Number 615 SB 46 - Authorize Moose Farming CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated this is the fourth committee meeting on SB 46 and at the last meeting a subcommittee was appointed. He said although the subcommittee never met, Representative Carney, Chair of the subcommittee did submit a suggested draft revision of the bill. Since the last meeting on SB 46, the commissioners of the three affected state departments, DNR, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and ADF&G met and developed a whittled down list of what they considered to be their bottom line amendments needed to make the bill acceptable to the Administration. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he had a CS drafted to add those seven suggested amendments to the draft CS previously before the committee. It is that version which will be before the committee. He stated the committee has spent considerable time on SB 46 and he hoped the committee could reach a decision and take action on the bill. Number 650 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to ADOPT HCS CSSB 46(RES). CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. REPRESENTATIVES MULDER and FINKELSTEIN OBJECTED. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated before the committee adopts this version, he would like to hear ADF&G describe what is in it. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said if a CS is adopted, then the committee can use it as a working draft. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN WITHDREW his OBJECTION. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated as a member of the subcommittee which worked on SB 46, he would rather adopt the report the subcommittee developed. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested that ADF&G outline what is contained in the House CS. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated he would like to adopt the House CS and work from the document. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said if there are no objections, the MOTION PASSED. TAPE 94-59, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON requested that ADF&G be invited to the table to explain their strong recommendations of changes to be made to SB 46. REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY asked if ADF&G's recommendations are in the House CS. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied they are. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY stressed there is no resemblance between the House CS and what the subcommittee did. Number 029 DAVID KELLEYHOUSE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE, ADF&G, stated the amendments the Administration put forward were agreed upon by the commissioners of DNR, DEC, and ADF&G. He said the first two amendments will relieve animals held under an experimental animal husbandry permit from the authority of DNR and put them under the authority of ADF&G. Animals held under these permits are not yet game farm animals and are not domestic animals, but rather are wild animals. The intent of the experimental animal husbandry permit is to allow an individual to experiment with these animals to determine if they are suitable as domestic or game farm animals. He said those amendments appear on page 2, lines 15-16 and lines 22-23. The amendment deletes the words "and animals subject to an experimental animal husbandry permit under AS 16.40.010." MR. KELLEYHOUSE said on page 4, lines 11-12, the words "caribou, moose, Sitka black-tailed deer" are deleted. He stated caribou, moose and Sitka black-tailed deer should not be defined as game farm animals until they have been successfully bred and raised as livestock under the terms of an experimental animal husbandry permits. On page 5, lines 30-31, the words "or to an experimental animal husbandry permit under AS 16.40.010" are deleted. He stated animals held under a Title 16 experimental animal husbandry permit should not be defined as domestic, and removed from department and fish and game oversight, until they are actually held under a game farming license. Number 062 MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated on page 7, lines 28-29, following the word "The", the words "possession and utilization of animals acquired under this section for commercial purposes and" are deleted. He said Title 3 statutes and regulations adopted under Title 3 should apply only to game farm animals, not to animals held under Title 16 permits or used for commercial purposes other than game farming. On page 8, line 10, the words "and sell the meat from" are deleted. He said the sale of meat from animals held under Title 16 experimental animal husbandry permits is inappropriate and could compromise wildlife enforcement regulations adopted by the Board of Game. At such time as ownership of animals held under these permits is transferred to the permittee under Title 3 game farming licenses, the sale will become legal. MR. KELLEYHOUSE said on page 8, lines 11-17, following the word "animals", the words ", and may charge a fee to the public for viewing of the animals. The preparation and sale of meat or other products under this subsection for human consumption are subject to AS 03 and regulations adopted under AS 03. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this subsection, the possession of animals for experimental animal husbandry purposes is subject to AS 03 and regulations adopted under AS 03 in the same manner as the possession of game farm animals" are deleted. He stated regulation of animals held under Title 16 permits should be by ADF&G. Experimental animal husbandry permits are intended to test the feasibility of using surplus wildlife for game farming, not for zoological exhibition. Exhibition is currently regulated under Title 16 scientific/educational permits. MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated on page 9, lines 8-16, all material related to surplusing is deleted. He said criteria for declaring game as surplus can best be achieved in regulations adopted under AS 16.40.010(a) Section 15. Some of the criteria listed in this draft are allocation matters that should be considered by the Board of Game such as declaring animals in proximity to highways, railroads, and urban areas as surplus. He pointed out these are also the animals most in demand by the public for subsistence, sport hunting, viewing, etc. He also pointed out that most of the state's roads, railroads, and towns happen to be in valley bottoms. When winter arrives and the animals are forced down into the bottom, any animal could be declared surplus. MR. KELLEYHOUSE said ADF&G feels SB 46 can be a good bill and provide a very necessary function in the regulation of game farming. ADF&G feels there is a chance for success in game farming in Alaska, particularly with elk, bison, musk ox and reindeer. These animals have a proven history of utility. ADF&G hopes the committee will proceed cautiously on the addition of new species and do it under the experimental animal husbandry permit under ADF&G control. Number 116 REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY noted caribou was included in the species which are not currently considered a domestic animal. MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded he is aware of the federal definition of a reindeer--as soon as a caribou is in possession, federal law considers it to be a reindeer. When wild deer were being herded in, occasionally caribou were mixed in with the herd. Therefore, the reason for the inclusion was so the federal government did not have to ask a Native herder to differentiate between the two. He stressed caribou are definitely not reindeer. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY said he has been led to believe that including caribou as a domestic animal will give the state an advantage on getting access to the use of those animals in lieu of reindeer. MR. KELLEYHOUSE said unless there is a change in federal law regulating reindeer herding in Alaska, he is not sure that is a correct interpretation. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN thought at the department's suggestion, caribou is included in the House CS on page 6, line 30. MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded in that section, any of those animals can be considered for possession under the experimental animal husbandry permit, which ADF&G will regulate. Those animals will not be game farm animals until farming of the those animals is tested for feasibility. Number 160 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said in Section 4, game farm animals are identified as bison, elk, reindeer, and musk ox and does not include moose. He clarified there is a difference between game animals and game farm animals. MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied game animals are all animals. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked where in the House CS does it say that moose are available for experimental licensing. MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied at the bottom of page 6. He stated moose will be available for possession under the terms of an experimental animal husbandry permit. ADF&G has stated in the past that moose are not a suitable animal for game farming. However, if someone wants to try moose farming, it is provided for in the House CS under the terms of an experimental animal husbandry permit. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if a person has a game farm license for moose, what can that person do with the moose. MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied under the House CS for CSSB 46, a person will not be able to have a game farm license to hold a moose. Under a game farm license, a person can hold elk, bison, musk ox, or reindeer. He explained if a person wants to hold a moose, caribou, or black-tailed deer, they will have to do that under the terms of an experimental animal husbandry permit. That permit will be issued for the purpose of propagating, determining if the animals can be bred, raised and kept in a healthy condition and in a manner that will promise to have economic opportunities. He said the animal can be eaten, it can be milked, etc., but it cannot be commercially sold. Number 223 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there is a section in the House CS which defines experimental animal husbandry. MR. KELLEYHOUSE said ADF&G will issue the experimental animal husbandry permits and the department will monitor the health of the animal and the operation. He stated any animal under the permit will belong to the state and be regulated by ADF&G, as opposed to the game farm animals which are handled by the commissioner of DNR. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he understands that, but is wondering if the House CS says that. MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied the explanation begins on page 6, line 28 and continues down on page 7. He said there is no definition of experimental animal husbandry included because no regulations have been developed since the legislation has also not been developed. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated on page 7, line 1, it says "under regulations adopted by it,"... REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON told committee members to look at page 8, line 3 on down. Number 279 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN clarified that experimental animal husbandry means slaughtering and selling the antlers, horn, etc. He felt it sounds more like a slaughtering-type of operation. MR. KELLEYHOUSE pointed out page 8, line 2, which says "intends to raise and breed..." He said if there is proof to the satisfaction of ADF&G that the person intends to raise and breed the animal, which is basically husbandry, then below that line are the allowable uses that a person may make of an animal held under an experimental permit. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said the slaughtering is for personal consumption, not for commercial sale. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON clarified if a person has had the experimental animal husbandry permit for five years, then they can request title to the animal. MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied that is correct. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated the subcommittee's work draft is being distributed and asked Representative Mulder to brief the committee on that draft. Number 338 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER explained the subcommittee made changes to version X. The first recommendation placed regulatory authority over the experimental animal husbandry permit with DNR. The second recommendation shortened the duration of the experimental animal husbandry permit to two years. He said the five year provision in version X was an arbitrary number chosen by the drafting attorney because a specific time period had not been provided at the time of drafting. The third recommendation was to remove Sitka black-tailed deer from the entire bill. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said the subcommittee recommended a penalty clause for tampering with game farm fences in a manner that would allow animals to escape or be stolen. The subcommittee did discuss the issue of surplus and the definition was retained. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the subcommittee recommended retaining the fee which can be charged for public viewing of the animals. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that was in the original bill and the subcommittee recommended to retain it. However, ADF&G recommends deleting that provision. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referring to page 8, lines 15-16, asked if moose fall into the category of a game farm animal. MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied to be classified as a game farm animal, an animal has to be designated as such by the commissioners of DNR and ADF&G. If after five years of captivity and husbandry the animal proves to be farmable, then the commissioners can designate it as a game farm animal, even though it is not defined as such. He said there is a provision in all of the drafts that the commissioners can, at any time, jointly designate another species as a game farm animal. He stressed the goal is to not rush and call a wild animal a domestic animal and cause problems with the management of the wild stocks. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern in that he has a friend who had a young moose bed down by his house, they fed it and it stayed all winter long without any fence. He felt that particular animal could qualify as a game farm animal because it was young, hand fed, and used to humans. MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated he understands how a young animal acts in the winter. He recalled an experience of taking care of a buck black-tailed deer that had been received as a fawn and bottle fed. He said when that buck came into rut the first time, the animal was super aggressive. He stressed there is a distinct difference between wild animals who are acting in a certain manner at a certain time of year and that same animal at a different part of its lifecycle and the ability to domesticate these animals. MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated moose held in captivity die at seven years old, yet a moose out in the woods lives up to 18 years old and nobody knows why. Number 502 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she is not comfortable with having the departments determine, after a certain length of time, that a certain animal is a game farm animal. She felt that if the committee has the option to make that determination in regulation, it should be included in the bill. MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded if the committee wants the legislature to make that decision, he has no objections. He stressed that as SB 46 progressed, there were many trade- offs and some people felt it would be more expeditious for the commissioners to jointly make that determination, rather than having to come to the legislature to add each species to the law. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked ADF&G's position if the committee adopts the subcommittee's recommendations. MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied he would recommend to the commissioner, that he recommend to the Governor a veto. He felt the state of Alaska should not forge ahead too fast in this endeavor because of the experiences in other states. He stressed the version that the three departments agreed on is a measured step in the right direction, allowing the industry to be regulated and problems be looked at before they become ingrained problems with property rights instilled. He said a lot of effort was required to get the three departments to agree. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON thought the committee had decided that Sitka black-tailed deer should not be included in SB 46. MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded there is no future in farming Sitka black-tailed deer. Number 594 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated the other only real difference between the subcommittee's version and the department's version is that the subcommittee's version shortens the duration of the experimental animal husbandry permit from five years to two years. She expressed support for five years. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated his concern with the subcommittee's version is the placing of the regulatory authority over the experimental animal husbandry permit with DNR, instead of ADF&G. He felt as long as an animal is classified as a wild animal, ADF&G should have the regulatory authority. He expressed support for version I. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES still felt uncomfortable with the departments making the determination on adding a species to the definition of a game farm animal. She would like to have language in the bill instructing what happens when a moose goes from an experimental to a game farm animal. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said there is already language in the bill which does that. He referred to page 8, lines 15-21. Number 685 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated a farmer has done fine for five years and animal A becomes a game farm animal. If the person is going to game farm, a female animal is needed. He wondered where the farmer will get the female since he cannot import it or trap it in the wild. MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded if a person is involved in the experimental animal husbandry permit, that person should have a him and a her early on in the operation. He said obtaining moose is a problem. He stated page 8, line 15 says "The department shall grant title to the animals if the person has..." He said if that was rewritten to say, "The department shall grant title to the animals if they are defined as game farm animals under Title 3 and the person has..." He pointed out that change will allow the animal to continue under the experimental animal husbandry permit until either the legislature or the commissioners classify the species as a game farm animal. TAPE 94-59, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN felt if a person is going to get into a farming mode, that person cannot depend on orphan moose for a supply. He thought just four or five animals does not make a successful farm. MR. KELLEYHOUSE stated that was the crux of the department's testimony in both the Senate and House. ADF&G surveyed over 125 different farms that had moose, and the department could not find a single farm that was raising moose as a game farm animal--they were just kept as oddities. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the way SB 46 will work conceptually is logical. First, the department will set up regulations to define certain kinds of animals as surplus and then can authorize a person to take portions of the surplus for the purpose of raising and breeding the animals as domestic stock for commercial purposes or for experimental animal husbandry purposes, resulting in possibly a small herd. He said page 8, beginning on line 12, says a person who holds the experimental permit, has possessed animals under the permit and intends to raise the animals for commercial purposes. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if Representative Davies was talking about a herd of moose. He maintained there are not a lot of surplus moose. He stressed a person cannot go into the wild and pick up moose. Number 042 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to ADOPT HCS CSSB 46(RES). CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a MOTION to AMEND HCS CSSB 46(RES) deleting any reference to Sitka black-tailed deer. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked Mr. Kelleyhouse why the reference to the definition of surplus was deleted. MR. KELLEYHOUSE said ADF&G recommended deleting the section on surplus because it falls into the allocation lap of the Board of Game. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER clarified ADF&G would rather do the determination of a surplus by regulation. MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied ADF&G does not like doing things in direct opposition to the Board of Game, but the commissioner does have the authority to declare the surplus. He said it is much better for the department to go the Board of Game and outline the situation and get their concurrence. He felt the definition of surplus which the subcommittee offered contains inherent problems. He told the committee if their fear is ADF&G will not declare a surplus, and thereby veto the legislature, he would rather do it up-front and recommend the Governor veto the entire legislation. He pledged that if SB 46 passes, the department will take actions conducive to putting the legislation into effect. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated his fear is that when the commissioner is given that type of sweeping authority, he does what he wants to as opposed to any kind of intent or desire. He said there is potential in game farming but that potential will never be realized if there is never a surplus designated by the commissioner. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said many times orphan moose calves are surplus in that there are no zoos, etc., which will take them. MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied that is his thought also. He pointed out that not only did the commissioner of ADF&G declare the bison herd on (indiscernible) Island as surplus, but also recommended to the Board of Game that the department be able to surplus some musk ox. The Board of Game rejected the musk ox recommendation and the department did not push it. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked why the bill precludes someone from having an animal viewing area and charging a fee. MR. KELLEYHOUSE replied that activity is already permitted under a Title 16 permit. He said ADF&G's fear is a situation like the dilapidated roadside viewing areas in the Midwest and West. Number 165 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN offered an amendment on page 1, line 1 the words "moose farming and relating to" be deleted and on all pages the word moose be removed. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated the committee is not allowed to make a title change without a concurrent resolution. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out there is a provision in the bill that moose can become a game farm animal. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said the sponsor of SB 46 does not want moose taken out of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he does not understand why retaining the definition of surplus in the bill will not work. He asked Mr. Kelleyhouse to go through the list of surplus animals and tell the committee what the problems are. MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded 1) unnecessary to the sustained yield management of a game population--would this mean only out of parks if the population was not being harvested. He said if the surplus is from a harvested population, the Board of Game has already set a policy, regarding consumptive use of game, and has generally listed uses for commercial agriculture last. He cannot envision where a surplus animal would be unnecessary to the sustained yield management of a game population. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wondered about a situation where a cow had been hit by the Alaska Railroad and there are two calves sitting by the side of the road. He thought the department could find, in that case, that those two calves are unnecessary to the sustained yield management of a game population. MR. KELLEYHOUSE responded that would be true. He added there is competition for these calves from zoos, scientific education permit holders that are exhibiting animals, etc. He continued: 2) Members of a game population that currently exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat--he said carrying capacity is a good concept much like sustained yield. He stated putting a definition on carrying capacity is difficult. He did not feel one could ever demonstrate that a population is indeed in excess of its carrying capacity. 3) Members of a game population for which there is no closed season on the take of animals from the game population. ADF&G fears that any animal which comes near a road or any animal that anybody wants could point back to a statute to obtain that animal and circumvent the Board of Game process. He said if the fear is that there will be no animals made available for the experimental animal husbandry permits, he stressed once the statute is passed, ADF&G will do what they can to see if it will work and declare that surplus. Number 270 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a MOTION to MOVE HCS CSSB 46(RES) as amended with attached fiscal notes out of committee with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN OBJECTED. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of the motion were REPRESENTATIVES FINKELSTEIN, BUNDE, HUDSON, DAVIES, JAMES, MULDER, AND WILLIAMS. Voting against the motion was REPRESENTATIVE GREEN. The MOTION PASSED 7-1. ANNOUNCEMENTS CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee will meet on Friday, April 22 at 8:15 a.m. to hear SB 215 and SB 310. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 6:24 p.m.