to manage; it's the commissioner's and
his staff's responsibility to manage. That doesn't
change ... his responsibility. It's the board's
responsibility to help allocate those resources and,
of course, among other things, to advise the
[commissioner], as you see in the bill, of the other
duties of the board.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA clarified that she was asking about
managing for abundance for maximum sustained yield - how that
differs from what is done now, and how Representative Fate
envisions that working.
CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that it is on page 2, lines 9-12.
Number 1679
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said there are many different ways; he
mentioned predator control and habitat enhancement including
prescribed burns and "water habitat facilitation." He added:
It's not our intent to dictate how this is done, but
to simply say that active management is what will ...
enhance the population of the game. And another thing
in here, in ... talking with the department, we did
provide in here a caveat: for example, one of the
game animals on the Alaska [Peninsula] is a brown
bear; it's ... not an ungulate or a prey animal at
all. And so, in here we tried to make room for that,
and for permit drawings, for example, and ... special
seasons. We made reference to the ... musk ox, which
is a separate thing.
We've really tried to facilitate everything we can
think of. But as far as active and passive
management, there is a difference. Active management
manages for ... an historic high game population,
whatever that was, determined by ... records of the
Department of Fish and Game. And ... the effort and
the goal is to manage for that. Passive management,
basically, is "let nature take its course," and if
there's not a lot of game out there, why, that's just
tough - don't do anything. ... So, there is a
difference between active and passive game management,
and we're advocating the active game management.
Number 1786
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER referred to Representative Fate's mention
of a 3-percent harvest rate that is almost negligible. She
offered her understanding that it is the subsistence harvest,
rather than the overall harvest; she asked Gordy Williams of
ADF&G to respond.
Number 1818
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, came forward accompanied by
Matt Robus, whom he introduced.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked them to address Section 2, page 2, lines 9-
12.
Number 1841
MATT ROBUS, Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, responded:
The answer is that there is probably a different level
of harvest on every population across the state. And
in some places the total harvest on ungulate
populations may be in the neighborhood of 3 to 5
percent, but in other places it's as high as 10
percent on moose populations, for instance, and then
has a lot to do with the capability of the land, the
situation with the habitat, [and] other factors such
as weather and predators and human demands on the
population.
And just as an example, when the Board of Game looked
at intensive-management populations to develop harvest
and population goals, they used 10 percent as kind of
the upper limit for moose populations, as a starting
point for developing some of those ... management
objectives, just because of all the different factors
that ungulate populations have to face in this state.
So it's really not possible to say 3 percent across
the board or 5 percent across the board. It really
varies, depending on what species and what location
you're talking about.
Number 1914
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked, "How do we currently evaluate how
the commissioner and the department [are] doing, and how would
this new system, if implemented, be measured?"
REPRESENTATIVE FATE answered:
First, ... in this state legislature, there's missions
and measures. This is one way we have, certainly, of
evaluating at least the efficiency as far as the
dollars go. But I think the other way of evaluating
... the efficiency and the management itself is ... by
the public itself. In those units where there's a
paucity of game animals of the kind that they're
trying to take -- and we've already seen that the
board will advise one method of alleviating ... the
scarcity of those animals, and sometimes that's not
followed. So ... what we're really trying to do here
is literally put in law what's basically (indisc.)
already in law, and certainly is in the constitution.
The measurement, as I've said, of those things will
come both from the statutes and from the public.
MR. ROBUS responded:
The performance measures that Representative Fate
mentioned certainly are measures, and we worked up
performance measures that have to do with how many
permits the department issues ... for big-game hunting
a year; how many surveys we fly, in order to show
whether or not we're getting ... adequate coverage
with our inventory operations; visitors to our
refuges; and that type of thing.
However, another method of feedback that we get is at
the Board of Game meetings and telephone calls to our
offices. It becomes pretty clear when we're not
achieving what the public generally conceives of as
the proper way to manage populations. And I don't
know if you've ever been to a Board of Game meeting
recently, but there's spirited discussion there about
the method, ... our approach to management, our
success or lack of success in getting to where the
public feels we ought to be. And then the most
tangible result is, we get proposals from the public
at every Board of Game meeting that are the avenue for
people to change the way that we manage wildlife. If
it makes good sense and seems to be in the public
interest, then the Board of Game can adopt those, and
off we go in a new management direction. So that's
the type of feedback we get in terms of the success.
Number 2078
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that the constitution requires
management for sustained yield, rather than maximum sustained
yield. She asked whether there are any cases or analyses that
talk about abundance for maximum sustained yield.
MR. ROBUS answered:
We believe that there is a difference. The sustained
yield principle, as generally stated in the
constitution, gives us a lot of flexibility in how we
manage the balance between different types of animals.
And, in fact, this is kind of testifying before our
testimony, but one of the problems we see ... with the
bill is that it calls for maximum sustained yield of
all wildlife. And we're finding out that if you want
to maximize an ungulate population in a particular
place, ... we're not going for a maximum sustained
yield of predator populations. In order to manage
your way through that, you'd probably want to depress
predator populations in some cases. So the lack of
flexibility in the language of this bill, as it
stands, is of great concern.
And the other thing is the liability of managing right
at the knife's edge of MSY [maximum sustained yield].
As I've said before, there's a lot of very serious,
uncontrollable factors such as winter snow levels,
habitat conditions, things that are very difficult ...
to measure. And if we push too far and think we're at
MSY and try to hold the population there, and we're
wrong or we have bad luck in terms of winter
conditions or so forth, we could be plunging a
population into a situation that's very difficult to
recover from. So a general, flexible, sustainable-
yield approach is preferable to us.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded:
Under the present situation, the determination of what
is sustained yield sometimes is at the lower end of
what the people need out there. If you describe it as
"maximum sustained yield," you are telling the
Department of Fish and Game that you want the maximum
number ... of animals that habitat will carry, and
that has an historic ... number of animals to back
that up; it's not just something you're grabbing out
of the sky. But if you just simply say "sustained
yield," you could have five animals out there, and
that will sustain it. So you're ... not describing
any boundaries, any parameters. And it hasn't worked.
Number 2259
CO-CHAIR SCALZI remarked that it has always been a good debate
with regard to sustained yield, maximum sustained yield, and
optimum sustained yield. He said, "Optimum sustained yield is
essentially subjective sustained yield management, if I
understand it right." He offered his opinion that the
constitution says "sustained yield to the maximum benefit of all
users." He also offered his opinion that it isn't as
problematic as the department believes it to be.
Number 2318
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER voiced concern about trying to balance
the ungulates versus the predators, because there is a natural
cycle that has fluctuations. After a cycle when the ungulate
population is depressed and there are more predators, it
balances over time because the predators won't have a food
source, for example. She expressed concern about a public
outcry during a natural cycle, and the pointing of fingers at
the managers for what is actually a natural phenomenon.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE recalled anecdotes from his wife's family
about long-lasting cycles of over 40 years, and therefore
questioned the idea of natural cycles that balance over time.
Number 2419
MR. WILLIAMS informed the committee that ADF&G has some serious
concerns about provisions in the bill and potential effects.
For example, some ambiguity might lead to increased litigation
and confusion in fish and game management. Noting that Mr.
Robus would speak about the game biology, Mr. Williams pointed
out that the bill speaks to fish and game in some places. He
informed members that Kevin Saxby from the Department of Law was
supposed to be online, but was also involved in another
committee hearing and might not be available.
MR. WILLIAMS expressed appreciation for the sponsor's comments
on the [removal of] "enforcement agents" in Section 1, which he
indicated had been a concern of the department because the
legislative intent wasn't clear as to why that language had been
removed. He explained:
We think that it's very important that ... there's an
enforcement presence in the field, by the number of
biologists and people that we have out, because we
have a fairly small number of fish and wildlife
protection officers that are employed. So we
appreciate the intent that it's ... a clarification -
it's not to affect the current situation. All of our
enforcement agents go through training....
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded:
To even further clarify, it says an employee of the
department authorized by the commissioner that can be
deputized - a police officer of the state, they
already have that - or any other person authorized by
the commissioner. So the commissioner can deputize
just about whoever he sees fit within that department,
as well ... as enforcement officers through the
Department of Safety.
Number 2532
MR. WILLIAMS referred to Section 1, page 2, lines 1-2, which
read, "(B) to achieve an abundance of fish and wildlife
resources sufficient to provide the maximum sustained yield of
those resources;". He told members it would be added to the
commissioner's duties, but pointed out that it speaks to all
fish and wildlife resources and would include predators, prey,
resident fish, and anadromous fish, for example, and would be
virtually impossible to manage. There are conflicts, he said,
and some of those resources aren't used much by humans.
MR. WILLIAMS turned attention to Section 2, noting that
paragraph (1) [page 2, beginning on line 9] removes some
language about assisting the [U.S.] Fish and Wildlife Service in
the enforcement of federal laws and regulations. He said the
constitution provides for a level of cooperation between the
state and federal governments. He explained:
Practically, again, this may not have a lot of effect,
but we'd be interested, again, to make sure that it's
not the legislative intent that we can't participate
with the federal government on waterfowl management,
the Lacey Act -- there's various federal regulations
that we're involved with, and things that we don't
manage on the state level. And we think it's very
important that the state is able to assist with ...
that type of management.
Number 2628
MR. WILLIAMS requested clarification about page 3, paragraph (7)
[Section 2], which relates to public facilities and removes
language with regard to entering into cooperative agreements.
He pointed out that the department does enter into cooperative
agreements on things such as boat-launch ramps, for management
with the Department of Natural Resources. He advised the
committee, "We would not want to have that ability to do that
removed. And we don't think that's the intent of the bill, but,
again, ... we're not sure."
MR. WILLIAMS turned attention to paragraph (9) [Section 2,
page 3] and informed members:
The Department of Law has told us this is a problem.
It puts the boards of fish and game, or the Board of
Game, into the fiscal matters of the department.
Currently, ... the boards of fish and game are both
prohibited from being involved in fiscal matters of
the department. And by this paragraph assigning the
highest priority to plans, programs, and regulations
adopted by the board, it's kind of a de facto entrance
into our ... fiscal management of the department. And
that's seen as a potential legal problem.
MR. WILLIAMS referred to Section 3, page 5, which adds a new
subsection saying that before entering into a cooperative
arrangement with any entity for the management of fish and game,
[the department] must provide public notice and a reasonable
opportunity [to comment], and must inform the presiding officers
[of each house of the legislature]. He pointed out that
"cooperative arrangement" isn't defined, and cautioned that
without that, it would have to be read very broadly.
Highlighting ADF&G's indeterminate fiscal note for this
legislation, he explained:
We enter into contracts. We enter into agreements ...
to receive federal funds in a lot of areas. We
contract with an airline service to do game surveys -
all those kind of things. And ... the Department of
Law says those would all be cooperative arrangements.
If we had to publicly notice each and every one of
those and take out ads in newspapers and everything,
we could see a relatively enormous fiscal note. So we
don't exactly know what, again, the intent is there,
... but if we had to comply with this as written, we
would have a very extensive fiscal note.
Number 2755
MR. WILLIAMS turned attention to Section 5, page 5, and pointed
out that it begins, "The Board of Game, as it considers
necessary to allocate, protect, maintain, improve, and extend
the game resources of the state to achieve abundance for maximum
sustained yield of game and for other purposes, may adopt
regulations [IT CONSIDERS ADVISABLE]...." Noting that the
phrase "it considers advisable" is in the current statute, he
explained that the department doesn't believe it is a good
change to put the word "necessary" in there. He explained:
The Board of Game makes a lot of decisions on what
they feel is advisable for good fish and game
allocation in the state, whether it's restriction on a
particular type of weapon that can be used in an area
or a certain area next to a highway that might be
closed for one type of (indisc.--coughing) or another.
Those may not be necessary to allocate, protect, and
maintain, but they are ... certainly advisable on
things that they're reacting to the public or to
agency input on.
Again, the Department of Law feels that they're often
defending cases every year about the word "necessary,"
where people go into court and say, ... "It wasn't
necessary that they had that regulation." And that's
not a standard that we have to meet to defend those
cases. It's a regulation that was passed by the
board, that they felt was in the best interest of the
state. And we wouldn't like to see that jeopardized.
MR. WILLIAMS addressed Section 6, [beginning on] page 6. He
informed members, "Our reading of this is, current intensive
game management is not restricted to areas where there's a
drawing permit." He explained that usually the drawing hunts
and permits are in areas where the game population is relatively
healthy but the carrying capacity of the habitat and the size of
the resource aren't enough to meet all the demands. He
cautioned, "Restricting it to only areas where there's a drawing
permit would be a significant restriction on the current
intensive game management laws that are on the books now."
Number 2858
MR. WILLIAMS turned attention to Section 7 [page 7], noting that
he would ask Mr. Robus to correct him if necessary.
Mr. Williams noted that Section 7 removes the language, "or has
scheduled for adoption at the next regularly scheduled meeting
of the board regulations", which is part of the intensive game
management laws. If a view is brought to the board, the board
can make some decisions at a meeting with regard to the harvest
of that resource, although it wouldn't have a proposal before it
and wouldn't have given the public time to work with the
department and board to craft a balanced intensive game
management program. Mr. Williams remarked:
Again, these are complicated, [on a] case-by-case
basis, often with wolves and bears and habitat
carrying capacity; indeed, this is the kind of thing
that needs study. So that's why I believe this was
put on the books, is that it's not possible, at a lot
of these meetings, for the board to have the type of
proposal in front of them that the public knows about,
and to adopt that. So they could take some ...
management actions to keep the population from being
... further depressed, but without having adopted ...
a formal intensive game management program. So if
this was to go forward this way, I think there's a
danger that the harvest of the population would
continue at a rate that further drives ... the
population down to a very low level.
MR. WILLIAMS turned attention to Section 8, noting that it
speaks to historic high population levels, which in Alaska were
reached during the end of territorial days and early statehood,
"when there was widespread poisoning, widespread aerial taking
of animals." He said it isn't a sustainable population for many
of these resources or, to his belief, a politically acceptable
method of fish and game management in the current times.
Number 2956
CO-CHAIR SCALZI pondered whether Section 8 could work in reverse
with regard to maximum sustained yield, resulting in never being
able to achieve those high levels. He said historic high levels
are often artificial, and achieving maximum sustained yield
would be difficult in certain [circumstances].
TAPE 02-26, SIDE B
Number 2980
MR. WILLIAMS reiterated an earlier point that the bill applies
to both fish and game in several instances.
MR. ROBUS emphasized some points discussed by Mr. Williams. He
referred to Section 6 and said:
Under the present intensive-management law and
regulations, the Board of Game has identified ungulate
populations around the state that qualify as being,
quote, "important for high levels of human consumptive
use," unquote. Anytime the biological analysis of a
situation leads the board to determine that intensive
management is needed for one of those populations,
they can and have gone ahead and implemented intensive
management for those populations.
And the rewording proposed in the bill here would take
that away from most of the areas where that's happened
and limit it only to areas for populations where we
have drawing hunts. And I can't think of an
intensive-management situation where we have a drawing
hunt, because by the time you get to intensive
management, you're down into a limited registration
permit or a Tier I or a Tier II permit, usually. So
this section ... would radically alter the intensive-
management program and limit it to the type of
populations where intensive management really is not
called for or appropriate.
Number 2915
MR. ROBUS turned attention to Section 7 and said:
The procedure that the Board of Game goes through at
their meetings is that for each area, they hear
proposals for ungulate populations first; then they
hear proposals for predator populations. And
sometimes it works out that they decide that we need
to restrict harvest on a moose population, say,
because it's not doing very well, and, by good
fortune, there may be a predator proposal later on in
that same meeting where they can actually take some
intensive-management action and begin curing the
problem right there.
But it's much more common not to have an appropriate
... predator-related proposal at that meeting. And so
the way this law would be worded is that ... the board
would be prevented from taking restrictive action to
protect the population that's in trouble, because they
didn't have an appropriate proposal before them at
that meeting and they would not be given the slack
that's in the present law, which allows a proposal to
be circulated before the public, come back at the next
regularly scheduled meeting, and the board takes
action at that point to start, usually, increasing the
take of the predator.
The only way we would have to protect that moose
population under this wording would be to draw up an
emergency order on it midway through a season, when we
figure that enough is enough in terms of harvest. And
we think it's much preferable to retain the existing
language that lets the board take action as soon as
possible under their public-notice procedures, but
allow them to take restrictive action if they really
think it needs to be done, because ... that type of
decision involves the public much more than an
emergency order that an area biologist or a director
puts into effect as an emergency way ... to keep a
herd from being ... overharvested. So we ... don't
feel that this is, ... procedurally, a very good way
to proceed.
Number 2801
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked about emergency orders (EOs) for closures,
and whether Mr. Robus was testifying that EOs aren't the best
method to use for shutting down an opening when a critical
problem is discovered.
MR. ROBUS replied:
Emergency orders are certainly a valid and useful way
for our department to ... modify or close off the
taking of a population when we discover that there's
... no more animals that can be taken ... with safety.
What I was trying to say here ... is that when the
Board of Game is hearing the biological evidence from
the department, listening to public testimony, and
deciding that harvest regulations need to be modified,
that's going on with a whole lot of public input. And
the ... implementation of the intensive-management law
deserves that amount of public input. And if the
board, at that point, feels there needs to be
restriction, they should be allowed ... to modify the
regulations for that ... population right then if they
need to, and then pass the appropriate intensive-
management regulation as soon as procedurally
possible, either at that meeting or at the next
meeting.
I didn't mean to say that EOs were not a valid way ...
of protecting a herd. But in the case where the Board
of Game can make a determination that a restriction
needs to happen, it would be more appropriate, I
think, to do it through that process and leave the
emergency orders for situations where ... we find
through surveys or through harvest reporting ... that
we cannot afford to take any more animals in a given
hunt.
Number 2700
CO-CHAIR SCALZI said he'd wanted to get on record that [ADF&G]
still supports that methodology of management, rather than going
back to "federal-type management."
MR. ROBUS affirmed that, adding that Mr. Williams had just
reminded him of another difference. He explained, "The Board of
Game can tweak those seasons in any way that they feel is
appropriate. An emergency order basically is a 'light switch'
that we have to turn the season off at a given point. So it's a
less flexible way of managing a population."
Number 2654
CO-CHAIR SCALZI read from the state constitution, Article VIII,
Section 2, which talks about the maximum benefit of the people.
He offered his view that the bill tries to merge that concept
with the sustained yield principle [Article VIII, Section 4].
He asked Mr. Robus for his interpretation of the department's
stand on "maximum benefit versus maximum sustained yield."
MR. ROBUS replied:
Not being a fisheries biologist, I don't have much
personal experience with the term "maximum sustained
yield," because that's not the way the department is
managed on the game side of things. So I'm probably
not all that well qualified to answer your question
... in detail.
My feeling, from sitting at Board of Game meetings and
being in the department for a fair amount of time, is
that we're always straining at trying to achieve the
maximum benefit to the people by adjusting the way
populations ... are managed and harvested. There's no
doubt that we've got difficulties. ... Our resources
are limited. The state's huge. The productivity per
acre in this state is low compared to ... almost
everywhere else on the continent, or at least the
Lower 48. There are some really tough challenges in
providing the maximum benefit, but that's where the
Board of Game and the department are always aiming
towards.
This is getting a little away from your question, but
I'll point out that we have population and harvest
objectives established for every ungulate population
in the state - or every deer, caribou, and moose
population in the state - that has been found to be
important for high levels of human consumptive use.
So we already have targets to aim at, and the Board of
Game is already working really hard to produce those
population levels and the harvest levels that go with
that, to the extent possible. So maximum benefit is
always going to be a goal out there in front of us
somewhere, but I think that's definitely where both
the board and the department aim their efforts.
Number 2524
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked, fisheries aside, whether Mr. Robus
believes maximum sustained yield is or isn't consistent with
maximum benefit.
MR. ROBUS replied that he thinks this language takes away some
flexibility and places difficult, arbitrary standards. He added
his belief that "the maximum benefit to the people" isn't
consistent with the language in this bill.
Number 2484
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded to points made by the ADF&G
representatives. First, he said, "I don't think that we should
mandate the State of Alaska, through the commissioner, to assist
the federal government in enforcing federal laws on federal
land." He also offered his belief that [the bill] doesn't take
away the ability of the commissioner to make arrangements with
other entities and organization, and that it provides
clarification in this regard, whereas he believes it was
arbitrary previously. Speaking of the commissioner, he added,
"That ability is still in place for him to make arrangements
with any other entity that he so - really, basically - desires."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE returned attention to Section 5, page 5,
subsection (a), line 27, and said:
When the Board of Game needs a solution that they
think is necessary, they should articulate that
immediacy to the commissioner, and ... if they feel
that's necessary, then they should articulate that; if
it's "advisable", then that could be misconstrued by
the commissioner. And they may not take action if
it's only advisable. It doesn't disallow, certainly,
the board being advisors, because that, by nature, is
what it is.
Number 2354
REPRESENTATIVE FATE referred to page 6, [beginning at] line 28
[with regard to drawing permits]. He suggested perhaps the
wording isn't quite what was meant, and said:
If you look at that, I think it was stated that you
wouldn't have intensive [management] where you have a
drawing anyway, because if you have a drawing, it
implies that there's plenty of game animals there, and
so why is there a need for intensive management? But
that's not really what it says here. ... What it says,
basically, is if there is a ... necessity because of
the scarcity of game animals, but where there is an
area where [a] drawing has taken place, I suppose
there's two things that could happen. By emergency
order, you could just simply stop it. But this is
saying that in those areas, ... then you should adopt
intensive management to build up the population, which
is the effort. And that precludes the musk ox, which
come under a different set of regulations. So ...
it's really aimed at helping ... the Board of Game and
the commissioner, where there [have] been drawings and
... where there is now a scarcity of that game animal,
to institute the intensive-management program. And
that's the meaning of that.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE offered to clear up that language if
necessary. Turning attention to page 7, beginning at line 11,
he conveyed his belief that it is "generally needed because it
does clarify rather than make arbitrary the taking of the
identified population species."
Number 2175
REPRESENTATIVE FATE called these management goals for the taking
of animals, rather than dictating "that these will happen,
because we know that often they won't." He offered his
understanding from ADF&G records that "they can establish high
population records under different habitat scenarios." He said,
"It's up to them to do that; we're not dictating what that high
population is going to be, but you can do that, and that's all
that we're attempting here." Noting that Section 8 says
"consistent with these high population levels", he remarked,
"These are goals, but consistent with the present-day maximum
carrying capacity; we're not going to hang the amount of animals
that we're trying to establish as a goal on [an] historic high,
but we will marry that historic high to the capacity of the
habitat of the present time to carry those animals."
[Co-Chair Masek called upon Kevin Saxby of the Department of
Law, but was informed via teleconference by Captain [Al] Cain of
the Department of Public Safety that Mr. Saxby was attending
another meeting; Captain Cain offered to answer questions.]
Number 2030
VIC VAN BALLENBERGHE testified via teleconference, noting that
he has about 35 years of professional wildlife biologist
experience, 28 of those in Alaska. Cautioning that the bill
might work counter to the goal of having abundant wildlife
populations, he said:
I think there are numerous problems with the bill, one
of which occurs at the bottom of page 7, Section 8,
the part that refers to historic high wildlife
population goals that the board would establish.
There are biological problems with that concept, ...
one fact being that these historic highs in Alaska
were often reached in the 1960s following more than a
decade of poisoning and shooting of predators by the
federal government. That resulted in the virtual
elimination of predators, not only wolves, but drastic
reductions in bear populations, wolverines, carnivores
- all the things that ate that poison.
I think, as a society, the state of Alaska decided
when that poisoning program was over that we really
didn't want to go down that road again. In fact, this
state has never used poison to reduce predators as a
matter of policy since statehood. And in order to get
back to those historic highs - in order to try to
reestablish them - it would virtually require the same
kind of predator-control effort that occurred during
the federal program.
Secondly, these highs resulted in habitat damage, and
they obviously were not sustainable. Even if we could
return to those high population levels, they are not
sustainable - they weren't sustainable originally, and
they're not sustainable now.
Thirdly, habitat conditions since those highs have
changed over time, and we can no longer support those
past highs in many, many areas, due in part to fire
suppression, which has resulted in much lower carrying
capacities than we had during the 1960s. I'm not
aware of a single competent wildlife biologist that
would advise the legislature or the Department of Fish
and Game to try to manage for historic high levels.
And, in fact, establishing those levels, even ... if
we could get there, would run counter to the concept
of trying to provide maximum sustained yields, because
those yields do not occur at high levels; they occur
at intermediate levels ... of wildlife populations.
There are several good, real-world examples that we
have good data on, including the Nelchina caribou herd
and the moose population on the Kenai Peninsula, that
if we had more time, I would like to tell you about,
and perhaps we could do that later.
Number 1840
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE turned attention to Section 1, subparagraph
(B) [page 2], with regard to the concept of trying to get the
commissioner to manage at maximum sustained yield. He said:
Again, I'm not aware of a single wildlife agency in
Canada or the rest of the United States that, as a
matter of statute or regulation or public policy,
tries to manage deliberately for maximum sustained
yield. And the reasons for that are good, and you've
heard some of them today. I think Mr. Robus mentioned
that there's really no margin for error when you're
trying to manage for maximum sustained yield. You can
rapidly get into problems where populations crash as a
result of trying to do that, from ... weather and
other factors. There is no margin for error.
I think the Alaska State Constitution and all the
existing statutes to date scrupulously avoid
establishing maximum sustained yield as a management
goal, because the recognition of these problems has
been around for years and years. And, in fact, I'm
not a fisheries biologist, but I understand that two
decades ago fisheries biologists decided that managing
for maximum sustained yield was too risky.
I think the costs are too high to determine the
biological parameters necessary to manage for maximum
sustained yield. And for that and other reasons, I
believe that incorporating that ... in legislation is
an unwise decision.
Number 1735
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Mr. Van Ballenberghe what his
definition is of maximum sustained yield.
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE responded:
I think therein lies the problem, listening to the
discussion as it's gone on today so far. The term
"maximum sustained yield" has a very specific
definition to biologists, and that definition is not
the definition that's found in this bill. ... The best
way to do this maybe is through an example. Let's say
that we have a ... moose population, and let's say
that moose population contains 1,000 individual moose
at carrying capacity, okay? And carrying capacity,
again, has a specific definition, and that's the point
... where there is no room for human harvest: at
carrying capacity, a moose population produces just
enough calves to replace the adults that die, and if
you have a human harvest on top of that, the
population declines.
So ... let's assume that there's 1,000 moose at
carrying capacity in this population. The point of
maximum sustained yield for moose and caribou and deer
and other ungulates is right about half - a little
more than half, but let's say about half - of that
maximum carrying-capacity level; in this case, it
would be 500 animals. And that's the point at which
the maximum number of animals are available for
harvest for that population. The animals are
reproducing at a maximum rate, and the maximum number
are available for yield from that population. And,
again, this has a very precise biological definition
that biologists ... would all agree on, and that
varies from ... the more generic or layman's
definition.
And ... in response to one other point that was raised
earlier, this is certainly much different from the
concept of maximum benefit [in the constitution].
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked:
Then you would agree, it sounds like, that the highest
number of a population that can be removed for human
use without reducing its ability to propagate would be
-- is that your -- 'cause that's basically what you've
said. In other words, if ... the highest number of
population that can propagate isn't enough to sustain
human harvest, it's still the maximum sustained yield,
correct?
MR. VAN BALLENBERGHE replied:
No, Representative. There is only one point for any
given population in any one confined area. There's
only one point, one density of animals, that
represents the maximum sustained yield. And ... as I
tried to illustrate, if ... the carrying capacity is,
say, 1,000 animals, that maximum-sustained-yield point
occurs pretty close to 500, and that's ... where the
animals are low enough density where they've got
enough food to reproduce at maximum rates to produce
the maximum number of young animals available for
harvest. And that's why there is virtually no room
for error. If you ... harvest just a small fraction
more than that number, you put the population into a
decline.
Number 1500
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded:
Thank you. Basically, I think that that's what the
... definition of sustained yield in this was - which
was also looked at by other biologists - was basically
what you're saying. In other words, ... in this, the
maximum sustained yield is simply: if there's not
enough population ... to be sustained by a habitat at
the maximum level, and that maximum level is not
enough to sustain that population with hunting, with
consumption, why, then, ... the maximum sustained
yield at that point simply can't entertain any
harvesting. So ... that's what maximum sustained
yield is, and this is basically what you're saying.
So, anyway, I have a couple of other points here -
habitat damage, and you mentioned habitat change. And
I thoroughly agree with you. But, ... once again,
over a long period of time, when you look at the
history ... of the highest sustained yield, you will
notice ... that not only the migratory patterns - for
example, the caribou and even the moose - are changed,
but there's still a history. And that's what we're
getting at. There is still a history of what that
maximum amount is, regardless of where they went or
how many there were. This is [an] ... historic note
here that we're looking at, as far as the historic
habitat, historic amount of animals, and this type of
thing. So this isn't intended, once again, in this
bill, to dictate what the historic high yield is or
what the historic high population is. It's simply a
footnote that you can determine that through the
history that is already on record.
Number 1330
MICHAEL PURVIANCE testified via teleconference. A farmer in
Delta Junction, he referred to Article 2, Nuisance and Other
Game [Section 11, page 8, of the bill], recounting how large
numbers of moose, buffalo, and brown bears had converged on his
crops, causing extensive damage. Mr. Purviance said he is tired
of the excuse that wildlife lived there before him, and that he
cannot afford a fence because the animals have destroyed the
crops that will allow him to earn enough to construct one. He
suggested the public doesn't care because it doesn't affect most
people's ability to produce income.
MR. PURVIANCE said it is time for the state to accept
responsibility for damage done to crops [by wild animals] in the
state and on state agricultural land. He proposed that the
commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources be included
in "the decision-making process of farmers' destroying animals
to protect their crops," that the commissioner should assess
crop damage by these animals, and that farmers should be
compensated for losses on designated state agricultural land.
He also proposed that interest-free loans be provided to farmers
on state agricultural land in order to fence out these animals
and protect crops. Every year, he said, he sees thousands of
dollars being raked in for buffalo and moose permits to hunt
[near] Delta Junction, when farmers there must sustain the crops
and crop losses and must feed those animals at their own
expense.
MR. PURVIANCE, noting that he is a former ADF&G employee and
federal game warden, said he doesn't take the killing of these
animals lightly; however, farmers cannot survive with the huge
yearly losses from these nuisance animals. He urged the
committee to rewrite this section of law in order for farmers to
protect their land, way of life, and income. He said he would
gladly grow his crops for these nuisance animals so long as he
was being compensated and could pay his loans. In the
alternative, he suggested that farmers who don't want to fence
should be given a special farm tag such as is done in Missouri,
"and they can either shoot the animal on their land or sell the
permit to someone else as compensation for crop losses caused by
moose and game."
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked that Mr. Purviance fax any written
testimony to the committee.
Number 0931
JOEL BENNETT, Defenders of Wildlife, testified in opposition to
3d SSHB 178, noting that Defenders of Wildlife is a national and
state group composed of conservationists, hunters, and other
wildlife enthusiasts, and that he is a 32-year Alaska resident
and active hunter. He told members:
We oppose this bill because of several provisions
which we find to be particularly troublesome, having
to do with the mandates and ... numerical standards
that are imposed by some of the sections. And I just
would draw your attention primarily to the "sustained
yield" language, because [in] numerable ...
discussions and meetings over the decades, this
constitutional provision has been explored and never
changed. It's very clear in ... Article VIII of the
Alaska constitution that the sustained yield principle
is left - without the word "maximum" or any other
modifying word preceding it - in order to give the
department and the board the greatest amount of
flexibility in management.
We see a clear effort here, in ... Section 1 of the
bill, to not establish a goal, but to establish a
mandate, ... with language that actually says the
commissioner shall manage according to maximum
sustained yield. And that runs against, as I said,
... the main constitutional provision that has guided
the department and the board with regard to wildlife
in the past.
We believe that the existing intensive-management
statute provides clear direction for achieving a
productive return to people in Alaska - hunters in
Alaska - who want to utilize resources. And it
doesn't need any further amendment.
MR. BENNETT called attention to a 1999 case, Native Village of
Elim v. State, which has language addressing the sustained yield
provision. He told members:
I might just take a second to read a note that's under
the constitutional provision. It says, under this
case, "To require the use of a predetermined formula
under the sustained yield clause would consume an
amount of time, money, and energy wholly
disproportionate to potential benefits, and would be a
counterproductive use of resources, limiting the in-
season flexibility that fisheries management
requires." And I think if you look at that case,
you'll see that it was a wholehearted endorsement of
leaving as much flexibility as possible to the
department.
Number 0652
MR. BENNETT expressed concern about the provision in the bill
which specifies that the high yield of human harvest wouldn't be
less than 15 percent. He explained:
There have been suggestions in the past to impose
percentage requirements like this, and ... they've
never been adopted, and I think with good reason. ...
You could have several years of difficult winters,
which would drive down a population of ungulates, and
then have a normal year. And for very good reasons,
the department might not want to allow 15-percent
harvest of the surplus in that year, in order to ...
build the general population back up.
MR. BENNETT concluded by offering testimony as an individual
hunter. He told members:
I've never had any problem harvesting resources in
this state, whether it be mountain sheep or mountain
goats or caribou or deer or anything else. So ... I'm
entirely satisfied with the regulations as they are,
and I don't see the need to try to impose further
mandates for people like myself.
Number 0542
REPRESENTATIVE FATE reiterated his belief that the bill doesn't
specify a harvest of 15 percent, but states it as a goal.
Number 0491
ROD ARNO, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), testified in support of
the intent of HB 178, saying AOC would like to see the bill move
out of committee. He suggested that the tools given to the
board to date by the legislature haven't been adequate to supply
a reasonable harvestable surplus. He reported that last year
the caribou harvest was down 4,000 from the last five-year
average; moose were down 1,000, from 8,000 to 7,000; and sheep
were down to 780 from an average of 1,000. He said ungulate
populations are falling to the point where it is reflected in
the harvestable surplus.
MR. ARNO said he was glad to hear that there were no concerns
over the enforcement agents and that the commissioner will
remain able to deputize. He also offered his opinion that there
is "a lot of smoke over maximum sustained yield," because it is
defined on page 8; he questioned that as a concern. As far as
having the board report back with regard to what achievements
have been met "on the intensive-management side," he said he
thinks that is important. Noting that the fish and game fund is
a dedicated fund, he said nonresident hunters, the first to be
excluded during a decline, pay 80 percent of that fund, which
"amounts to 80 percent of the department of wildlife
conservation's entire budget." He said AOC supports passage of
the bill, and reiterated concern that there isn't enough of a
harvestable surplus.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked whether anyone else wished to testify;
there was no response. She closed public testimony.
Number 0212
REPRESENTATIVE FATE remarked that it had been a good discussion,
and noted the two different interpretations of maximum sustained
yield. He offered his opinion that as stated in the bill, the
intent is similar with both descriptions. He said he wouldn't
object to bringing the legislation up for a vote after some of
the issues had been addressed.
CO-CHAIR MASEK indicated 3d SSHB 178 would be held over and
taken up at a later date.
CO-CHAIR MASEK turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Scalzi.
HJR 48-TERMINATION OF FED LAND WITHDRAWALS
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced the final order of business, HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 48, Relating to federal land withdrawals.
Number 0013
JUDY OHMER, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HJR 48 on behalf of the House Rules
Standing Committee, sponsor, which Representative Kott chairs.
TAPE 02-27, SIDE A
Number 0001
MS. OHMER told members that throughout many states, especially
Western states, the federal government has withdrawn lands for
various reasons; those lands aren't available to other kinds of
selections and designations such as the state's rights-of-way,
state selection, mining claims, or Native allotments. Many
federal withdrawals are for public purposes such as for parks
and refuges, while others occur in order to provide agencies the
flexibility to consider proposed uses for the land. Sometimes,
federal withdrawals have seemed to occur for political purposes.
MS. OHMER explained that when federal lands are withdrawn, those
lands are closed until the withdrawal is removed. In some
cases, [removing] the withdrawal takes an Act of Congress.
Therefore, the lands remain closed to public entry even when the
original purpose has been accomplished or has lapsed. In
Alaska, many of these federally withdrawn lands have been
selected by the State of Alaska in accordance with the Alaska
Statehood Act for transfer to become state-owned lands. Ms.
Ohmer noted that some of the lands in withdrawal status have
high mineral potential, while other lands have been selected as
access corridors. In all cases, these state-selected lands
can't be transferred, and therefore Alaska loses opportunity.
Ms. Ohmer pointed out that the committee packet should include a
letter from the Bristol Bay Native Corporation that refers to
federal land withdrawals as "speed bumps" on the corporation's
"highway to economic prosperity."
MS. OHMER noted that HJR 48 requests that Congress amend the
public land withdrawals so the withdrawals will sunset after ten
years unless the agency responsible for managing the land
provides Congress with a justification. It also requests that
Congress require all federal land-managing agencies to compile a
comprehensive list of the withdrawn lands under their
jurisdiction. This is requested in order to accomplish the
following: to extract the geographical coordinates of the
withdrawn land, to [obtain] the legal authority for the
withdrawal, and to document establishing the withdrawal and the
proposed disposition of the affected lands. A plan defining how
the withdrawals will be terminated would be filed with Congress
within a year. Ms. Ohmer reiterated that HJR 48 encourages
Congress to amend the public land laws to provide a timely way
that those withdrawn lands can be returned to fuller use.
Number 0362
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association,
Incorporated, testified via teleconference, indicating committee
packets should include a letter from the association. Mr.
Borell mentioned [the association's] knowledge of this issue for
many years, especially in the Fortymile district. He explained
that prior to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (ANILCA), a swath of land a mile wide on either side of the
river was designated as a closure; when ANILCA passed, the swath
of land became only one-half mile on either side. That strip
remains closed to anything including mining claims. Suggesting
it has become more crucial within the last couple of years, he
pointed out that a lot of state selections have been transferred
to [the State of] Alaska now. Although there are approximately
10 million acres yet to be transferred, many of the state-
selected lands are closed due to a federal withdrawal.
MR. BORELL said part of the reason the association supports HJR
48 is because no one has a list or description of the [federally
withdrawn] lands, although DNR has done some work to determine
[the location] of all the withdrawals. He explained that one
factor that has brought this to light is that companies have
been exploring for minerals, especially platinum group elements.
In the process of that exploration and working on land status,
[the companies] have determined that the lands of interest are
closed. This resolution basically requests that the agencies
specify exactly what lands are closed, the authority by which
the lands were closed, and whether there is any reason for those
lands to remain closed.
Number 0658
SANDRA SINGER, Realty Services Section, Division of Mining, Land
and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), testifying via
teleconference, stated support for HJR 48 because these federal
withdrawals continue to impede DNR's ability to acquire lands
with high resource or development potential. Although the state
has "top-filed" essentially all withdrawn lands, the state must
continue to hold aside that portion of the state's statehood
entitlement acreage necessary to ensure the future conveyance of
these high-priority withdrawn lands.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI, upon determining that no one else wished to
testify, announced that public testimony was closed.
Number 0753
CO-CHAIR MASEK moved to report HJR 48 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the [accompanying fiscal notes].
There being no objection, HJR 48 was moved out of the House
Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|