SB 77 - INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME RESOURCES SENATOR BERT SHARP, PRIME SPONSOR SB 77, stated he will be speaking to the bill which came from the Senate, CSSB 77(RES). He explained the draft House committee substitute is similar; it is restructured and has a legislative intent added. SENATOR SHARP read his sponsor statement: "The primary thrust of SB 77 is to provide clear legislative direction to the Board of Game in regard to priority management goals and mission of the Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), particularly in the management of the larger species of game. Recent political actions accentuate a dire need for a strong legislative mandate, something which has never been addressed for big game in the state. "For close to 30 years, the mission of the Board of Game and ADF&G has gradually become distorted and the result has been a steady decline in the populations of the game resource in many areas of the state. The value and use of biologically sound aggressive scientific management has been severely eroded, resulting in Alaska's current game management policies that manage people first, not the resource. The management process presently employs only passive techniques such as shortening hunting seasons, changing methods and means, establishing permit only hunts and just flat out closing seasons entirely. Each of these have contributed to the reduction in hunting opportunities for vast numbers of Alaskans. "The stark reality is that every reduction in hunting seasons without corresponding reductions of predators has in fact been a reallocation of the resource from people to predator. These past passive management actions have created the current situation where the Alaskan people harvest two to three percent of the game, while predators take 80 to 90 percent." Senator Sharp requested committee members to look at a diagram in their folders showing harvest ratio. (On file.) Number 087 SENATOR SHARP continued with his sponsor statement: "Time and time again, surveys and studies of game populations have revealed that during the first 30 days after calving season, up to 90 percent of the newborn are gone. Do the mothers suddenly abandon them? Do they starve? Does a plague decimate only the newborn? The answer is none of the above. The answer is the same today as it was five years ago, or ten years ago, or twenty years ago. Predators are very selective and efficient in killing newborn caribou, moose and sheep. Absolutely no question about it. We have literally spent tens of millions of dollars doing population surveys and watching it happen. "The lack of a clear legislative direction encourages administrations, the board, and the department to play it safe by continually needing just a couple more years to obtain more studies to support any proposed changes from passive management to effective, positive hands on management action. Serious habitat deterioration has occurred both naturally and by human actions--primarily forest fire control action. There has been very few uses of controlled burns and when they have been used, they have been very effective. Other proven habitat enhancement methods have been seldom used. These actions probably would increase game populations more than predator reduction efforts. They are intensive management tools. Number 112 "Today's volatile problem of allocating existing game resources could be minimized and in many cases eliminated by increasing game populations up to historically proven maximum sustainable levels. Abundant game levels are the common sense answers to solve the current personal use, sport hunting and viewing needs. This bill states a clear legislative intent in marking the course and setting goals of game management for the board and department. It requires the maintenance of the state's game resource at a high sustainable yield level. It restates the necessity of including the human harvest factor into the sustained yield formula. "Alaska long ago took this course in the management of its fisheries that put fish into the nets of fishermen and dollars into the pockets of fishermen by aggressive intensive management. Let us do the same to put meat into the cooking pots of thousands of Alaskans. This resource has the potential to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in consumptive use value for the people throughout Alaska. I ask for your support of this legislative effort." Number 130 REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY felt predators become game also, and asked if there is a way to differentiate between productive meat animals and their predators when defining game. SENATOR SHARP replied that big game is defined as bear and wolf, which are the primary predators. Intensive management of bear can be accomplished by liberalizing the seasons when the prey population is in severe decline. It is more difficult to manage wolves as they have not been aggressively pursued by trapping because of the low price of fur and the remoteness of most activity. (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVES CARNEY and FINKELSTEIN joined the committee at 8:25 a.m. and 8:35 a.m. He also noted that REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA had joined the committee.) Number 159 SENATOR SHARP stated that intensive management is more of a quick response mandate and it is up to the game managers to decide which portion of it will be most effective and identify population areas. He said when looking at the diagram, it is like a house fire. If you show up at a house fire, and you only put water on 2 1/2 percent of the house fire, it is not very effective. The only way to regroup is, once you get down to the foundation, you can build it again. He said to control only 2 1/2 percent of the harvest by intensive management is like fighting a house fire. REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked Senator Sharp, if the committee adopts SB 77 as drafted, does he believe the department will still have the discretion to make decisions relating to predator controls, etc., or will they be directed to some outside intent. Number 179 SENATOR SHARP replied CSSB 77, in conjunction with many comments from ADF&G, includes wording changes which allow for discretion. He said on page one, line nine, the bill reads "where the board has determined..." On page two, line 21, it reads "requiring the department, within the department's ability..." On page two, line 24, the bill reads "where the board has determined..." And, on page two, lines 29 and 30 read "enhancement of abundance or productivity of the big game population is feasible." He stressed those are areas where the board will still maintain discretionary options based on information supplied to them by ADF&G. He added that amendments will be acceptable to clarify that the board does retain emergency closure rights in case of severe biological decline. REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked, referring to the harvest ratio diagram, where road and railroad kills are shown. SENATOR SHARP answered those appear in the natural mortality section. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES felt the definition of intensive management emphasizes predator control and asked if that is correct. SENATOR SHARP replied in reality that is correct. The fact is that all predators, including humans, should be addressed. Predators have to bear their responsibility for restoration of abundance in a declining situation. He reiterated the board still maintains discretion. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES inquired what source was used for the information contained in the diagram. SENATOR SHARP stated the information was supplied by advocates of the bill and noted that on the diagram, it states the data is from ADF&G, and is dated 1991. Number 268 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed concern with the analogy of SB 77 to a fire. He said the natural relationship between predators and prey has existed for a long time and this issue should not be characterized as a fire. He stated if one looks at a smaller portion of a management unit where the human take is a much larger percentage, closures make sense. When looking at the diagram, he could not understand why closures would ever be important. SENATOR SHARP replied that the Constitution says wildlife and other resources shall be managed under the sustained yield principle. He said sustained yield for game has never been defined. Therefore, ADF&G, the board and anyone else can make their own definition and justify in their mind what that definition is. This bill defines sustained yield. He stressed an allocation problem will exist if natural cycles occur. If the human harvest element is taken out and there is a reallocation to the remaining predators, the predators will force the prey population down to a severe level where the prey move out or starve out. The human element is inflicted with periods of extreme critical shortages. The object of SB 77 is to bring the bottoming out of the natural cycle up to a point where there is a limited time of scarcity. REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN said in looking at the context of the entire bill, it seems there is a mixture of people in the state interested in both consumptive uses and nonconsumptive uses. There is a set a laws which allows the Board of Game to make decisions to allocate resources based on that--to engage in predator control and other means to achieve the goals which best suit the interests of all people. He stated he does not understand what is being done in the bill that the board is not already doing under law. SENATOR SHARP replied many people think the necessity for SB 77 is the fact that there is no legislative guidelines. The Constitution mandates sustained yield, but it has never been defined. It has been defined in other resource managements by statute. He believed it is unfair to expect changing administrations and personalities within the department to not have a guideline on the definition of sustained yield, which is the primary goal of managing any resource that is replenishable in the state. The wolf control issue is a current issue, but if one were to look back in history, they will find wolf control has only been utilized twice in twenty years. Legislative intent is important in that it allows the board to have the option of determining if predator control is a problem. If it is not, they have the latitude to determine whether it is feasible, practical and applicable by identified game populations. Number 391 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stressed that Senator Sharp is describing tools which ADF&G and the Board of Game already have and decisions they are already making. He asked Senator Sharp if he is unhappy with the decisions they are making and therefore wants to impose a mandate to restrict their future options. SENATOR SHARP stated in the past, previous administrations have ignored board orders and countermanded them on decisions they had made, based on scientific evidence. He did not feel politics should interfere with the board's decision. The bill defines sustained yield for the first time and is a recognition that the human harvest element is an important factor to be considered. The human harvest cannot be eliminated and reallocated to other predators, because if it is reallocated, it is not an effective control method. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he did not mention politics, but is saying all the powers already exist within the board and the tools are already available to them. The definition of sustained yield is just one sentence at the very end of the bill. He pointed out that many people feel the legislature should not be imposing mandates on the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game. If the boards already have the power and the ability to use the tools, and mandates are imposed, the will of the legislature is being imposed on a decision which they already have the authority to make. People believe the legislature should express their views through who gets on the boards. If the legislature is unhappy with the steps the boards have taken or the tools they have used, the confirmation process should be used instead of imposing mandates. Number 432 SENATOR SHARP agreed that the boards have options to consider any means proposed to them. Many times, what is proposed is not followed through on, based on scientific information. He felt the legislature owes it to the board and the public, for public necessity and need, to have a clear legislative direction on the goals to manage the resource, to leave enough discretionary latitude for the board and the department to determine, based on scientific information where the problem is, and only exercise corrective action on the problem areas. He said the board has that now, but it is not working. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated he did not view the proposed legislation entirely as a mandate. He said Administrative Procedures Act 44.62.030, provides for the consistency between regulations and statute. He views SB 77 as a policy statement which says the Board of Game now considers identified big game population regulations, where the board has determined that consumptive use is preferred use. He does not view it as a mandate, but rather as a strong intent. Number 474 SENATOR SHARP responded that is correct. He said the new wording in the proposed legislation allows for discretionary board decisions on feasibility, determination, identifying the game species involved and identifying proper action. The bill says if the allocation for human harvest is reduced, the other predators which are responsible for 85 percent of the take should be looked at. REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA said page two, line 23 of the committee substitute reads "requiring the department to conduct intensive management programs" and in looking at the changes ADF&G recommended, it says "within the department's ability." SENATOR SHARP replied that language is in the draft House committee substitute and he is only addressing the Senate version. Number 515 DAVE KELLEYHOUSE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, stated the division supports the concept of intensive management and has worked closely with Senator Sharp. On the Senate side, many of the division's concerns have been incorporated. He said the division's official position on the bill is neutral, pending additional amendments. MR. KELLEYHOUSE noted that he had reviewed the draft House committee substitute for SB 77 and found the version which passed the Senate to be preferable. The department recommends several amendments. In Section 1 (a), the department recommends that the words "it considers advisable in accordance with" be retained and eliminate the word "under". He also felt that changing the word "may" to "shall" provides the stronger legislative intent. On page two, line 21, the department recommends substituting the word "authorizing" for the word "requiring". They feel that change will maintain the discretion needed as a department and did not feel it proper for a board to direct and prioritize departmental resources. On page three, line six, the department recommends substituting the word "effective" for the word "ineffective" and "appropriate" for the word "inappropriate". MR. KELLEYHOUSE stressed a demonstration of the collective will of the legislature is needed to ensure that the board and future administrations encourage Alaska's wildlife managers to responsibly enhance game populations in certain areas. In this manner, much of the divisiveness between Alaska hunters over needlessly scarce or unproductive game populations can be avoided. He believed SB 77 will give clear legislative intent for game managers in the state to do what they do best. Number 700 NOEL PUTNAM, KETCHIKAN SPORTS AND WILDLIFE CLUB, KETCHIKAN, expressed strong support for SB 77. KATHERINE SMITH, KACHEMAK BAY CONSERVATION SOCIETY, HOMER, testified via teleconference, and expressed opposition to SB 77. She said the bill (indiscernible) wildlife management based on population and harvest data and (indiscernible) area residents with a legislative red meat mandate. By placing the burden of high sustained yields on managers, SB 77 disregards the professional expertise of game biologists in the department, it disregards knowledge of residents, it disregards customary, religious, and cultural uses of wildlife by Natives, it disregards the ecological value of (indiscernible) ecosystem systems, and it also disregards the constitutional mandate to manage wildlife for sustained yields. TAPE 94-16, SIDE B Number 000 MS. SMITH continued that SB 77 does not promote multiple use sustained yield management or a good stewardship on the state's resources. She felt the proposed legislation will be perceived by the outside world as another predator eradication scheme and the legislative heated frenzy toward it will hurt Alaska. The state's crazed image outside will continue to grow, which is a detriment to the state's visitor industry. She urged the committee to reject SB 77 and let the competent biologists decide what their preferred use of game is. She told committee members to not go against science, common sense, and public opinion by legislating a red meat mandate. NANCY HILLSTRAND, HOMER, testified via teleconference, and expressed opposition to SB 77. She felt the Board of Game already has the power to adopt regulations for all Alaskans to balance the wildlife populations. She believed the Board of Game is a democratic process which assures all Alaskans have a voice. She said SB 77 is definitely a mandate. She reminded members there are a lot of Alaskans, not just a certain group, who may utilize game for consumptive use. Ms. Hillstrand stated that SB 77 tells people not to participate in the Board of Game and she felt it is a politically motivated bill. She urged the committee to take no action on SB 77. RICHARD MACINTOSH, KODIAK, testified via teleconference, and expressed his opposition to SB 77. He said although the bill deals with predator control, it also mandates the use of fire and other techniques which are weighted in favor of human harvest. He felt the bill minimizes other important uses of the state's game. He said one major influence on game populations in the state is habitat degradation of various types through human development. On page three, the bill states if the game population is reduced and there is protectional restrictions on human harvest, the board must implement intensive management procedures. Even though 50 percent of the habitat in an area is destroyed, this bill mandates intensive management to make up for that and to bring populations back to a historical level, which may never realistically be achieved because of human disturbance. He urged committee members not to pass SB 77. Number 056 MARY FORBES, KODIAK, testified via teleconference, and expressed opposition to SB 77. She does not believe that management of resources belongs in the hands of the legislature. It belongs in the hands of the hired professionals. She disagrees with what is considered best use of the resource and how that is determined. She felt SB 77 is a special interest bill, sponsored by the hunters. BILL HAGER, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference, and expressed support of SB 77. He said he was responsible for the information contained in the diagram in the members' folders. He stressed SB 77 will enhance the Alaska constitutional basis. He noted that four years ago the constitutional directors started to develop game resource rules and reasons to prevent shortages from occurring. The legislature was supposed to pass a sustained yield definition, directing the Board of Game to manage and prevent the department from mismanaging the state's game resource. It was discovered that the legislature had not passed the definition and that is why SB 77 is in front of committee members. MR. HAGER stated SB 77 had passed the Senate and is constitutionally sound. He stressed the legislation is for the Board of Game, not the department. The bill will prevent bureaucrats and technocrats from arbitrarily manipulating the board and deceiving people into believing there is an uncontrollable reason for the shortage. There was an attempt to reverse the shortage within the system at the November 1992 Board of Game meeting, but the department out-foxed that attempt. He urged committee members to pass out SB 77. Number 110 TED LEONARD, SALCHA, testified via teleconference, and urged committee members to pass SB 77 to implement and emphasize the sustained yield clause of the Constitution. Many people rely on game as a major source of protein in their diets, not only because of the economic importance, but because wild game is healthier, lower in calories and fat, and is without chemical residues. He added that hunting is an important part of his culture and tradition. He noted there have been hard feelings in the Interior between the (indiscernible) and others who live in the country because of the shortage of game. If the resources were more properly managed and predators controlled, there would be no shortage and no cause for conflicts. MIKE TINKER, CHAIRMAN, FAIRBANKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, testified via teleconference, and urged committee members to pass SB 77. He said the overriding problem is that management has not been responsive to human needs; consumptive and nonconsumptive users. One only has to look at the controversies, subsistence priorities and wildly fluctuating seasons and bag limits and the regulations which go along with them. It is easy to defer to the politics of the moment. He felt a stable policy is needed on the direction and emphasis for game managers. MR. TINKER stated the number of Alaskans is growing, especially in the bush, so the resource user groups and the visitor industry will be impacted. The state needs a direction to manage game species and their habitats to ensure that uses which are taken for granted by the framers of Alaska's Constitution are in place. Sustained yield for use by humans was so obvious to early Alaskans that they did not specify sustained yields in the fish and game titles as it is specified, for example, in the Department of Natural Resources statute. MR. TINKER felt it makes sense to promote policy and emphasis which result in a better public understanding, better public input into the process, and better acceptance of the management concepts and guidelines. He stressed now is the time to redirect the policy and solve the problems of subsistence shortages and confusion over the prioritizing of users. Mr. Tinker felt SB 77 states the intention of the state's constitutional framers; that is, the uses were intended for the public. He emphasized SB 77 does not limit that, it just ensures there will be plenty of game for however many people want to use it. Number 165 JOEL BENNETT, JUNEAU, told committee members he is an active hunter and fisherman, has been interested in responsible game management since becoming a state resident 25 years ago, and served on the state Board of Game for 13 years. He urged the committee to reject SB 77. He felt the Board of Game has sufficient authority now and the bill is unnecessary. It confuses existing language with terms that are vague. He believed SB 77 is ill-advised because mandating predator control is not sound game management. Predators are also classified as big game animals and may be pushed below safe population levels. Sustained yield has to operate for their benefit as well. It is not known which predators are responsible for reduced game populations, if in fact predators are responsible at all. MR. BENNETT said SB 77 simply states predation - it could be black bears, grizzly bears, wolves - all need to be accorded sustained yield principles as well. Bears are valuable as commercial resources and deserve to be protected at high levels for commercial hunting as well as for other user groups. He felt the bill is flawed as it fails to specify which predators. He noted there was mention of maximum sustained yield and stressed it is not a concept which is in Title A of the Constitution. It was intentionally left vague at that point so latitude could be accorded to the board or other authorities charged with implementing the concept. To define sustained yield in a maximum way, like the committee substitute does, is going way beyond what the legislature should do. MR. BENNETT pointed out that this kind of action is what is contributing to federal efforts to close federal lands to various forms of predator control. He felt the proposed legislation is unnecessarily provocative, serves to further divide and polarize the general public, subject to predator control, is complex and must be carefully considered by the board through its own public process with an in-depth analysis by the department. He urged committee members to leave the authority where it is. Number 220 WILLIAM BURK, JUNEAU, said he strongly opposes SB 77. The present predator control of wolves in the state is going to cost the state in excess of $200,000, which he felt is a lot of money especially since the state is having budget problems. He stressed since the majority of Alaskans are not hunters and do not have a need to hunt for food, there is no need to bow to the whims of the minority. Predator control has been tried before and has never worked and added that wolves have been completely eradicated from the lower 48. MR. BURK also opposed giving so much power to a board elected by the Governor and which is a political appointment. He said the present board members are all hunters. There are no environmentalists and no biologists, so naturally they will decide to make more sustained yield for killing and using meat. He felt the Board of Game should be made up of an equal number of environmentalists and biologists. Number 247 JOHN GEORGE, TERRITORIAL SPORTSMEN, JUNEAU, expressed support of SB 77. He stated there are radical swings not only in the game species, but also in the predator species; when there is something for the predator to eat, the number of predators increase. When the predators have eaten all of the game, they begin to starve. He stressed that SB 77 stabilizes the number of predators, as well as the number of game animals available for harvest. Game is a renewable resource and if the renewable nature is maximized, there will be a good population to be harvested and for the predators to eat. It will be a win/win situation. He felt the ecosystem people have made predator control an expensive program. There are efficient ways for predator control but unfortunately, the fair chase methods have been used, making it inefficient. Number 275 DAVE CLINE, NATIONAL AUDOBON SOCIETY, PROFESSIONAL WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and stressed that SB 77 is a very bad bill. The bill separates special interests predator control legislation, is bad for wildlife, and is bad for the majority of Alaskans and other Americans who should have a say on how wildlife is managed in the state. He stated SB 77 is bad for wildlife because it puts game species at risk of over harvest. Alaska is too big to adequately determine and enforce maximum sustained yield. As history shows, as over harvest occurs, populations take many years to recover. This legislation will also lead to over harvest of predators with high aesthetic appeal, like wolves and bears. Those populations will also take many years to recover. MR. CLINE said putting most the state's scarce wildlife resources in (indiscernible) for a few favorite game species will jeopardize conservation efforts for wildlife species and populations which are in trouble. He felt widespread predator control will embroil Alaska, further the national controversy and further damage the state's image as a preferred tourism destination. Alaska's grand wildlife and wild lands deserve much better treatment by the state than what will occur under the proposed meat market approach to wildlife management. He stressed SB 77 is ecologically, economically, socially, and politically unsound and encouraged committee members to reject it. Number 310 TED RAYNOR, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and said contrary to the notion that those who oppose predator control are outside or antigun, antihunting, antifishing fanatics, etc., there are many people who oppose SB 77, who were born and raised in Alaska and continue to feed themselves with fish and game. He stated some Board of Game officials and many other elected officials got their collective egos bruised when public outcry forced Governor Hickel to back off his aerial wolf killing plan. He felt wolves being shot currently are being done so out of spite, to assure those outcriers that they cannot tell the state what to do. He said the wolves are just innocent bystanders in this war of wills. MR. RAYNOR wondered how far the predator control issue will be taken and gave examples of such. He said humans are predators and any predator control program must include them or it will be pure hypocrisy. Some experts believe the population of Alaska will double to over one million people by the year 2015. When this happens, issues and controversies can be expected making the wolf control issue seem like nothing. He encouraged members to stick SB 77 into a lame hold trap and shoot it. Number 340 CATHY GLEASON, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and stated she agreed with former testimony questioning why the state is spending any time on SB 77, when the state is in such a fiscal crisis. People in Juneau should be concentrating on resolving budget problems rather than sponsoring bills such as SB 77. She wondered what the cost will be to intensively manage and identify big game populations and asked where the money will come from. MS. GLEASON stressed the minority of people in the state kill animals and felt SB 77 does not represent her views as a nonhunter or the views of the majority of the people in the state. Nonconsumptive users are not being treated as valid users of the state's animal resources. She felt SB 77 is strictly geared toward hunters, and she cannot understand how this bill can be justified since it only caters to an extremely small special interest minority. She asked committee members how they came up with the obtuse statement in Section 1, which says the legislature (indiscernible) maximum sustained yield is the highest and best use of the game resources of this state. She stressed the legislature should be representing the people of Alaska which includes her, and she emphatically stated she does not agree that maximum yield is the highest and best use of game resources in the state. She urged committee members to reject SB 77. DICK BISHOP, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference, stating the council strongly supports SB 77. He stated the council has worked with Senator Sharp, ADF&G and members of the public on refinement of the bill. He remarked that SB 77 is important, as the existing statute fails to provide adequate direction for management of wildlife in order to meet the constitutional intent to manage on a sustained yield principle. In some circumstances, intensive management is necessary to provide adequate opportunity for human consumptive uses. SB 77 recognizes that need and requires the Board of Game and ADF&G take action to meet the needs. MR. BISHOP said game species are invaluable resources which provide food and recreation as well as contribute to maintaining cultural, spiritual and philosophical values through hunting and other uses. Managing big game for food is ecologically correct and environmentally conservative compared to commercially produced food sources. SB 77 will not disadvantage wildlife viewing, photography or similar uses; more likely it will enhance them. SB 77 does not mandate that Alaska become a big game farm, rather it provides the framework and the directive for effective management. He stated many Alaskans have been frustrated by the refusal of past boards and administrations to take action when big game populations were depressed. SB 77 will go far in relieving these frustrations, at least in areas which are not federally ruled. The council urges the committee to pass SB 77. Number 416 (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that REPRESENTATIVE CURT MENARD had joined the committee.) PETE BUIST, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference, and urged the committee's support for SB 77. He said consumptive users are being asked to contribute more and more money for a decreased opportunity. The decreased opportunity seems to be the result of political pressures and wildlife managers who are anxious to design wildlife management regimes which favor nonconsumptive uses and values. He noted allocations for predators seem to outweigh the allocation for humans. He pointed out that hunters are being asked to pay for management regimes which are actually detrimental to their interests. Passage of SB 77 is the only fair thing to do. There are millions of acres of national parks where nature can take its course. This proposed legislation will mean that a few areas can be actively managed to provide meat for Alaskan families. He urged committee members to support SB 77. (CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that SENATOR JOHNNY ELLIS has joined the committee.) PETE SHEPERD, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference, and urged passage of SB 77. He said framers of the Constitution saw a mechanism which would assure the system equal access and sustainable utilization of Alaska's renewable resources. Sustained yield has acquired political meanings adverse to managed use of the state's replenishable resource. These physiological uses are far from the original understanding and clear meaning of Article 8, Section 4. Over the years, the framers' intentions have been subverted by a lack of guidelines for sustainable wildlife management. MR. SHEPERD stated (indiscernible) constitutional mandate to manage replenishable wildlife resources for maximum sustained yield has become common with those who advocate a no-action preservation and philosophy. (Indiscernible) forward and does not suggest conserve and preserve, and requires maintenance of replenishable resources at higher levels of productivity. Rather than for Alaska to design the opportunity, there are millions and millions of dollars in economic, (indiscernible) and subsistence benefits from consumptive use and replenishable wildlife resources. (Indiscernible) Constitution mandates action by the legislature and state management agency. He told committee members they can be assured that the needs of all user groups will be met by simply following the original understanding of maximum sustained yield. Passage of SB 77 will redirect management of the state's replenishable resources to the benefit of all. Number 485 CAROL JENSEN, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and stressed that SB 77 is only fair to the Fairbanks and Tok areas for their recreational hunters. It completely ignores the desires and wishes of the remaining people in Alaska and those in the lower 48 who own the wildlife. It goes without saying that the only selfish people being heard from are the sport and recreational hunters urging passage of SB 77. She stressed that subsistence hunting is allowed in national parks and in all refuges, sanctuaries and monuments, sport and subsistence hunting is allowed. She said she plans to fax the rest of her testimony to the committee. She expressed her opposition to SB 77. Number 515 TRACY ABELL, ALASKA CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and stated the club is opposed to passage of SB 77. She said the club is against a policy which will artificially boost game species populations at the expense of other animals. It is particularly disturbing that no attempts will be made to reduce hunting pressure or to study other alternatives before predators will be systematically killed. She stressed it is bad public policy to mandate the killing of a species as the first and only wildlife management tool. Alaska's wildlife should not be managed for the full benefit of hunters and trappers. Predator control programs are short sighted and can only result in a damaged ecosystem. SANDRA ARNOLD, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and expressed her strong opposition to SB 77. She said she is not against hunting, she is not an animal rights fanatic and she is not against wildlife management. She stressed she is against intensively micromanaging wildlife to benefit a small percentage of Alaskans, up against artificially inflating game species in certain fixed areas all at the expense of other species. MS. ARNOLD stated she cannot understand why the state wants to perpetuate this controversy, further dividing Alaskans, and making a mockery of the public process for setting wildlife decisions. She said a letter received from Representative James stated that the committee values Alaska's uniquely open, public process for setting wildlife regulations, yet SB 77 shuts out the public by stripping the Board of Game of any flexibility. The State Constitution says wildlife belongs to all Alaskans and no where does it say that it will be intensively managed in such a way to benefit one special interest group. MS. ARNOLD pointed out that the goal of SB 77 is not to increase wildlife for everyone but to increase hunting. She believed that SB 77 also increases hunting convenience and guarantees success as well. She asked why the state is considering a bill which will erase the challenge of hunting which by definition includes the possibility of failure. Many people have said, in defense of SB 77, hunters pay fees and hunters pay for game management, so therefore wildlife belongs to them. She stressed wildlife belongs to all Alaskans. She felt SB 77 is a welfare bill for people who eat meat. Nonconsumptive users of wildlife will gladly pay their way into having a say in wildlife management if given a meaningful way to do so. MS. ARNOLD said in regard to high levels of sustained yield, that is an oxymoron. Contemporary wildlife journals say that sustained yield is not definable, yet Senator Sharp purports to define it in a three page bill. She stated while she realizes that wildlife must be managed, she believes the language in SB 77 does more to reflect a political agenda which provides for the long term viability of Alaska's wildlife. She urged committee members to reject SB 77. Number 590 ROD ARNO, PRESIDENT, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, PALMER, testified via teleconference, and urged passage of SB 77. He said he would like the opportunity to continue his Alaskan lifestyle as an active participant in the local ecosystem. As a part of the statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan of 1992, a survey was completed. In that survey, 35 outdoor activities were listed and Alaskans rated their preference. In fifth place on the survey was that Alaskans want more hunting opportunities; on activities Alaskans did not get to participate in, sport hunting was 14th; and wildlife watching was 35th. He stressed Alaska residents would like to continue the opportunity to hunt. MR. ARNO stated currently there are numerous indicators there will be a decline in hunting opportunities, particularly on federal land and gave examples of the indicators. He said the opportunity for any game management on federal lands, which is over 60 percent of the state, to enhance wildlife population for human use is threatened by national drives for biodiversity, ecosystem management. Intensive game management for human use on state owned land is the best plan. The inability of the Board of Fisheries to address the need of sport fishermen adequately is a clear indicator of the need for a legislative mandate to the Board of Game to manage game intensively for human use. He urged passage of SB 77. Number 668 OLIVER BURRIS, TANANA VALLEY SPORTSMENS ASSOCIATION, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference, and stated the association firmly supports the committee substitute for SB 77. TAPE 94-17, SIDE A Number 000 MR. BURRIS stated there are depressed wildlife populations in the interior and the Board of Game needs policy direction from the legislature and an interpretation of the constitutional mandate for sustained yield. TOM SCARBOROUGH, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference, and expressed support of SB 77. He felt the Board of Game needs a clear direction on management. SB 77 allows for flexibility in intensive management. Intensive management will benefit all users, both consumptive and nonconsumptive, particularly the visitor industry. Number 033 GREG MACHACEK, ALASKA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, NORTH POLE, testified via teleconference, and expressed support of SB 77. He echoed concerns which Senator Sharp stated regarding the lack of present management. He agreed with Mr. Kelleyhouse that the definition will prevent shortages in most cases, and might help resolve the conflicts between rural and urban hunters. In order to hunt, there must be plenty of animals. Number 045 MARY VAN DUSEN, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and expressed opposition to SB 77. She felt most Alaskans oppose SB 77. She stated she might go outside and let people know on national television that not all Alaskans support SB 77. She stressed this is her state and some of it belongs to those outside. STEPHEN WELLS, ALASKA WILDLIFE ALLIANCE, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and stated the alliance is opposed to SB 77. This bill will require the Board of Game to adopt regulations for intensive management. If wildlife management direction is legislated, why pretend a value or consider public input into the decision making process. Regardless of whether or not there is an agreement on how wildlife should be managed, it should be agreed that everyone deserves to have a voice. He stressed SB 77 is a regressive attempt to stifle public input. MR. WELLS said the cost of conducting state funded predator control programs are extremely high. The current wolf reduction program is less than halfway completed and the cost to date is $163,000. The state has claimed to have killed 84 wolves so far which means the state has spent almost $2,000 per wolf. The dollar figures do not include trips made to Washington, D.C., promoting wolf control or wolf control related litigation. Predator control programs have always been and will always be expensive to the state. MR. WELLS questioned why there is no fiscal note attached to SB 77. He also questioned the need for the bill. He pointed out that the Board of Game has the power to authorize all of the action called for in the bill. The Board of Game has not only shown its willingness, but its exuberance in authorizing intensive management action, including predator control. He stressed there is no lack of consideration by the board in the interest of consumptive users of wildlife. He said he did not understand why the legislature should create an even more unfair situation by forcing extreme management actions such as predator control, and disregard public input. He said the alliance urges committee members to reject this attempt to circumvent public process and reject SB 77. Number 095 TERRY BURRELL, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and expressed opposition to SB 77. She said SB 77 asks Alaskans to redefine sustained yield and to substitute a mandate for higher human harvest at any cost. She urged committee members to reject SB 77. GEORGE MATS, ANCHORAGE AUDUBON SOCIETY, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference, and expressed opposition to SB 77. He read several lines from the bill. He said intensive management is expensive management. He added if there is a need to improve the availability of moose, road kills should be looked at. GORDON HABER, PROFESSIONAL WILDLIFE SCIENTIST, DENALI PARK, testified via teleconference, and urged committee members not to pass SB 77. He felt a better alternative could be used to accommodate diverse interests with regard to the use of wildlife resources without resorting to intensive management, which means wolf and bear reductions. Referring to game management unit 28, he said ADF&G has said by reducing wolves in that area, it can assure a stable caribou population and harvest, but added there is nothing known about the biology of caribou to give assurance that is possible. He noted the caribou population in the state has tripled in number over the past 15 years. He stressed there is a hunter distribution problem, not a caribou supply problem. MR. HABER asked committee members to consider one of the self defeating ironies of the intensive management of unit 28. ADF&G's objective is to produce more harvest opportunities, but in fact, the caribou population is 20-30 percent above its most productive size and as it continues to increase, the maximum sustainable yield will continue to decrease. ANNOUNCEMENTS CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will meet Friday, February 18, at 8:15 a.m. to hear SB 46, HB 401 and SJR 13 if time permits. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 10:05 a.m.