Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/23/2000 02:40 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 23, 2000
2:40 p.m.
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Carl Morgan
HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Ramona Barnes
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Scott Ogan
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Rick Halford, Chairman
Senator Robin Taylor, Vice Chairman
Senator Pete Kelly
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Senator Jerry Mackie
SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Sean Parnell
OTHER SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Jerry Ward
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
BRIEFING: MCGRATH WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
WAYNE REGELIN, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526
MIKE FLEAGLE, Chief
McGrath Tribal Council
(No address provided.)
McGrath, Alaska
GREG ROCZICKA, Vice Chair
State Board of Game
Box 513
Bethel, Alaska 99559
DONNE FLEAGLE, Board Chairman
Rural Alaska Community Action Program (RurAL CAP)
(No address provided.)
McGrath, Alaska
DICK NEWTON
(No address provided.)
Takotna, Alaska
FRED JOHN, JR., Chairman
Ahtna, Incorporated
(No address provided.)
Mentasta, Alaska
STANLEY NED, Wildlife & Parks Researcher
Tanana Chiefs Conference
(No address provided.)
Allakaket, Alaska
MYRA OLSEN
Bristol Bay Native Association
(No address provided.)
Egegik, Alaska
JOE CLARK
Bristol Bay Native Association
(No address provided.)
TED ANGASAN
Abundant Wildlife Coalition
(No address provided.)
DICK BISHOP, Vice President
Alaska Outdoor Council
(No address provided.)
GABE SAM
Coalition for Alaskan Way of Life;
Tanana Chiefs Conference
(No address provided.)
Huslia, Alaska
JOE MATTIE, Fairbanks Fur Dealer
(No address provided.)
Ester, Alaska
DARREL VENT, Resident of Huslia
(No address provided.)
Huslia, Alaska
JONOTHON SOLOMAN, Chairman
Gwich'in Steering Committee
(No address provided.)
Fort Yukon, Alaska
CARL JACK, Tribal Member
Kipnuk
(No address provided.)
Kipnuk, Alaska
LYNN LEVENGOOD
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association
(No address provided.)
Fairbanks, Alaska
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-13, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the joint meeting of the House/Senate
Resources Standing Committees to order at 2:40 p.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Hudson, Masek,
Cowdery, Harris, Kapsner and Morgan, and Senators Halford, Taylor,
Kelly, Green and Lincoln. Representatives Joule and Senator Mackie
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced that the briefing was over the Statewide
Rural Summit on Intensive/Active Game Management, which was held in
McGrath on February 1 and 2, 2000. He asked Wayne Regelin from the
Department of Fish & Game to come forward.
WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), stated that [the department]
believes there is a very low moose population in McGrath. Figures
show that the moose population has declined quite significantly
since the early 1990s. Mr. Regelin informed everyone that the
department did a moose census in 1996 out in [Unit] 19(D)-East and
that census estimated that to be about 1,900 moose. He explained
that the estimate was based on an actual count of 764 moose in an
1,819 square mile area. [That actual count] was extrapolated to
the 100 square mile area where wolf control is authorized. The
estimate was repeated in 1999 and resulted in an estimated moose
population of 1,400. He noted that the actual count of moose was
563 in a slightly larger area of 2,072 square miles. [The
department] believes that in the last three years the wolf
population has decreased the moose population from about 1,900-
2,000 to 1,300-1,400.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD surmised that would mean about a 25 percent
reduction in three years.
MR. REGELIN replied yes. Information from area biologists that
worked in McGrath for many years shows that the area had
significantly more moose, possibly in the range of 4,000 moose. He
acknowledged that the moose population could have been more or
less, however, it probably was significantly higher than the 1996
estimate of 2,000 moose.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD wondered if the real difference is something like
4,000 moose in prior years down to 1,300 currently.
MR. REGELIN responded that that is their best estimate. He said if
the desire is to discuss the hard science then that would be the
censuses the department did in 1996 and 1999. He pointed out that
when trying to manage wildlife populations, [the department] always
takes into account [the fact] that the local people are out there
everyday and know a lot about the wildlife. [The locals] know that
the [moose] population has declined significantly.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the department does a sex and age
composition, for example, cows to calves to bulls.
MR. REGELIN indicated that the department does that.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD inquired as to the ratio of [cows to calves to
bulls] in the last three years.
MR. REGELIN said that he did not bring the estimates with him, but
there is a low survival ratio of calves in the [McGrath] area. The
last time the department performed such, the ratio was 22 calves
per 100 cows. Although that ratio is not down at rock bottom, he
indicated that the department does not expect a population
increase. He noted that the department also has estimates of the
wolf population in the area. The department did a wolf population
estimate in 1995 which estimated 160 wolves [in the McGrath area].
With a 90 percent confidence interval around [the wolf estimate],
it was plus or minus 30 percent. He stated that although counting
wolves is not a precise method, [the department] feels confident in
saying that there were about 160 wolves [in the McGrath area] in
1995. In 1997, in the same area, they repeated the survey and only
estimated 56 wolves. However, the local people feel that the wolf
population is significantly higher than 56. Last year there were
caribou in the area, which is very rare and probably gave the wolf
population a shot in the arm. In the last 50 years the Mulchatna
caribou herd has probably moved in [the McGrath area] twice. Mr.
Regelin indicated that the department moved its efforts into
adjacent game management areas rather than repeating the counts in
[Unit] 19(D)[-East] and there are no estimates on the wolves [in
the McGrath area] since 1997, although the department knows there
is a serious problem with predation.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked Mr. Regelin if he would describe the process
that the department uses to count wolves and estimate total
populations.
Number 145
MR. REGELIN explained that there are two different ways [to count
and estimate populations]. The method used in both 1995 and 1997,
in the McGrath area, is a new transect method where they fly a
straight line that transects from one point to another - the
[points] are randomly chosen - and they observe the wolf tracks and
measure the distance back to where the wolf track was sited. This
method has been tested extensively in areas where the department
thought it knew how many wolves were there due to intensive
research projects in which all the wolves were collared.
Therefore, the department feels that [this method] provides them
with a good estimate. Mr. Regelin noted that [such counts and
estimates] can be obtained by, after a fresh snow, going out and
finding the tracks.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD wondered how many hours of flying was involved in
the 1997 count.
MR. REGELIN indicated that there were four airplanes used for a
period of four days, but he was unsure of the exact number of hours
the [planes] were in the air. He noted that the departments tries
to do it in the shortest period of time by using lots of airplanes
in order to minimize the movement of the wolves.
SENATOR PETE KELLY asked what a healthy wolf to moose ratio would
be for that area. He also asked what the current ratio is.
MR. REGELIN replied that in 1996 the department estimated there to
be 13 moose per wolf. However, it is probably not quite that bad
now because there are fewer wolves. Still, he indicated that it is
a moose to wolf ratio that is going to continue to drive the
[moose] population to a lower level.
SENATOR PETE KELLY wondered what the ratio was at the time of the
historic high of 4,000 moose.
MR. REGELIN responded that in those days there were no scientific
estimates of the number of wolves. However, the area biologists
thought that there were approximately 150 wolves in the [McGrath]
area.
SENATOR PETE KELLY wondered if the fact that this winter was a
horrible winter will create a jump in the moose decline.
MR. REGELIN answered that is a possibility. He said that the
current snowpack in McGrath is about 33 inches and the area has had
a total of 75 inches of snow. However, the area did not have snow
until late December. Mr. Regelin said that most of the time a
moose can handle about 28 inches of snow, but a heavy crust makes
a big difference.
SENATOR PETE KELLY asked what kind of predator control has been
done in the last five years in the McGrath area.
MR. REGELIN stated that there has been no wolf control in the area.
Although there have been extensive efforts made by the local
residents to increase trapping efforts, it is very difficult
country to trap in. The area is rugged and heavily timbered.
SENATOR PETE KELLY wondered if biologists have recommended wolf
control in the McGrath area.
MR. REGELIN indicated that the [Alaska] Board of Game authorized a
wolf control program in McGrath in 1996, which is why the
department did all the estimates and censuses on the wolves. He
explained that the department provides information to the [Alaska]
Board of Game, who has population goals, harvest goals and
determines whether those goals can be reached with the predation
rate. It is up to the Board of Game whether to authorize a wolf
control program or not and it did. The board reauthorized that
program for another five year period in January of this year.
SENATOR PETE KELLY wondered if there are any plans for ADF&G to
carry out wolf control in McGrath.
MR. REGELIN pointed out that currently there are discussions going
on within ADF&G regarding the potential of taking action this year.
However, he was unsure if anything was going to be done this year
or next year.
SENATOR PETE KELLY asked, "And would that be shooting wolves?"
MR. REGELIN indicated that a wolf control program would need to
include shooting wolves from airplanes or helicopters.
247
SENATOR TAYLOR wondered what numbers were available prior to 1994.
MR. REGELIN answered that prior to 1994 there was not a moose
census, although they have trend counts and calf-cow surveys. The
moose population started to decline in about 1988 after a series of
bad winters, which often starts the decline because the wolves have
an advantage. The population has continued to decline until today.
He said that the [McGrath area] is probably already close to the
low equilibrium for the predator-prey ratio, which will drop down
to probably 1,200 moose and 50 wolves. He predicted that the low
equilibrium will remain for a very long time and at that population
level only 40 to 50 moose will be harvested out of that population
each year.
SENATOR TAYLOR inquired as to what actions were taken to decrease
the predator population between 1988, when the decline started, and
1996.
MR. REGELIN indicated that ADF&G did not take any control actions,
although the department taught trapping clinics at two of the
villages in order to encourage local trapping.
SENATOR TAYLOR said, "You have actually done some control efforts
on wolf populations in other areas of the state, though, since
1996, haven't you?"
MR. REGELIN replied that since 1996 the department is attempting to
perform wolf control in the 40-mile caribou area.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated, "In fact, you went out and you tranquilized
a bunch of those wolves and moved them down to the Kenai where no
one had ever asked you to bring them a wolf, but you took wolves
down there and gave them to the people of Kenai, didn't you?"
MR. REGELIN explained that the program was for sterilization of the
alpha male and female in a total of 15 packs and the subdominate
wolves were moved; some of them went to the Kenai.
SENATOR TAYLOR inquired as to how many wolves were moved out or
sterilized in the 40-mile area.
MR. REGELIN answered that he thinks that about 80 wolves were moved
and 30 or 32 were sterilized.
SENATOR TAYLOR requested clarification regarding the 112 wolves
that have either been sterilized or moved out of the 40-mile area.
MR. REGELIN clarified that the department is trying to stop the
reproduction of wolves and they [dealt with] five packs a year.
The theory is, based on work done in the Yukon Territory, that if
the wolves can be reduced to only two per pack rather than 10 or 12
[per pack] then the predation rate is going to be significantly
lower. The theory was that if the alpha male and female were kept,
they would hold the pack territories and not reproduce. In fact
that has happened in 14 out of the 15 packs and the caribou
population has increased from about 22,000 to just over 40,000.
Number 311
SENATOR TAYLOR pointed out that ADF&G's efforts were preceded by
two years of individual efforts in which people contributed their
own money in that area to go in and reduce that [wolf] population;
they reduced it by an even greater number. Although he appreciated
the fact that their efforts were succeeding, he has a hard time
understanding why the department focused on the 40-mile when the
department knew in 1988 that the McGrath area had a crashing moose
population. He questioned why the department was not in the
McGrath area sterilizing and moving wolves why is absolutely
nothing being done in McGrath.
MR. REGELIN explained that the 40-mile program was conducted
following an intensive two-year effort with local people and
advisory committees from both Alaska and Canada. The
recommendation from that two-year effort was to try the
sterilization program rather than a lethal wolf control program.
The [local people and advisory committees] as well as ADF&G were
looking for ways of managing and reducing predation rates in areas
that were not so controversial that they would be stopped by the
public. Mr. Regelin believes that they have succeeded [in the 40-
mile area] because there has been little controversy except for
that by the most extreme animal rights groups. Mr. Regelin gave
full credit to the trappers who started there before the
department, who focused its effort on the 15 packs in the area
where the caribou calve. This kind of a program works in very few
places; such a program would not work at all in the McGrath area
because the game population of concern in McGrath is moose instead
of caribou. He explained that such a program works in the 40-mile
area because all of the caribou calve in a concentrated area, and
furthermore there were only about 15 wolf packs. In the McGrath
area no action was taken because they did not know what kind of
action to take without actually shooting wolves from airplanes or
helicopters. He said that over the last several years in Alaska
several of the tools used by wildlife managers and the [Alaska]
Board of Game to regulate wolf numbers have been taken away. Many
years ago aerial shooting was available, however, that was stopped
in 1971. Then the practice of land and shoot became very common
in keeping the wolf populations in balance with their prey.
However, in 1996 that tool was removed by ballot initiative.
Therefore, there is currently no effective tool to regulate wolf
populations in most of Alaska, especially in those locations where
the terrain and the vegetation are not conducive to trapping.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if Mr. Regelin would consider the situation
in McGrath in regard to the ratio of wolf to moose to be an
unhealthy situation.
MR. REGELIN replied yes.
SENATOR LINCOLN inquired as to what the department is currently
doing to address that situation.
MR. REGELIN clarified that the [McGrath] situation is unhealthy in
so far as the department can achieve the goals that it has for the
moose population in that area as well as the ability for the local
residents to harvest the amount of moose they need. He pointed out
that most of Interior Alaska has historically had low levels of
moose with periodic irruptions. He said, "This low level
equilibrium is probably -- it's hard to say it's unhealthy because
it's probably a natural way that ... over ... many, many centuries
its gone that way." However, since miners came into the country
the wolf populations were effectively regulated with poisoning and
aerial shooting in the 1950s and early 1960s. At statehood
poisoning was stopped while aerial wolf control continued through
1971. Due to those efforts, many parts of Alaska experience high
moose populations. He explained that when poison was used for
wolves it also kept the bear populations down and bears take a long
time to recover from low levels. Although people are currently
accustomed to high populations [of moose], the tools to regulate
the wolves are no longer available and thus many who have become
accustomed and dependent on moose can no longer get them.
Therefore, it is necessary to find a tool or technique, that is
accepted by the public, to help regulate the wolf population. He
noted the controversy that surrounds aerial wolf shooting and
remarked that the department has more often than not been
unsuccessful in wolf control because the department is stopped
before it can finish the job. Therefore, Mr. Regelin said that he
is open to suggestions regarding how to accomplish [wolf control]
in a manner that is acceptable to the public to the extent that the
department is not stopped. He said, "I'm not sure that the
department shooting them out of helicopters is the long-term
solution."
SENATOR LINCOLN requested that Mr. Regelin return later to provide
an answer in regard to what the department thinks that tool should
be and what legislators can do to help achieve that. She turned
to Mr. Regelin's reference to the tool being accepted by the
general public and inquired as to who the general public is.
Number 436
MIKE FLEAGLE, Chief, McGrath Tribal Council, testified via
teleconference. Mr. Fleagle remarked that McGrath's situation begs
for some program to [remedy the problem]. [The local population]
is not sure how to [remedy the problem] and is exhausting all of
its efforts to work within the government system. He informed the
committee that the council has petitioned the Board of Game twice
for relief. However, the Board of Game has found in favor of past
programs that have administratively not been carried out. Mr.
Fleagle clarified that although he sits on the Board of Game, his
testimony today does not reflect the board's position nor is he
speaking on behalf of the board. He returned to his testimony and
stated that the main snag [with wolf control] has been with the
Governor and his three criteria that were derived from his National
Academy of Sciences' report that studied wolf and bear predation
and past control efforts. The three criteria are sound science,
cost effectiveness and broad-based public support. In regard to
meeting those objectives, Mr. Fleagle said, "We have done our
part." He also believes that the Board of Game has realistically
attempted to meet those criteria as well. Mr. Fleagle believes
that the biology is apparent and even Mr. Regelin noted that
[McGrath's] situation is unhealthy. Furthermore, the department's
modeling has illustrated that reducing wolf numbers will reverse
the [moose] decline and result in a sharp increase in the moose
population. He also noted that "we" have prime repairing habitat
and it's not a limiting factor in the moose population, as some are
claiming. He stated, "This habitat can easily carry at least one
moose per square mile and in similar habitat around the state, the
current population density levels are up to two to three moose per
square mile in similar habitat. The last estimate is down about a
quarter of a moose per square mile." The latest estimate is very
low in regard to what the McGrath habitat can carry.
MR. FLEAGLE turned to the cost effectiveness criteria. He pointed
out that a state-administered plan would be an expensive plan
because aircraft and shooters would have to be hired or in the case
of a ground effort, the trapper's time would have to be paid for.
Mr. Fleagle remarked that SB 74, which was passed last year,
returned some of the tools [for wolf control] to the department.
For example, [SB 74 allows] for the issuance of permits to private
citizens for shooting from the air or land and shoot. He believes
that the most efficient way to control the wolf population is to
turn it over to the public and have the agency regulate it.
Therefore, [the department] would remove itself from the negative
publicity which it has received when such programs were done by the
department in the past. Furthermore, he believes [such a program]
would result in little cost to the state.
MR. FLEAGLE continued with the third criteria of broad-based public
support, which he believes to be the most difficult to define. He
believes [the council] has as much broad-based public support as it
can possibly generate. Furthermore, he pointed out that when
polled, people in Alaska support some form of predator control in
locations where the game stock is in danger. After the board
reauthorized the McGrath plan, Channel 2 News performed an online
survey, which surprisingly resulted in support of reducing
predation by predator control. Mr. Fleagle interpreted the
Governor's reference to broad-based public support to mean
unanimous public support, which he believes to be unachievable. He
remarked that "we" need to get past attempting to appease a small
segment of the population for the good of the whole.
MR. FLEAGLE said that although he applauds the legislature's
efforts to help [McGrath] with this issue, he emphasized that
drastic measures need to be taken. Furthermore, [a solution] is
not happening through the existing channels. He reminded everyone
that in 1996 a public meeting was held in McGrath with the
Governor. At that meeting there was indication that "we" were on
the correct path at that time. However, three-and-a-half years
later and "we" aren't any closer [to a solution]. Therefore, some
different avenues have been taken, which has seemed to threaten
some. He reiterated that [McGrath] is desperate. He noted that
the McGrath Tribal Council along with other local councils have
instituted a wolf harvest incentive program in order to encourage
the legal harvest of an available surplus of a resource. However,
he wasn't sure that is the answer either because harvest without
the use of airplanes will be difficult in McGrath. In conclusion,
Mr. Fleagle stated that these programs are necessary and he related
his belief that the board and the department, in its rank and file,
are behind [these programs]. He remarked, "I think you'll find
that the buck stops at the commissioner, his chief of staff and the
Governor's office and I think that's been the problem." Although
he believes in the checks and balances of the government, he
doesn't when it holds up sound science and [actions] that are good
for the entire country.
Number 541
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER noted that there has been criticism of the
high hunter success rates in McGrath. She requested that Mr.
Fleagle discuss what happens if there are not high hunter success
rates and she inquired as to what the alternative food sources
would be.
MR. FLEAGLE acknowledged that ADF&G's data shows hunter success
rates in McGrath to be around 50 percent, which is considered good.
However, McGrath has many restrictions regarding who can hunt in
the area. For example, McGrath is not open to nonresidents and
there is controlled use up river from McGrath and thus aircraft
hunters aren't able to come in. Therefore, the area is basically
a locally hunted area. He indicated that the data is not quite
adequate because people don't report when they don't kill; they
probably throw their card away. Furthermore, people are working
harder and going "a lot farther" to harvest moose and the harvest
is down.
MR. FLEAGLE answered, in further response to Representative
Kapsner, that caribou are not a regular resident species, although
otherwise has been touted by a well-known independent state
biologist. The only alternative game species in the area would be
fish. He said that there is not much in the way of options as
moose is the primary source of wild meat.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER noted that the Kuskokwim area had another
fish disaster, the third consecutive disaster. Furthermore, it was
the fourth in seven years and the worst fish disaster ever. She
pointed out that upriver, the catch for effort was very low and
thus people spent more money on gasoline and time to catch what
little fish were available.
MR. FLEAGLE agreed with Representative Kapsner in that people in
McGrath are spending more money for gas and traveling hundreds of
miles and hunting the entire season. He returned to the issue of
McGrath's hunter success rates and turned to the years of 1994-1997
in which on average 45-50 moose were harvested while in 1998 the
reported moose harvested were 26. He predicted that the hunter
success rate would show another drop in 1999. Although the hunter
success rate may look good, the harvest overall is low.
Number 584
SENATOR PETE KELLY recalled that when he was in McGrath a few weeks
ago, Mr. Fleagle had said it would take about ten years to bring
this [moose] population back. He inquired as to the source of that
data.
MR. FLEAGLE answered that is a projection by the department. He
noted that the department gave a review at the Board of Game
meeting in January, in Anchorage, when the department addressed the
board's petition. According to the department's computer models,
it would take ten years to halt the moose population decline and to
bring the population back up it would require a long-term effort.
SENATOR PETE KELLY asked, "Was that to the 4,000 number that Mr.
Regelin had spoken of or was that to a number somewhat lower than
that?"
MR. FLEAGLE replied that it was to a number somewhat lower than the
4,000. He mentioned that different models were presented.
TAPE 00-13, SIDE B
MR. FLEAGLE explained that one model, in which the weather was not
taken into consideration, [projected] a fairly good increase in the
moose population [over ten years]. Another model factored in
weather variables and thus illustrated less of an increase in the
moose population. He recalled that the best model illustrated an
increase in the moose population, after ten years, to around 3,000.
SENATOR PETE KELLY surmised then that even after ten years, the
moose population would not rise to historical levels.
MR. FLEAGLE replied no. Furthermore, he believes that 4,000 figure
[the historical level] is merely a ballpark figure because data
from lifetime residents and (indisc.) concur that, at its peak, the
actual moose population was 6,000.
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked Mr. Fleagle for his work on this issue. He
noted his long-time advocacy for regional boards in order to allow
local people to make decisions as opposed to a statewide board. He
asked if Mr. Fleagle believes that a regional board would have
waited 12 years before discussing wolf control.
MR. FLEAGLE replied no. He agreed with Senator Taylor that if
there had been regional boards, noise or action would have occurred
sooner. However, in defense of the current [statewide] board, the
board did act when the issue was raised by local people. However,
the board didn't look at the problem areas in an attempt to head
them off, which may be a fault of having a statewide board. Still,
Mr. Fleagle said that he could not fault the board as it has been
behind the program as long as he knows.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE inquired as to the bear population in the
McGrath area; is the bear population a contributing factor?
MR. FLEAGLE said, as a resident of the McGrath area, he could not
attest to the numbers of bears that the department believes there
are. He remarked that there are black bears in the area and they
do eat moose calves. The department estimates that approximately
55 percent of the calf mortality in this area is attributed to
black bears. The black bear population is based on work done at
the Lower Koyukuk and the Nowinta drainage, those density estimates
have been used to calculate [the black bear density] in McGrath.
Mr. Fleagle reiterated his disagreement [with the estimates for
McGrath]. However, even if there were as many black bear in the
region as the [department] estimates, that has been factored into
the model which has shown that even with that level of black bear
predation, reducing the wolf numbers will impact the turnaround of
the moose decline.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE inquired as to the population of brown bears
[in the McGrath area].
MR. FLEAGLE answered that brown bears are few in the unit.
Furthermore, a few years ago the Board of Game lifted the
restrictions of one [brown bear] per four [years] and the tag fees
and thus a resident hunter can kill one bear per year without
buying a tag. The lifting of those restrictions caused the brown
bear harvest to increase from an average of two bears to four
bears. He indicated that the environment in the area is not that
preferred by the brown bears.
Number 537
GREG ROCZICKA, Vice Chair, Alaska Board of Game, remarked that Mr.
Regelin and Mr. Fleagle have done a good job in regard to
explaining the situation in the McGrath area. He echoed earlier
comments that the [criteria] for the biology and the cost effective
programs exist. However, the problem surrounds the [criteria] for
the broad-based public support. He commented that with any type of
volatile issue such as this, one would expect 10-15 percent of the
people on each end of the spectrum to base their decision on
emotion rather than intellect. He indicated that an intensive
education effort is about the only way to attack this problematic
criteria. Mr. Roczicka noted the position paper that the Alaska
Board of Game has written in order to reach the 70-80 percent of
the uneducated public regarding the wolf situation in the state.
He read the following position paper:
A central question underlying the wolf control debate is
whether it is best to actively manage an ecosystem
containing wolves. A good case can be made that in
places where we harvest moose and caribou for human use,
leaving predators out of the management equation may not
be desirable for people, for the predators, or for the
ecosystem at large.
A common perception about wolves is that because they
have faired badly worldwide, they must be near extinction
in Interior Alaska as well, and that any intentional
mortality by people will push them over the brink.
Actually, the opposite is true. Given the large areas of
ideal habitat along with wolf mobility and fecundity, it
has proved difficult to reduce wolf numbers for any
length of time.
The normal state of affairs in Interior Alaska is a low
density of large mammals, with occasional irruptions to
higher numbers. Here is the essence of how predator-prey
dynamics appear to work, using moose and wolves as the
best-understood example. Occasionally, conditions are
favorable and moose increase until they reach a habitat
limit and begin to run out of food, or bad winters place
them under stress. In either case, they become more
available to wolves. In response, the wolf population
increases and creates an imbalance between the predators
and their prey. Once moose numbers are driven down,
wolves then decline through starvation and social strife
such as cannibalism. Under extreme, but not particularly
unusual circumstances, very low densities of predators
and prey can be reached and persist for decades, as
corroborated by the National Academy of Sciences' report
to Governor Knowles on predator management. This is the
current situation that we now have in Unit 19(D)- East.
When that happens, the basal metabolism of the ecosystem
shifts into low gear. It is a time of privation for
scavengers, predators, and people. Such a landscape is
not only short of meat, it is short of viewing
opportunities and other key components of wilderness. As
an Athabascan elder from the Yukon testified to us, "when
the moose and caribou are gone, the country dies".
It is a biologically defensible to manage for minimizing
the depth and duration of extreme population lows, when
habitat is not the primary limiting factor and predation
almost certainly is. Typically, predation has three
components: people, bears and wolves. It is standard
State Board of Game policy to reduce human harvest when
a prey population is declining. But total cessation of
hunting by itself, is almost never enough to arrest a
decline. Substantially reducing brown bear populations
is not desirable due to their low reproductive potential
and the problems with estimating their numbers
accurately. Ecosystem modeling and reproductive biology
show that it is most effective and safest to manipulate
wolf numbers because of their resilience. Wolves will
come back quickly, even if over harvested, bears won't.
Once a low predator-prey equilibrium has been reached,
wolf control is likely to succeed only if wolf
populations can be greatly reduced for periods of up to
a decade. Responding proactively to a predicted major
decline minimizes the necessary length of the reduction
period, which would be the current situation we now have
in Unit 13. Weather and other ecosystem factors can
confound predictions in random ways, and in short,
outcomes can never be predicted precisely.
The long-term prognosis for Alaskan wolves depends on our
public policy towards habitat. So long as "habitat" is
defined for all practical purposes as "that land we
haven't gotten around to developing yet", wolves and all
wildlife will decline. But in places where large areas
of ecologically intact country remain, wolf control done
with careful consideration and attention to science can
result in a more abundant life for moose, wolves and
people.
Number 485
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if Mr. Roczicka has received any assurances
from the department that it will carry out the policy established
by the board.
MR. ROCZICKA remarked that the department has great concern
regarding the durability of any program that is put in place and
that is the department's primary goal and concern.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted his assumption that the board works fairly
close with the department. He then asked if the department
considers doing nothing as an action or a decision as that is as
much of a decision as doing something. Senator Taylor stated that
to know since 1988 that there was a continued decline and to not do
anything is an action. In fact, in the law a negative action is
called malfeasance, while sitting ideally by is referred to as
misfeasance. Therefore, Senator Taylor felt that over the past six
years, there has been the decision to do nothing.
MR. ROCZICKA said that he didn't believe it is a fair statement to
say that the department let it slide for 12 years. He pointed out
that when the initial plan was put into effect, the board did find
an emergency in 1995. The subsequent board in 1996 reviewed the
issue and moved the effective date forward. The following winter
the ballot initiative went into effect and [the department] was
preempted from acting over the next couple of years. Furthermore,
Governor Knowles inherited the problem from Governor Hickel, who
had backed down when faced with boycott threats. Mr. Roczicka
related his belief that if that faction was stood up to, there
would have been an economic impact for a season or two; however, he
believes it would have blown over. In regard to the current
situation, that tool [aerial hunting] has again become available.
SENATOR TAYLOR again asked if the board has any assurances from the
department that it will do anything in the next two years.
MR. ROCZICKA stated that [the board] is sure that the department is
doing everything it can to try to do it again.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if Mr. Roczicka knew of any effective method,
other than aerial hunting, of wolf control in the McGrath area.
MR. ROCZICKA replied no, not initially. There have been some
suggestions [for use of] denning, which was a traditional practice
in the past. Although that may be an option, it does not get one
to the point at which the moose are most vulnerable, in the winter.
Number 441
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE recalled that Mr. Roczicka mentioned that the
department has the ability to initiate something due to a
questionable durability to continue. He asked if Mr. Roczicka is
relating that to dollar resources in regard to initiating something
and continuing it over time for ten years. He wondered if Mr.
Roczicka was referring to whether there would be the resources to
continue something.
MR. ROCZICKA said that was not what he intended to say at all. As
Mr. Regelin stated earlier, it has been since the early 1970s that
any lethal wolf control program has been allowed to proceed due to
public interference through lawsuits or economic boycott threats.
He noted that to be one of the major criticisms cited in the
National Academy of Sciences' report.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if land and shoot would help. He
specified that fly the same day and land and shoot is not the same
as aerial hunting, although the animal rights groups led the public
to believe that was what they were voting on. He asked if the
land-and-shoot method would be effective in that area.
MR. ROCZICKA indicated agreement and noted that he had viewed
[aerial hunting] as an all-inclusive statement in that it uses an
airplane to hunt.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN related his belief that care should be taken
when saying that because the public perception of aerial hunting is
that you are flying around shooting wolves from airplanes.
MR ROCZICKA related his understanding that [aerial hunting] was an
effective means to keep some of the wolf populations in check and
maintain some of the high levels of [riparian environments] in
various areas of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER referred to the wolf harvest incentive
program that was executed in McGrath and asked if that was legal,
what would prohibit the board from implementing that on a statewide
level.
MR. ROCZICKA responded that the subject has never come up and thus
he wouldn't know what legal ramifications would exist. He said
that all incentive programs that have been put in place have been
done by private organizations or individual contributions.
Furthermore, he didn't know if it would be a possibility under
existing law as it would be equated to reinstating bounties.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if it would require a law or an
appropriation.
MR. ROCZICKA said that he couldn't answer that.
Number 395
DONNE FLEAGLE, Board Chairman, Rural Alaska Community Action
Program (RurAL CAP), informed the committee that she was
representing RurAL CAP and the community of McGrath. She read the
following statement:
In village Alaska, where heavy dependence on renewable
resources exist, there is the recognition of strong
linkages between subsistence needs not being met and
predation. When the Tribal Council of McGrath hosted the
Statewide Rural Summit on Intensive/Active Management,
otherwise known as the Wolf Summit, February 1st and 2nd,
the issue resonated within village Alaska with 160
representatives from Southcentral, Yukon Kuskokwim Delta,
the Interior, the Northwest and Bristol Bay. RurAL CAP
participated in this village effort by providing staff
support and resources. This summit was held in a village
where the issues are occurring. The goal of this meeting
was to bring rural Alaskans together in rural Alaska to
discuss and arrive at strategies and remedies to use in
addressing the declining moose and caribou populations
and its primary predator, the wolf, that threatens our
villagers' ability to eat our traditionally annual meat.
A wolf is a year-round hunter. A bear is a part-time
hunter. We choose to address the year-round hunter at
this rural summit. At this meeting we shared information
about wildlife populations, research regulations were
exchanged [and] public testimony was taken from village
people about the impacts of wildlife management on our
way of life. And work sessions were used to arrive at
solutions that were practical and attainable to all
involved. Some of the questions we addressed were how
can village people deal with our moose and our caribou
herds, which once thrived [but are] now on the decline in
many areas. What happens after Tier II and subsistence
when there are no caribou or moose left to bring us
through our long winters? How, then, can we show our
children how to appreciate wildlife in its natural
habitat? How will we be able to teach our children how
to subsist off the land and be grateful for all it gives
us? In the end, the participants approved a strategy and
plan of action on six different levels: legislative,
litigation, [Alaska] Board of Game, public support,
tribal strategies and local design. I am pleased to
report that individuals in each of these working groups
took the developed and written report and have begun, in
their own respective fields, to see these suggestions
become reality. McGrath is unique; it's located in Game
Management Unit 19(D)-East, where the only wolf predation
control program passed by the State Board of Game is in
effect under 5AAC .92.125(1) and has been there since
1995. And yet uniquely, no intensive/active management
has yet to occur despite the area having followed due
process allowing sound science to be used, strict
criteria for a biological emergency to be met twice and
having gone out to public review. The Upper Kuskokwim
people have exhausted due process and find that the buck
stops with the Governor and the Commissioner of Fish &
Game, who have refused to date to implement a lethal wolf
control program to protect the moose herd, soon to be on
the verge of extinction.
When predator-prey ratios reach such an imbalance as to
threaten one species, concerns become fierce. Many
people in rural Alaska can tell you what its like to go
through a winter without a moose or caribou and how it
felt to hunt and hunt and hunt and still return home
without the traditional food needed for the winter
months. Many can also tell, without a degree in biology,
what sign they saw in the sandbars and what is happening
in their environment. Many can ... give a year by year
account. We know in Game Management Unit 19(D)-East that
the Governor has consistently blocked any effort that
will effectively manage wolf predation on moose in rural
Alaska. Let it be said that we have coexisted with
nature for thousands of years and we celebrate our way of
life and rich heritage that has been passed down from
generation to generation by teaching our children time-
tested ways to live off the country and our land. We rejoice in
seeing wildlife in its natural habitat and what we harvest, we use
in countless ways. We believe that managing ecosystems that
contain wolves, which are in abundance in Alaska, is necessary for
all of the animals and for all of the people. Some areas are on
the verge of an ecological disaster and my area is the first one
out. Moose and caribou headed for crashes are near extinction
[and] only spell doom for the wolves that will then starve after
wiping out the beaver. Managing wolves is not eliminating wolves
nor does anyone want to see all the wolves gone. On the contrary,
we wish to see both big game and other species thrive in an
environment, which is not the case in many areas of village Alaska.
While our moose and caribou herds are continuing to decline at
alarming rates, wolf packs are growing in number, size and daring.
Mothers are seeing wolves in their yards and are alarmed for the
safety of their children who walk back and forth to school and play
outdoors. Wolf tracks on the edge of villages or within villages
is commonplace now. Moose reproduction rates are much lower than
wolves; village Alaskans know that and so do scientists.
Aggressive wolf control will not threaten their survival. There is
no question that the vast majority of villagers want active
reduction of wolf numbers by the state and it would cost the state
nothing to allow locals to shoot wolves using aircraft. There
would be much to gain by all of us, if the Governor would support
a healthy subsistence resource and support the Alaska Department of
Fish & Game biologists. It appears to us that his devotion to
those who would brook no killing of wolves despite the fact that in
some areas, wolves have now started to eat themselves. If the
wolves are not short on prey, why are they turning to cannibalism.
What is crueler? We are not ashamed of being hunters, fishers,
subsistence users, trappers and gatherers nor are we ashamed of
being wildlife managers or knowing our country. Sometimes it is
wise to correct the imbalances for all living things. We seem to
be caught ... in a political dialogue of wanting to eat and wanting
to feed our families versus killing wolves.
MS. FLEAGLE concluded:
In concluding today, I want to bring Niles Cesar, the BIA
Regional Director's words to mind. In a letter written
to the Governor, Niles Cesar states: "Certainly, you must
agree that subsistence food is more important than the
retention of moose populations merely to feed roving wolf
packs. When we care more about animals than about our
human residents, we indeed fail to serve the people we
are appointed to protect and represent." And I bring to
you a growing economic and subsistence disaster that
we're experiencing in Western Alaska. Thank you.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if Ms. Fleagle believes that broad-based
public support is an appropriate criteria upon to base decisions
regarding wildlife management.
MS. FLEAGLE echoed Senator Lincoln's remarks regarding what exactly
is broad-based public support. She asked whether [broad-based
public support] is the local support in Unit 19(D)-East or is it
[support] in Anchorage, Fairbanks or Juneau. She noted that [the
definition of broad-based public support] is not in Alaska statute.
She informed everyone that the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)
passed a resolution in support of this wolf control program.
Furthermore, the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, Village Alaska, RurAL
CAP, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Senator and
Representative from [the McGrath district] all support [this wolf
control program].
SENATOR TAYLOR related his belief that [broad-based public support]
does not have any basis in wildlife management. The decision
whether to manage or save a herd should be based solely upon
biological evidence and the most expeditious way to handle and
sustain it. Therefore, Senator Taylor didn't believe [broad-based
public support] to be an appropriate criteria and thus should be
removed. As noted, this criteria cannot be objectively defined.
Senator Taylor informed Ms. Fleagle that District A supports her
efforts.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted his support of Ms. Fleagle's efforts.
Number 268
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN inquired as to how many moose one wolf
consumes in a year.
MS. FLEAGLE said that "we" have been told by the department that "a
good rule of thumb" is that one wolf consumes 12 moose [per year].
If you take the 1997 estimates, which would not allow for any wolf
reproduction, there would have been 660 moose eaten from the 1,200
to 1,400 [moose]. Ms. Fleagle noted that "we" dispute [those moose
estimates]. She informed everyone that she recently took an
airplane ride to Stony River, which is about 125 miles from
McGrath. She and the pilot counted the moose, which are out on the
sandbars eating willows this time of year. They only counted 200
moose. Therefore, Ms. Fleagle believes the moose estimates are too
high and certainly there is enough visual evidence that the wolf
estimates are too low.
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN remarked that with the aforementioned wolf
consumption of moose alone, not taking into account bear predation
or death by natural causes, the five villages in the Upper
Kuskokwim will have no moose in the very near future.
MS. FLEAGLE interjected that such will be the case in less than two
years.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD requested that Ms. Fleagle inform everyone of [the
situation] with her two dogs, which he believes is illustrative as
to why people in villages worry.
MS. FLEAGLE informed everyone that on November 24th she and her
husband traveled to Anchorage to meet their two sons. On
Thanksgiving day, they received a call that their dogs were
missing/loose. One of the dogs is an 11-year old Airedale and the
other is a five-and-a-half year old miniature American Eskimo. The
hope was that the dogs had not been killed by the wolves, although
that has been a fear since her father's dog fell to such a fate in
1997. Shortly after Thanksgiving, the house sitters called to tell
the Fleagles that the kill sites had been found on opposite sides
of their yard. Apparently, a pack of eight or nine wolves came in
and separated the two dogs, which were subsequently killed.
MS. FLEAGLE informed everyone that she grew up on her property,
well before there was a road, before McGrath's population swelled
and then decreased. She said, "Wolves in our yards were not
something that we ever worried about." She noted that she used to
walk five miles through the woods into town to school and [wolves]
were never of concern. The killing of her dogs resulted in her
husband setting snares in the yard because wolves return to their
kill site. Ms. Fleagle remarked that at 40 years of age, this is
the first time she has seen such; it is also the first time that
she doesn't venture far from the house since she doesn't carry a
weapon. She said that she doesn't feel safe any more. Ms. Fleagle
felt that with the Wolf Predation Control Implementation Plan of
1995, the wolves would be eating better and "we" wouldn't be
present today expressing health and safety concerns as well as
lamenting a moose herd on the verge of extinction. This would not
have been brought to a political arena [if the Wolf Predation
Control Implementation Plan of 1995 had been implemented] as it
really is a biological issue and has been proven as such twice.
Number 178
DICK NEWTON, Takotna resident, remarked that he had learned
something from the [ADF&G representative]. He indicated that the
[people in the] villages of Takotna, McGrath and Nikolai have
sterilized more wolves permanently than the [department] did and it
didn't cost the people of the state anything. Furthermore, this
sterilization is final and the wolves don't reproduce. He informed
everyone that a couple of months ago there were wolf tracks in the
village, [which led] to parental concerns regarding the children
going to school. Although Mr. Newton had never heard of a wolf
actually attacking a human, he has never seen the conditions that
currently exist. The prey population is decreasing while the
predator population is very high. He informed everyone that "we"
have sterilized seven wolves within a mile of the village.
MR. NEWTON noted that directly and indirectly the Governor and the
Commissioner of ADF&G have said that it is up to the locals to
handle this wolf predator [problem]. Although Mr. Newton partially
agreed with that, he pointed out that the locals didn't cause this
problem. This problem began when the Administration stopped the
land-and-shoot [program]. Due to the current conditions, immediate
relief is necessary. He informed everyone "the rule of thumb" in
that one moose equals $3,000 [in the villages]. He related a
situation in which a family with three children took on three other
children. One moose will not support a family with six children.
He also informed everyone that out of 23 families in the village
[of Takotna], nine moose were harvested. Normally, around 20 moose
are harvested as was the case in 1998. Mr. Newton remarked that he
is not "a real fan" of ADF&G and he also has a problem with the
department's wolf counts. He announced that "we" have sterilized
34 wolves; however, an air taxi driver flew from McGrath down the
Kuskokwim [River] and up the Swift River to Lime Village and he
counted 38 wolves total. Therefore, Mr. Newton questioned how the
department arrived at a wolf count of 56. He emphasized that it is
not a wolf count but rather an estimation. Furthermore, he noted
how confusing the system is with which the biologists count the
wolves, which led him to believe a more likely wolf count to be
between three to five times the current count of 56. He remarked
that once something is written it becomes the truth and when the
department does such it can't be changed.
SENATOR LINCOLN stated that she was astonished as well when the
department announced a wolf count of 56 because two years ago when
she flew between Holy Cross and Aniak there was a moose that was
down and surrounded by a wolf pack consisting of 29 wolves. She
asked Mr. Newton if the biologists talk with the locals regarding
what locals see day in and day out. She also asked if he thought
the [biologists] utilize the historical information "that you all
have."
MR. NEWTON replied no. Furthermore, he didn't believe that anyone
knew his trapping area better than he did as he has been trapping
in that area for 25 years. He stressed that he also hunts in that
area and thus knows the game of that area. He informed everyone
that currently, the moose that are left are in little pockets
together in order to protect themselves from the wolves.
SENATOR LINCOLN recalled that the Governor stated that many of the
moose are being killed by people from Bethel.
MR. NEWTON interjected that the Governor was right. As the
Governor said, if they [Bethel residents] take 70 percent of the
moose, that doesn't leave much for [the locals].
SENATOR TAYLOR turned to Mr. Newton's comment that he had never
heard of a wolf attacking a human. He informed everyone that he
was watching the Discovery channel the other night, which reported
that two years ago in India 76 children were attacked by wolf packs
- the same type of wolves that are in Alaska - and 46 of those
children were killed. India did some lethal predator control in
order to keep their children from being killed.
TAPE 00-14, SIDE A
MR. NEWTON reiterated the concern of the parents in the area, who
have been walking their children to school.
Number 021
FRED JOHN, JR., Chairman, Ahtna, Incorporated, informed everyone
that the Ahtna Board of Director(s) passed a resolution supporting
the Intensive/Active Predator Management Plan for McGrath. He said
that he lives in Unit 13 where there is now grave concern for the
caribou and moose herds. The caribou herd, the Nelchina, is [on
the verge of] crashing. There are about 500 wolves in the game
unit and with each wolf eating about 12 moose per year that would
amount to about 6,000 moose being lost per year to wolves. He
noted that about 15,000 caribou are killed by the wolves, when one
figures that a wolf takes about 30 caribou per year. Furthermore,
moose and caribou are lost to natural causes and causes brought on
by deep snow and stress. Although bears are also predators, they
are only part-time hunters while wolves hunt year round.
MR. JOHN, JR. stated:
Our eight villages are heavily dependent upon the moose
and caribou. We are subsistence users and we know our
environment needs active wildlife management in order to
save our caribou and moose. You just can't manage people
by shortening seasons or going into Tier II. We have yet
to see any area that has gone into Tier II ever come out
of it and we are right behind the Upper Kuskokwim area.
We need a wolf control plan and we hope that the State
Board of Game passes one in March. We don't want to wipe
out all the wolves ... but we believe that we can all
live together in good systems: the wolf, the bear, the
beaver, the moose, the caribou and us, the people. We
hope the Governor [will] start managing for the village
people and not to wait. We can't manage for the outside
interests because our lives depend on it.
MR. JOHN, JR., concluded by expressing his hope that the
legislature will support the Unit 13 wolf control plan and support
the Unit 19(D)-East plan.
Number 073
STANLEY NED, Wildlife & Parks Researcher, Tanana Chiefs Conference
(TCC), informed everyone that recently his home town of Allakaket
has experienced problems similar to those in Unit 19(D)-East in
that the wolves came into the village and took many dogs. He noted
that the children [now] play a game, "Who's going to get caught by
the wolves?", in which they run alone to school. The problem with
the wolves is not only in McGrath but throughout the region. Mr.
Ned said that [the Tanana Chiefs Conference] is in favor of the
McGrath movement and TCC recently passed a resolution to that
effect.
SENATOR LINCOLN recognized that Mr. Ned is a representative for 43
other villages. She, then, asked if any of the other villages have
indicated that there has been a decline in moose or caribou
populations and the reasons behind that if it is the case.
MR. NED stated that "we" always talk to ADF&G personnel who come
into the region and tell them that the moose population is
declining at the same time that the wolf population is increasing.
However, he indicated that some [listen] and some don't. Mr. Ned
believes that the department should use the local knowledge when
making regulations.
Number 126
MYRA OLSEN, Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA), informed the
committee that she is present due to her concern for and support of
the McGrath region that has a problem with [their moose
population]. She said she would like to see something done before
McGrath is forced into Tier II for moose. She emphasized that no
Tier II regime in Alaska has ever [been lifted once imposed]. She
noted that she lives in Egegik, in the Bristol Bay area, where Tier
II has just been instituted for caribou. She explained that there
is a documented subsistence need for 1,200 caribou, but there are
only 600 available to take. She said, "So, that's what we've
agreed to settle for so that the caribou would come back." She
noted that [her area] has experienced an increase in wolves and
bears. She too has lost a dog to the wolves. Furthermore, [the
community of Egegik] has had wolves on its air fields and in a
community farther south, parents are escorting their children to
and from school because they can see the wolves. Ms. Olsen
commented that the wolves are loosing their fear of man, which she
believes means the wolves are in trouble. This is an issue of food
for humans as well as the wolves. However, it is also a safety
issue that should be addressed. Ms. Olsen noted her support of the
efforts of McGrath since it already has management tools in place;
however, tying the hands of the [Alaska] Board of Game by refusing
to sign the "go ahead" is not giving the managers the necessary
tools to do something. She expressed frustration in regard to
those who don't know the entire situation, such as tourists, but
who can dictate what "our people" can and cannot put on the dinner
table. She expressed further frustration that the Administration
would side with outside special interests against the needs of the
people who placed him in office. Ms. Olsen said, "I hope that this
management tool of wolf control could be implemented and possibly
even expanded into other regions as is needed or wanted." In
conclusion, Ms. Olsen pointed out, "We aren't advocating the
eradication of wolves, just the control over them."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that he has spent a lot of time in Ms.
Olsen's region, which he believes is one of the most blessed areas
of the world. He informed everyone that when the wolf initiative
was going on, he approached a booth with a paid signature gatherer.
Representative Ogan informed that signature gatherer that he was
starving rural Alaskans to which the signature gatherer hung his
head. He remarked that land and shoot is the most effective way to
[control wolves].
MS. OLSEN said that she too has seen some of those petition
gatherers, whose livelihood it is to gather signatures. She felt
that it is too bad that one livelihood has to weigh against
another.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if Ms. Olsen believes there is any other
method of predator control other than the land and shoot.
MS. OLSEN informed everyone that there are trees everywhere in
McGrath and thus she noted the difficulty in getting around.
Therefore, she agreed that the aerial method is probably the most
effective and efficient way to [control wolves] in that area.
However, the Egegik area has flat, rolling terrain and thus the
[control] method may be different in the Egegik region.
Number 223
JOE CLARK, Bristol Bay Native Association, indicated that the
[legislators] are the tools to make this wolf problem go away. He
informed everyone that in the late 1930s he witnessed the
decimation of thousands of reindeers by wolves. He didn't know
where those wolves came from because one hardly saw any wolves in
the [Bethel] area. He recalled that those wolves did not kill for
food, as normal packs would do. Mr. Clark feared that history may
be repeating itself. Therefore, he believes the only method to
reduce the numbers of wolves and save the [moose] population is by
aerial [hunting]. He related an unverified rumor that there is a
pack of wolves 146 strong. Such large packs create risks to
humans.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Mr. Clark agreed with the statement
that wolves merely cull the sick and the weak. He inquired as to
Mr. Clark's experience in regard to what types of animals they
kill.
MR. CLARK informed everyone that his father had 10,000 head of
reindeer. He and his father watched those reindeer day and night.
In the day the reindeer would not be attacked, while at night there
would be a commotion resulting in four to ten dead adult reindeer,
but nothing would have eaten them.
Number 294
TED ANGASAN, Abundant Wildlife Coalition, provided the following
testimony:
Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to speak
to you today on behalf of a newly formed coalition put
together for the sole purpose of initiating
active/intensive management of renewable resources in the
state. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game would do
well to return to the business of managing wildlife
instead of just solely concentrating on managing people.
We have witnessed biologically sound aggressive
scientific management erode and the implementation of a
noninterventionist philosophy of resource management,
which literally allows ecosystems to reach ecological
disaster for people as well as animals. This "natural
cycle" mentality is harming our people and animals in
rural Alaska. We believe that managing predators is
essential to good biology. In village Alaska where heavy
dependence on renewable resources exists, there is the
recognition of strong linkages between subsistence needs
not being met and predation. The state is responsible,
by our state constitution, as keepers and managers of our
natural resources and they have not done their jobs
(sic). If they had used proven historical methods, I'd
be in rural Alaska today going about my day to day
activities. Predator control is needed where the
resource is largely used as a subsistence source of food.
The National Academy of Science study states this. Our
group supports the Wolf Predation Control Implementation
Plan for Unit 19(D)-East found under 5 AAC.92.123(1).
Many people in rural Alaska can tell you about what it is
like to go through a winter without a moose or caribou.
Many can tell you about wolves now seen in villages and
how that is affecting village lives, and many can tell
you that Tier II does not return herds to healthy
sustainable populations so that is not the solution.
Active/intensive management is the solution. Not only
managing prey populations but predator populations as
well.
MR. ANGASAN concluded by informing everyone that endorsements for
intensive/active management and the State Board of Games's Wolf
Implementation Plan for Unit 19(D)-East have been secured from the
following: Alaska Federation of Natives, RurAL CAP, Ahtna, Inc.,
Tanana Chiefs Conference, Alaska Inter-Tribal Council (AITC), BIA-
Juneau Area Director, Alaska Trappers Association, Interior Alaska
Airboaters Association, Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee,
Tanana Valley Sportsmen's Association, Alaska Outdoor Council,
Caribou Calf Protection Program and the residents of Grayling,
McGrath, Takotna, Nikolai and Telida. He predicted that more
organizations will sign onto the platform as time progresses. Mr.
Anagasan said, "We call on the Governor today to implement the wolf
control program authorized by the State Board of Game in 1995 and
again in 2000 and we ask the Governor to trust the judgement of
village Alaska[ns] and to trust his own biologists."
SENATOR TAYLOR emphasized that Mr. Angasan was the first witness to
clearly state that it's the state's responsibility, as trustee over
these resources, [to do something]. Senator Taylor said that he
was embarrassed to admit that "we" have failed Mr. Angasan and the
resources. He agreed with Mr. Angasan that it is "our" job.
Senator Taylor recalled that he and Senator Bert Sharp had an
initiative to give $800,000 to ADF&G in order to perform intensive
game management. However, half of that money was transferred to
the Academy of Sciences in order to study the problem and $80,000
went towards surveys of the people of McGrath. Senator Taylor
apologized and agreed that "we" haven't done enough.
Number 368
DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), informed
everyone that he is a retired ADF&G game biologist and was a first
area biologist in McGrath from 1969-1971 and later supervised
research and management in that area. He noted that in retirement
he hunts and traps just east of Unit 19(D)-East. Therefore, Mr.
Bishop is familiar with the area and its circumstances over a
period of many years. The AOC supports the management of wolves in
Unit 19(D)-East in order to restore moose populations and harvest
opportunity. He stated that the low moose population is not a new
situation in that area as historical documents illustrate that in
the 1840s and early 1850s there were practically no moose on the
Kuskokwim River. Years ago a long-time resident from Sleetmute,
informed Mr. Bishop that there were no moose in the Sleetmute area
until about 1913. Furthermore, early explorers of these areas saw
little moose. Mr. Bishop said that it is fairly clear that the big
game in these areas were "naturally regulated." In the 1980s and
early 1990s departmental studies revealed that "naturally
regulated" meant controlled by predation within the limits of
habitat and winter conditions. It also become clear that 85
percent or so of the annual mortality of big game prey was the
result of predation and not hunters. He pointed out that in those
earlier days of such scarce moose people moved to find food and if
they didn't find it, they starved; sometimes people fought for
possession of hunting and other resource gathering areas. However,
today the situation is different in that there is a government
structure devoted to learning about wildlife and to managing
wildlife on the sustained yield principle in order to have these
resources available for human use for food and materials in
perpetuity. Furthermore, the people are no longer able to pursue
the game and move from place to place as they once did because
people are largely tied to fixed communities due to various
commitments. That statement would be fairly true of urban or rural
areas. Since the entire system has changed, management of fish and
wildlife is supposed to provide for more consistent resource
availability across the state. The present situation in Unit
19(D)-East calls for intensive management. He said that the data
gathered by ADF&G clearly indicates that moose are once again
"naturally regulated" by predation in Unit 19(D)-East. He informed
everyone that in [Unit 19(D)-East] other management measures have
been taken in order to help improve moose populations; those
measures include wildfires to create new habitat, restricting
aircraft access by hunters, prohibiting nonresident hunting and
subsistence priority. However, none of those measures have allowed
the moose populations to recover.
MR. BISHOP pointed out that during his years working in the McGrath
area, the moose were not "naturally regulated." During his stint
in McGrath a combination of mild winters, good habitats and
periodic wolf kills by aerial shooting and land and shoot allowed
substantial increases in moose. Also at that time, the
[department] was able to recommend a two moose bag limit, which was
adopted by the board. That limit included one [moose] of either
sex and winter seasons in order to accommodate traditional uses.
Although [the department] was not able to make quantitative
estimates of moose populations at that time, he said the numbers
were extraordinary. Mr. Bishop said, "There's no question that if
people are to benefit form Alaska's wildlife population consistent
with sustained yield, there needs to be intensive management in
places like [Unit] 19(D)-East." However, he noted that there are
very few places in Alaska where intensive management can be done
due to legal constraints in regard to federal land management
policies, closures of areas for various reasons and the areas of
unsuitable habitat. He remarked that he has estimated that no more
than 10-15 percent of the main body of Alaska is actually available
for management whether for predator control or habitat management.
Therefore, that creates pressure for intensive management where it
can be done and will benefit people. Mr. Bishop stated that the
welfare of the wolves is not of concern as they have survived
extensive poisoning programs, an intensive predator control
situation by the federal government and routine aerial and same day
shooting in the past. Therefore, Mr. Bishop said, "Site specific
intensive management such as in [Unit] 19(D)-East, including wolf
control in no way threatens the long-term welfare of Alaska's
wolves." Although he didn't believe that moose will reach such
scarce levels and retreat to the Alaska Range as in the 1840s and
1850s, he felt it certain there will be little or no harvestable
surplus for people in areas such as [Unit] 19(D)-East for many
years unless intensive management is undertaken. Therefore, AOC
strongly supports undertaking intensive management in [Unit] 19(D)-
East and other places where such management is beneficial. In
conclusion, Mr. Bishop informed everyone that an abundance in game
in an area is not only beneficial to the people of the area but to
the entire ecosystem as the trickle down effect takes place.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Bishop if he saw any other way to manage
the predator control in the McGrath area other than a form of
aerial hunting.
MR. BISHOP acknowledged that there are other ways, but he believes
those to be less efficient, less cost-effective and perhaps less
humane in some cases. However, a combination of several [methods]
could be used and perhaps achieve a similar result [as the aerial
method], although it would probably be more labor intensive and
take more time. He noted the options of denning, poisoning and
intensive trapping such as was used with the caribou calf
protection program. Any one of those options alone would probably
not achieve [the goal]; however, a combination could conceivably
[manage the predator control program]. Still, it is difficult to
find anything more efficient and cost-effective than lethal
shooting from aircraft.
Number 482
GABE SAM, Coalition for the Alaskan Way of Life (CAWL), testified
via teleconference. He stated that TCC supports the [Alaska] Board
of Game implementing their predator control program as soon as
possible. This is no longer an issue regarding putting food on the
table because now that wolves are entering town because they are
hungry. The issue now is the welfare and safety of the children.
Mr. Sam commended the [Alaska] Board of Game members for standing
their ground and recommending an aggressive predator control
program. Although ADF&G has been given its orders to carry out the
[Alaska] Board of Game's decision, the Governor has decided against
it. Mr. Sam believes that [the Governor's] decision was not based
on science but rather outside political pressure. Mr. Sam recalled
that one of the issues for the board was in regard to the terrain
of Unit 19(D)-East. The terrain of the area is such that the only
effective and humane way to manage the predator control is by
aerial wolf hunting and land and shoot.
MR. SAM turned to the Coalition for the Alaskan Way of Life, which
is made up of a diverse group of people who agreed to leave
political differences, specifically those related to subsistence,
behind. In 1996, the loss of aerial hunting for predator
management was such a landslide, the need for help was realized.
At that time it was also realized that other organizations could
ban together to help. Moreover, it was realized that they were
fighting well-funded special interest groups. Mr. Sam emphasized
that outside special interest groups should not dictate how "our"
wildlife resources should be managed. He noted the following
comment of one special interest group: "As soon as the Native
culture is extinct, the better off they would be." He didn't
believe that the legislature shares that point of view. In
conclusion, Mr. Sam reiterated that TCC supports ADF&G to begin the
predator control program.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that Mr. Pete Buist, Alaska Trappers
Association, was the next person on the list to testify. However,
Chairman Halford didn't believe he was available. Chairman Halford
read the first sentence from the Alaska Trappers Association's
communication. That first sentence read as follows: "The Alaska
Trappers Association fully supports the people of the Upper
Kuskokwim in their poignant plea for responsible, active/intensive
game management."
Number 525
JOE MATTIE, Fairbanks fur dealer, testifying from Fairbanks,
informed everyone that he is involved in the Caribou Calf
Protection Program, the Coalition for the Alaskan Way of Life and
the Alaska Trappers Association. In October 1995, he learned at a
public meeting that ADF&G was proposing to sterilize wolves as a
method of predator control, which was shocking. He expressed
disbelief that wildlife management had fallen to that level.
Further disbelief was expressed in regard to how protecting
sterilized wolves would prevent them from killing big game. After
that meeting a group of people decided to begin a privately-funded
wolf control program. He said, "As trappers, we knew we could
reduce the wolf population sufficiently to allow the 40-mile
Caribou herd to recover. We also knew a larger caribou herd meant
more wolves, in the future, for us to trap." Therefore, only
enough financial incentive was necessary to make it worth the
trappers' efforts. The group was able to convince the hunters and
others interested in seeing the 40-mile herd recover to provide a
$400 per wolf incentive. He explained that the trapper received
the $400 for each wolf harvested in the 40-mile region and the
hunter received the wolf pelt for his $400 pledge. Mr. Mattie
stated that this effort removed 60 percent of the wolf population
as 128 wolves were harvested out of the 225 present in the
boundaried area at the beginning of the 1995/96 season. In the
1996/97 season, 80 wolves were harvested, again 60 percent of the
remaining wolf population. He noted that the caribou herd grew 4
percent in 1996 and 11 percent in 1997, which was the first growth
in 15 years. In the winter of 1997, the sterilization program
began and the trappers were told to discontinue wolf trapping in
that area. Mr. Mattie said, "We were pleased and proud of our
contribution and successful program and we believe that it is the
reason the caribou herd is recovering. We are also pleased that it
was a private incentive program not costing the state anything.
But most importantly, we are pleased that the program brought
people together ... towards a goal of abundant wildlife."
CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if any of the wolves that Mr. Mattie
eliminated were not effectively sterilized.
MR. MATTIE remarked that this program used the same sterilization
program as Mr. Newton.
SENATOR TAYLOR remarked that many at the hearing are discovering
the great diversity of people who find a common interest and goal
in regard to protecting and preserving Alaska's lifestyle and its
wild game resources. He expressed his pleasure in knowing that
people all over Alaska are working toward the common goal of
trusteeship and stewardship, which everyone should work towards.
He thanked Mr. Mattie and his family for their efforts.
MR. MATTIE thanked Senator Taylor for the Caribou Calf Protection
Program.
Number 569
BILL HAGAR, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association, testifying
from Fairbanks, remarked that this is a historical milestone in
that he believes "we" are embarking on a rural-urban alliance for
a common goal that will benefit the entire state. He noted that
[at the McGrath meeting] a resolution was unanimously accepted. He
stated, "We are here on bended knee requesting you, as leaders,
join us collectively and politically solving this problem before we
have a resource that's beyond recovery."
DARREL VENT, resident of Huslia, which is in the Doyon and TCC
region, provided the following testimony:
Over half of our villages attended the summit in McGrath
on intensive/active management, which was hosted by the
McGrath Tribal Council February 1st and 2nd and all of
our villages supported the [Unit] 19(D)-East Wolf
Implementation Plan and we request the Governor to take
formal action now, before the moose are entirely wiped
out in the Upper Kuskokwim. In our region, many villages
are reporting large packs of wolves near villages, health
and safety concerns and subsistence users who did not get
their moose or caribou to carry them through the long
winter. Already the village of Takotna has declared a
health and safety emergency. They have children and
elders and a blind person who walk the road. They are
afraid for their people's safety. As our respected Elder
Sidney Huntington said in his written testimony for the
McGrath meeting, "It is not going to get better until you
are able to take some wolves. It has been ..."
TAPE 00-14, SIDE B
MR. VENT continued:
"... proven many times in the past that control methods
work. To name just a few, the Koyukuk River in the early
days, aerial hunting for wolves brought back our moose
twice. The Minto Alaska wolf control [program] brought
back the moose from almost complete elimination. To
stand by and do nothing is crazy. How could our
government officials tie our hands so we are not able to
restore our wildlife and maintain sustainable
populations. Who is supposed to be taking care of our
subsistence wildlife food resources? Or is that just a
joke? Who makes all the promises politically to their
advantage?" Sidney lives in Galena and served on the
Board of Game for over 19 years and he has seen
shortages. Sidney said, "I wish I could help you. Some
people should just use some common sense and care for our
wildlife and us." I say on behalf of TCC villages, our
people's health and welfare need proper food on the table
such as moose and caribou meat. We do not want to see
what happened on the Great Plains when all the buffalo
were wiped out. We will not stand for that. Not in a
modern day society.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if Mr. Vent has heard from other villages
that have experienced a decline in moose and caribou populations
and an increase in wolf populations. She asked if there is concern
regarding this outside of the McGrath area.
MR. VENT stated that this is of great concern all over. For
instance, in the (indisc.) area he recalled that there was over one
moose per square mile and now it is down to about .36 [moose per
square mile] and now it's getting worse. He suggested that a
five/ten year management plan limiting [outside] hunting and
predation could result in a sustainable method.
SENATOR LINCOLN acknowledged that Mr. Vent lives a traditional
lifestyle and thus she asked him to explain to those present the
importance of the moose population to the villages.
MR. VENT stated that in the villages the stores are probably three
times higher than in [urban areas] and very few people have jobs.
Society has changed and now people go outside the village for jobs
while those left in the villages can't afford to leave or don't
have the education to go out and get these jobs. He said those
[left in the villages] are the ones of concern.
Number 551
JONOTHON SOLOMAN, Chairman, Gwich'in Steering Committee, noted that
he is from Fort Yukon. He testified in support of the resolution
passed in McGrath and noted that the majority of the Yukon Flat
people are trappers. Mr. Solomon expressed the desire to have
management of all natural renewable resources for all of Alaska.
However, Mr. Solomon said, "But we don't want aerial hunting to be
open for all of the state of Alaska at this point, until all Alaska
becomes under the game management of its people and local people
are involved." Mr. Solomon informed everyone that he is an
Athabascan Gwich'in of Northeast Alaska belonging to the wolf clan.
He remarked that when people talk about his clan it sometimes hurts
him. In regard to managing the natural resources, Mr. Solomon
stressed the need to also manage the natural resource known as
human being. He indicated that instead of blaming the wolf, "we"
must all take the responsibility equally. Mr. Solomon said, "The
only reason we're noticing wolf today is because the human animal
has taken away a lot of these natural resources, away from what you
call wolf." He explained that the wolves are coming down the
mountain because there is nothing up there due to humans taking
[the food]. He noted that he comes from an area with lots of
wolves due to the 180,000 Porcupine caribou, which he said have
survived because of how his culture manages. He expressed the need
to harvest even the wolf in order for it to be healthy for the
Native people of Alaska. Therefore, Mr. Solomon supported the
McGrath resolution but reiterated the need to control everyone.
Number 494
CARL JACK, Tribal Member, Kipnuk, testified in support of intensive
game management for [[Unit] 19(D)-East. He noted that he has
observed, in the last few months, the attempts to address the
problem in [[Unit] 19(D)-East. He remarked that those who have
worked on this issue have capitalized on bringing people together,
which is refreshing to see. This approach is consistent with the
basic approach of his people. He turned to the filing of the
emergency regulation to perform predator control, which was adopted
by the [Alaska] Board of Game. While the emergency regulation is
permissive in nature, it expresses to the Governor that [the
regulation] is based on sound science and should be adopted.
However, that regulation is only good for 90 days, which only left
about three months before summer arrived.
MR. JACK saw the Administration's inability to initiate predator
control as a de facto violation of the constitution that calls for
sustained yield principles. He asked if that would be ignored. If
nothing is done between now and summer, he questioned what would
happen next year. He believes that the policy makers for the state
should put something in place that will make something happen such
as SB 267. If nothing is done, he feared that the division between
the urban and rural areas would be exacerbated. Furthermore, if
nothing is done, he predicted a loss of faith in the state process,
the management system. That would result in a violation of the
fiduciary trust for proper management of fish and game. In
conclusion, Mr. Jack supported doing something in the Upper
Kuskokwim as soon as possible and as an individual, he requested
that the Governor get back on track to a sound management system
based on science.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted his pleasure in seeing things that join
people together. Representative Ogan pointed out that he is on the
Fish & Game Finance subcommittee. He said that he has put the
commissioner's office on notice and will do all he can to advocate
for severe cuts to the commissioner's office unless [ADF&G] comes
around in regard to the problem in McGrath. Therefore, he has
prepared some amendments to the budget.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted his appreciation to Mr. Jack for bringing up
the constitution and the sustained yield provisions within. He
reiterated his earlier apology in regard to the fact that [managing
wildlife] is the responsibility of the legislature; there has not
been enough pressure brought on the Administration. Furthermore,
Senator Taylor expressed concern with Mr. Jack's statement
regarding the lack of trust that would result from the failure to
manage fish and game.
SENATOR PETE KELLY disagreed with Senator Taylor in that he didn't
blame the legislature but rather the Governor. He pointed out that
[the legislature] has proposed every bill possible, overridden [the
Governor's] vetoes, threatened and begged. Still, the Governor
will not manage wolves because when he was elected he announced
that there would be no wolf control while he is in office.
SENATOR TAYLOR related his belief that it is a collective
responsibility. He agreed that the legislature has done everything
reasonable that it could, but we have not yet cut off the
commissioner of ADF&G's salary or utilized some other Draconian
approaches. Perhaps, "we" are at the point at which "we take the
gloves off." Senator Taylor commented on the importance of
bringing people, Alaskans, together to solve these problems.
MR. JACK noted that "our" efforts to work within the process will
continue and "we" also look forward to participating in the March
meeting of the [Alaska] Board of Game. He believes, at that
meeting, the board will reauthorize what is already in the books
for the next five years.
Number 391
CHAIRMAN HALFORD pointed out that the department began by saying
that the moose to wolf ratio is such that the moose population will
continue to decline unless something is done. "Obviously, we have
a job in front of us." Therefore, the legislature will attempt to
do everything possible to work on this matter. Chairman Halford
thanked everyone who organized the McGrath summit and this meeting,
in particular Donne Fleagle. He remarked that there is no reason
for anyone in the process of state government to not understand
what the problem is and what is being requested. He thanked
everyone.
SENATOR LINCOLN thanked Chairman Halford for holding this hearing,
the department representative who responded to questions and
everyone on the teleconference. Senator Lincoln said that it seems
to be a unified message that something must be done. She said that
she hopes that the dialogue will continue in order to reach a
resolution.
CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted his commitment to continue to work on this
issue.
MS. FLEAGLE thanked the legislators for the invitation to present
[and discuss this matter].
Number 341
LYNN LEVENGOOD, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association (AWCA),
said that the association is proud to stand united with the
trappers, TCC, RurAL CAP, AOC and all the other organizations in
order to have a return of the abundance of the wildlife in Alaska.
In regard to Senator Taylor's question regarding whether wildlife
should be managed by broad popular support, the Alaska Constitution
requires that Alaska's game be managed for sustained yield for
human consumptive uses. He pointed out that AWCA believes that
some statutory changes are necessary in Title 16 in order to
require Alaska's wildlife to be managed for abundance and return
Alaska's wildlife to an abundant state. If the department chooses
to monitor the wildlife rather than manage it, then the elected
officials should not appropriate any money [to ADF&G], which he
believes constitutes malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance. He
stated, "Alaskans will no longer stand for the negligent management
of Alaska's wildlife resources."
CHAIRMAN HALFORD requested that Mr. Levengood wrap up his testimony
as people were beginning to leave.
MR. LEVENGOOD said that Alaskan families sustain themselves on
Alaska's wildlife by consumptive use and the legislature must
require ADF&G to manage for abundance.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Joint meeting of the House and
Senate Resources Standing committees was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|