Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/10/1995 03:47 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
March 10, 1995
3:47 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman, Chairman
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chairman
Senator Steve Frank
Senator Lyman Hoffman
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 16(CRA)
"An Act relating to the University of Alaska and university land,
authorizing the University of Alaska to select additional state
public domain land, and defining net income from the University of
Alaska's endowment trust fund as 'university receipts' subject to
prior legislative appropriation."
SENATE BILL NO. 77
"An Act relating to intensive management of identified big game
prey populations."
PREVIOUS ACTION
SB 16 - See Community & Regional Affairs minutes dated
2/20/95.
SB 77 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Wendy Redman
University of Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 16.
Marty Epstein, Director
Land Management
University of Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Was available to answer questions regarding SB
16.
Cliff Eames
Alaska Center for the Environment
519 W 8th, No. 201
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16.
R.B. Stiles, President
Orven Corporation
711 H St., No 600
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16.
Thomas J. Warner
P.O. Box 1258
Bethel, AK 99559
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16.
Ed Davis, Board Member
Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association
P.O. Box 3332
Valdez, AK 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16 and commented on SB 77.
Riki Ott
United Fishermen of Alaska
P.O. Box 1430
Cordova, AK 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16.
Brenda Wilcox
Coghill Wilcox & Associates
P.O. Box 20967
Juneau, AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 16.
Sarah Hannan, Executive Director
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16 and opposed SB 77.
Nico Bus, Legislative Liaison
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Ave.
Juneau, AK. 99801-1796
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16.
Senator Sharp
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 77.
Tom Scarborough
1676 Taraka Dr.
Fairbanks, AK 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77.
Bill Hagar
432 Gaffney Rd.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77.
Ralph Seekins, President
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association
1625 Old Steese
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 77.
George Matz, Vice President
Anchorage Audubon Society
14345 Cody
Anchorage, AK 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77.
Steve Wells, Executive Director
Alaska Wildlife Alliance
P.O. Box 202022
Anchorage, AK 99520
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77.
Tom Warner
P.O. Box 1258
Bethel, AK 99559
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77.
Ed Davis
Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism
P.O. Box 1353
Valdez, AK 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 77.
Wayne Regelin, Acting Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25525
Juneau, AK 99802-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 77.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-22, SIDE A
Number 001
SRES 3/10/95
SB 16 INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA
CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:47 p.m. and announced SB 16 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR FRANK said this bill would allow the University to select
one million acres subject to a rigorous set of constraints
established to protect the state's interest. The University is a
land grant university, as are many universities in the western
states, but its land grant is small in comparison to other land
grant universities. This would give the university a greater
opportunity to earn revenues from lands and enable it to be less
dependent on general funds in the future.
WENDY REDMAN, University of Alaska, explained that the University
has not functioned as a land grant university, because they have no
land. In other many other states, the land grant system actually
supports their university, she said.
MARTY EPSTEIN, Director of Land Management, said he was available
to answer questions.
CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment (ACE), opposed SB
16. He stated the ACE doesn't dispute a need for a reasonable
share of ample funding going to the University. They opposed the
increased fragmentation of land ownership and management patterns
which result in severely reduced opportunities for the citizens of
Alaska. They are also concerned that dedicating revenue to the
University is constitutional. He noted that the lands have not
been identified and they would no longer be managed for multiple
public uses which is extremely important.
R.B. STILES, Orven Corp., testified against SB 16. He said that
although the University of Alaska received less land than some
other Universities in the West, the State of Alaska received
substantially more land under their land grant than any of the
Western States. He questioned whether granting land to the
University is a dedication of funds which is prohibited by the
State Constitution.
He said it was clear, in reading through the type of lands that
could be selected, that there were lands with coal and mineral
leases which he thought invited the same kind of litigation that
happened with the Mental Health Trust lands issue.
Finally, he commented that land grant colleges throughout the West
got their lands from the federal government and not from their
state governments.
THOMAS WARNER, Bethel resident, said he saw very little opportunity
for public participation in the selection process and the
determination of the use of the revenue stream to be derived from
the lands. He also viewed the Governor and Commissioner as having
a lot of power and thought one million acres was excessive.
Number 228
ED DAVIS, Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association
(AWRTA), said that transferring this large amount of land to the
University would have a huge impact on the resources that tourism
depends on and that the selection process did not have much
protection for the multiple use of lands. MR. DAVIS said that he
hadn't received adequate notice that this bill was being heard.
SENATOR LEMAN stated that SB 16 was introduced on January 16, 1995
and has already been heard in the Senate Community and Regional
Affairs Committee. The Senate Resources Committee posted the
committee meeting schedule eight days ago. Further, he said he
didn't expect it to move from committee today and invited his
additional comments.
Number 312
RIKI OTT, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), opposed SB 16. UFA's
main concern was the scope of the land disposal which would affect
natural resource management across the state. I was also concerned
that the Board of Regents would be managing those resources versus
public control multiple use. It is very concerned with the "use it
or lose it" clause. There is also the issue of this being a
dedicated source of funds which may be unconstitutional, she said.
BRENDA WILCOX, Coghill Wilcox & Associates, supported SB 16. She
said she was President for the Alumni Association for UAF and sat
on the Board of Directors for six years. When land was first
granted to the University in the Tanana Valley, they were given
only 9,000 acres, because of the difficulty in surveying it without
satellite technology which we now have. The University actively
manages their lands, because they need the revenues, she said.
MS. WILCOX said one of the main reasons against Alaska receiving
statehood, at the national level, was it was felt Alaska didn't
have a tax base to pay for governmental services. That is one of
the reasons the state was given an unprecedented 105 million acres
to manage. The 105 million acres was intended to help us fund the
University of Alaska. There are now three campuses instead of one
and the costs are ever-increasing.
SARAH HANNAN, Alaska Environmental Lobby (AEL), said she is an
alumni of the University of Alaska and a former member of the Board
of Regents. She is here to do the best for the University, but
transferring one million acres of what is public domain land to a
private entity would present a number of complex policy issues.
She thought other agencies across the state could say they have an
equal right to provide some guaranteed revenue and perhaps an
endowment.
MS. HANNAN pointed out that endowment and land grant are not the
same thing. She said there is no guarantee that the University
would make enough money to sustain itself even if they are given
land. She asked the Legislature what the state's obligation was to
provide general fund sources to the University.
Because AEL is composed of a network of people who live across
Alaska, she opposed this legislation saying someone or something
lives on all that land. She asked if public domain land goes to
private ownership of the University, would the interests of private
users be taken into account.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if she had taken a position on compensation of
private property owners for loss of use of the land. MS. HANNAN
said AEL's position would be consistent with what she has stated
here.
SENATOR LEMAN stated that Section 5 on page 10, lines 6 -11, where
it says the University shall manage the land in a manner that
permits those customary and traditional uses of the resources, is
intended to cover her concerns with multiple use.
NICO BUS, Department of Natural Resources, opposed SB 16. He said
the Administration is concerned with the revenue stream for the
State of Alaska and splitting up the current land base. He said
the key issue was the long term fiscal implications for the state.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked what the Department's position would be if
the acreage were to be reduced by half of the requested amount.
MR. BUS said the overall fiscal impact would need evaluation before
a position could be taken.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if his recommendation to the Governor would
be to veto this bill as it exists. MR. BUS said it was. He said
DNR had submitted a fiscal note to the Governor on March 9.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if he knew what the breakdown of the
percentage of land is in the State of Alaska between federal,
state, native corporations, and private? MR. BUS didn't have that
information.
Number 507
MS. REDMAN said, in response to a statement made by Riki Ott, that
the University land is not treated as private land; it is treated
as public land.
MS. REDMAN noted a typo error on page 10, line 8. The word
"displaying" should be "disposing."
SENATOR LEMAN thanked her and everyone for their participation and
said SB 16 would be held for further work.
SRES 3/10/95
SB 77 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME
SENATOR LEMAN announced SB 77 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR SHARP, sponsor of SB 77, said the committee substitute
clears up language in Section 2. Section 3 deletes the
Commissioner's option of establishing a Division of Game and
Section 4 establishes by statute a Division of Game. The intent is
to replace the title of the Division of Wildlife and Conservation
with the original statutory title of Division of Game. Section 5
clarifies language which both the Board of Game and ADF&G are
having difficulty understanding regarding "depletion." Section 6
further clarifies that intensive management does not include
management of people. Section 7 adds three definition paragraphs.
He hoped this legislation would clarify some areas that are not
understandable to some department personnel so that they could move
forward to aggressively manage the resource for the people of
Alaska as is their constitutional mandate.
SENATOR SHARP said from conversations with department people he
thought the fiscal note reflected focusing on existing resources
rather than needing additional resources over the next five years.
SENATOR FRANK moved to adopt the CS labeled 9-LS0460 f to SB 77.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
TAPE 95-22, SIDE B
Number 001
TOM SCARBOROGH, Fairbanks, said that managing game for human use
has failed which is why this legislation is before us today. He
strongly supported it, because it requires management for sustained
yield which is good for tourism and the hunting public.
BILL HAGAR, Fairbanks, said there is a management imbalance of
resource allocation and the problems associated with it. He said
the question is where does all the harvestable surplus resource go.
He said hundreds of thousands of newborn moose and caribou are
needlessly sacrificed every year under the department's current
management philosophy.
Number 544
RALPH SEEKINS, President, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association
(AWCA), said the ADF&G people just don't seem to understand
management for human harvest along with wolves, bears, etc. ADF&G
also says they don't have the tools to respond to high levels of
predator population other than monitoring them.
MR. SEEKINS said that they have received adequate funding year
after year and they need to have their personal philosophy changed
to manage the resources for human harvest.
GEORGE MATZ, Anchorage Audubon, opposed SB 77. SENATOR LEMAN noted
that his written testimony had been received. MR. MATZ said that
in a survey, Alaskan voters largely agreed that wildlife was an
important reason they were in Alaska. He thought more concern
should be given to protecting our lands and waters. He said the
wildlife is also important to Alaskan tourists. He said he thought
a constitutional amendment would be needed to move this bill
forward.
STEVE WELLS, Alaska Wildlife Alliance, opposed SB 77. He said it
won't mean more money for the state. Intensive management is very
expensive. SB 77 will not settle hunting allocation questions; it
can't achieve its goals. You can kill the predators in the state
including wolves and bears and not achieve the 33% human harvest
that this bill calls for.
MR. WELLS thought this bill might be to squelch public debate over
the controversial wolf management actions in the Board of Game
process. This is clearly unfair to the public, because it is an
end run around the intensive wildlife management public process.
This bill could also lead to the loss of state wildlife management
authority at a time the state is trying to retrieve management
authority from the federal government. This bill does nothing to
add to the capability of wildlife managers who manage wildlife; it
limits and reduces their options. The Board and ADF&G have always
had the authority to intensively manage wildlife populations.
Number 409
TOM WARNER, Bethel, had specific problems with consumptive use
being the preferred use and the lack of a mechanism for determining
"historic high levels" in Section 5. He said it looks like the
Board is being mandated to manage for certain big game populations
for human use only. This is also an unwarranted intrusion by the
Legislature in what should be a professional activity by the Board
and the Department of Fish and Game.
Number 391
SARAH HANNAN, Alaska Environmental Lobby (AEL), said she has been
a life-long Alaskan hunter. She said AEL does not oppose hunting,
but she urged them to take into account that there is a lengthy
public process built into game management decisions. This is to
make sure that people with seasoned life styles and a diversity of
locations have time enough to look through procedures and processes
that come before them. The Board of Game is not made up of people
who are opposed to managing for human consumption, but it is made
up of hunters who would like to see human harvest continue. She
thought it was a bad precedent to intervene in a law that has not
yet gone into place and that is still being considered by the Board
of Game. Preemption of the Board of Game for making its decisions
will only result in a deeper workload for the Legislature when it
comes to game and fish allocations.
Ed Davis, Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism, said he was
concerned with the definition of a harvestable surplus. He thought
it should exclude all animals that died from all causes other than
normal levels of predation.
He said they opposed aerial methods of taking game especially by
the public.
Number 273
WAYNE REGELIN, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
explained that last year the Legislature passed SB 77 which
mandated the Board of Game implement intensive management if season
lengths and bag limits were reduced in areas where human use of
wildlife was a high value. The department supported this
legislation and worked closely with Senator Sharp throughout the
process. In its December meeting, the Board decided to manage 10
areas, recommended by the public and the department, intensively.
The Board of Game asked the department to prepare more detailed
reports and recommendations for how intensive management should be
implemented in five of these areas. These will be presented at the
Board of Game meeting beginning on March 18.
He said that (last year's) SB 77 was clear and everyone understands
it. There was talk at the Board meetings to add some definitions
to the bill which the department suggested would be useful in
preparing for management activities. He didn't think the Board
could move faster than they have, since this issue wasn't exempted
from the Administrative Procedures Act.
Number 273
Specific aspects of the legislation still concern him, like some of
the definitions and setting the historical high levels of big game
prey populations as a standard for triggering intensive management.
Such high levels in some places cannot be maintained over long
periods of time, because the habitat just can't support them. He
explained they try to stock ranges at about 80% of optimum levels,
because otherwise food would be scarce which would cause a decrease
in birth rates and fewer animals.
Number 197
MR. REGELIN said he thought he understood the purpose of this bill
which is for people who want higher levels of harvest from the most
accessible moose and caribou populations. He said the department
has been frustrated also with getting intensive management programs
started.
He said changing the legislation at this point is not wise, because
SB 77 isn't implemented yet and if more legislation is needed at
some point they could ask for that. He didn't think legislation
was necessarily the best way to achieve their common goals. He did
not think it was beyond the ability of the department or the will
of the Administration to manage the herds more intensively.
SENATOR HOFFMAN said he would like to see some of Mr. Regelin's
suggested definitions.
SENATOR SHARP noted that he has worked with the department over the
last six years with suggestions from constituents with the
legislature in the process and said that the "process" just isn't
getting us there. It gets us to the point to where the Board makes
a decision and then those decisions based on scientific data are
bludgeoned by politics. This is one of the driving forces behind
trying to strengthen the statute and, if anything, trying to keep
the politics out of it. He said the department has always been
willing to work to make things doable which he appreciates.
SENATOR HOFFMAN, referring to a newspaper article, said maybe they
should put stricter fines on officers shooting game out of season.
SENATOR LEMAN said they would hold the bill for further work and
adjourned the meeting at 5:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|