HRES - 02/27/95 Number 514 HB 170 - INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, PRIME SPONSOR, stated HB 170 is a further clarification of SB 77 which passed last year. He said even though SB 77 was only enacted last year, Alaska's intensive management statute needs additional changes to clarify legislative intent and define statutory language. He noted this need has been manifested by both the Board of Game and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). He said to emphasize that point, he would use the words of the ADF&G in a statement before the Board of Game dated November 8, 1994, "The legislature did not define several other key phrases important to the implementation of SB 77. How each phrase should be interpreted and applied to implement this new statute will provide valuable guidance to the department and to the public." REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated HB 170 provides these department requested definitions and clarifies Alaska's policy concerning management of Alaska's wildlife resources. This goal was provided by the legislative intent which accompanied SB 77. He said the minor changes provided by HB 170 will greatly assist the Board of Game and the ADF&G, as well as the Alaska wildlife populations. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY told committee members Section 2 adds to the functions of the commissioner, requiring the commissioner to cooperate with and assist the Boards of Fish and Game. This will help bring ADF&G in line with the Alaska Supreme Court ruling this week regarding the False Pass fishery issue. He stated Section 3 further establishes the duties of the commissioner to cooperate and assist the Boards of Fish and Game. Currently, the first listed duty of the commissioner is to assist federal agencies in enforcing federal regulations. He felt Alaska is thus requiring state officials to carry out unfunded federal mandates. He stressed this puts the commissioner in a catch 22 position if federal regulations and state policies happen to conflict. He said the commissioner should first work for Alaskans and the Alaska constitution he is sworn to uphold. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated HB 170 also defines historic high levels which was controversial in SB 77 because these were not defined. HB 170 also clarifies intensive management as wildlife management, not people management. He said Section 6 defines sustained yield, harvestable surplus, and high level of human harvest. He noted SB 77 originally contained definitions which were left out at the request of the department. The department argued that these specific definitions were better addressed by the Board of Game. Months later it was discovered that the Board of Game was persuaded not to adopt the definitions by the department because the department argued that the definitions were best achieved by the legislature. He stressed the basic purpose of HB 170 is to provide those definitions. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said harvestable surplus defines the conservation goals in terms of population dynamics, allowing the identification of those areas where action is needed. The need may result from winter snows or other catastrophic events and the solutions may include forestry practices by DNR or other actions on behalf of the ADF&G. He stated the definition will help hold the ADF&G accountable. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated high level of human harvest is defined specifically as an accountability guideline which tells the Board of Game intensive management tools are needed when human harvest levels drop to one-third. He said sustained yield places the goals and principles of wildlife management in a clear statutory language consistent with the Alaska constitution. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY conveyed his concern about the health and maintenance of Alaska's vital wildlife resources. He stressed healthy wildlife resources are essential to many ways of life in Alaska and is managed in many different ways throughout Alaska. HB 170 helps guide ADF&G in the provision for these areas where it is appropriate to manage for a higher consumptive use level than is currently achieved. Pointing to a graph on the wall entitled "Alaska Wildlife Harvest Data", he mentioned the state has a problem with maintaining wildlife resources at a certain level. He said predation accounts for 87 percent of the kill, ten percent of the harvest is for other reasons, and only three percent of the harvest is by human harvest. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY felt if there is a desire to get a greater amount of animals, managing that three percent is not going to do it. He noted there is a three percent leverage to take care of a huge 87 percent problem. He said SB 77 last year attempted to address the problems and will have successfully addressed the problems if the guidelines in HB 170 are adopted. He stressed the state's wildlife resources are being managed not for human use but for predators use. Number 612 WAYNE REGELIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, noted that during the last session of the legislature, SB 77 was passed which mandated intensive management for certain areas where the Board of Game determined that the highest value of use was for human consumptive use. He added if the board wanted to change the season or bag limit to make it more restrictive, they would have to implement intensive management. He said it has only been eight months since that bill became law. He stressed the Board of Game has worked hard to implement this new legislation. MR. REGELIN stated the board met in November--the first meeting after the bill became law--and developed a process to implement the new law. The board identified ten potential areas for intensive management. The board then had a special work session, in early December, to discuss intensive management and how to implement it. The board decided that five of the ten areas warranted further consideration and directed the department to prepare detailed reports on those areas. He noted that report will be presented to the board at their March meeting and will enable the board to move forward with implementing the law. MR. REGELIN said options for the five areas that the board will look at include altering regulations to increase harvest levels. He noted an example where this option may be useful is in Unit 13, where grizzly bear predation is a major problem for the moose population. He stated the Board of Game had a special meeting in January and at that time, the board decided to remove the $25 tag fee on grizzly bears for resident hunters which should increase the harvest significantly. He noted the board may make further adjustments on the bear season at their March meeting by extending the season or the bag limit. MR. REGELIN told committee members another option the board has is to request the department to conduct habitat improvement projects in certain areas. The third option the board has is to consider predation control, such as wolf control. He said if the board feels that type of control is warranted, they would direct the department to prepare wolf control plans according to regulations on the books. These regulations require a lot of detail such as collecting certain types of data and holding public meetings. Once that process is complete, the board then can authorize a wolf control program. MR. REGELIN felt the Board of Game has moved as rapidly as they can to implement SB 77. He stated the department is not sure it is appropriate to make amendments to a law which has not even been implemented yet. He said the department has concerns on specific aspects of HB 170. He told committee members the main concern is the historic high level of a population is set at a standard which would trigger intensive management actions. He explained historical high levels, in many cases, are artificially high because they occurred in the early 1960s shortly after the poisoning campaigns were stopped. Therefore, there was a peak in the populations shortly after that occurred. He said it is difficult to maintain those high levels of populations because the habitat cannot support those high levels over long periods of time and because the habitat will degrade and reduced productions will occur. Number 669 MR. REGELIN stated when a population is carried at maximum carrying capacity, it is not a very productive population. He said most of those populations are food stressed, resulting in reduced calf production. He noted with caribou, there can be alternate year reproduction and low survivability of calves. He mentioned with moose, there is very low twinning rates and high post-natal survivorship because weak calves are born. MR. REGELIN told committee members to maximize the harvest of a population the department tries to manage it at about 80 percent of the maximum carrying capacity. At that level, the population is not food stressed and the highest yield from the population for harvest occurs. He felt it would be counter-productive to manage the population at maximum carrying capacity because what occurs is a lot of animals having very low productivity. MR. REGELIN stated another concern is the proposed definition of a harvestable surplus. In the department's opinion, the definition would mandate an unattainable harvest level. There is no doubt that reducing predation will allow more harvest by humans but a level of one-third or more, which HB 170 would require, is unrealistic. He felt even without any predation, calves would have to be harvested to achieve this harvest rate. He noted that in Sweden, which has the largest productive moose population in the world, they try to maintain a harvest level of 25 percent per year. He mentioned that Sweden has no predation--they have only one wolf pack and have very few bears, very little snow, and very mild winters--yet half of their harvest involves four month old calves. TAPE 95-24, SIDE B Number 000 MR. REGELIN said the department has conducted a lot of studies. He stated just because a calf is not eaten when it is a few days old by a bear or wolf does not necessarily mean it is going to grow up. There are many other factors and reasons why calves die. MR. REGELIN stated the other concern the department has with the high harvest rate is that it would require cow seasons, or otherwise there would be very unbalanced sex ratios in a short period of time. He noted that in Sweden, one-fourth of the harvest is cows. He stressed that wildlife management is a complex subject and is not just about counting and killing animals. Many other factors need to be considered when setting management goals. He stated the sex ratio, the age structure, the habitat requirements and the level of predation all have to be looked at. MR. REGELIN said he understands the purpose of HB 170 and SB 77 last year. He stated many people in Alaska want a higher rate of harvest for moose and caribou, especially in the road accessible areas. He expressed support for this goal. He noted he has worked very hard over the last 20 years trying to achieve that goal. He agreed that in parts of Alaska the harvest rate is much too low. He noted an area which the department hears a lot about is the moose harvest in Unit 13, the Nelchina basin, which is where many people from Anchorage and Fairbanks hunt. He stated in that area, only about three percent of the moose population is being harvested each year. He felt the problem involves too high of a carrying capacity and too high of a standing crop. MR. REGELIN stated there is a very low productive population in Unit 13 for several reasons. One of the primary reasons is that the grizzly bear population is very high. He felt the recent Board of Game action will have a significant impact on reducing the bear population in that area over the next few years. He noted that Unit 13 wolves are not a big problem at this time but certainly could be in the future. He said the department recognizes changes need to be made in Unit 13 and is working toward making changes. Number 70 MR. REGELIN said another area being talked about is Unit 28, south of Fairbanks, where the department was doing a wolf control program. He stated in that unit there is a very depressed caribou population which is in a predator pit and the population is not going to get out of that situation until the department takes action. He pointed out another area where there is a management problem is in the 40-mile caribou herd. There are approximately 23,000 caribou in that herd and it has the potential to have an excess of 100,000 caribou. He explained the reason the herd is not growing is the wolf predation. He stressed there are many factors affecting the productivity of populations and what can be harvested. MR. REGELIN stated he would like to work with the legislature, the Board of Game, and the public to achieve common goals. He felt it was possible to achieve those goals without legislation mandating the Board of Game to take certain actions. He said sometimes those actions may not be appropriate based on the individual situation. He stressed the way to approach the problem is through wildlife management plans. In areas where the board has identified consumptive use for humans as the highest priority through these plans, then the department can move forward and take various actions. He felt it was appropriate for the legislature to provide direction to the department on what elements they would like to have in wildlife management plans and direction to the Board of Game on priorities. He did not feel amendments to SB 77 are the best way to achieve those common goals. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted, for the record, that Representative BARNES joined the committee at 8:55 a.m. Number 118 REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN asked if Mr. Regelin could respond to the graph on the wall. MR. REGELIN stated he was aware of the basic figures contained in the graph. He thought the graph combined data from various parts of the state. He said in certain parts of the state, the figures might be correct. He stressed the goal is to harvest between 8 percent to 10 percent of the animals in the population. He felt that goal can be achieved in many areas even with winter conditions. He pointed out that getting beyond that goal is not possible in Alaska. He noted there are 600,000 caribou in the Western Arctic Caribou herd and only about 10,000 are being harvested by humans, not because the harvest is being limited but because people just do not go that far north to hunt. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN questioned why the definition of harvest by natural causes and harvest by predators is separated. He felt predation is a natural cause. He wondered if the two were separated so a decision can be made on where the number for human harvest can be increased. MR. REGELIN explained the graph is not the department's graph but he said predation is a natural cause. He thought predation was being separated from natural causes such as accidents and winter kills, et cetra, so the point can be made that predation is the major source of mortality. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN recalled that Mr. Regelin had mentioned Unit 13 and bears versus moose. He clarified the Board of Game has made a decision to kill bears so that humans can eat moose. MR. REGELIN responded that is correct. Several years ago, the board identified consumptive use of moose and caribou as the highest use for Unit 13. He said the board is not trying to eliminate the bear population but wants to reduce it. He thought the population was currently approximately 1,000 bears and the board wants to reduce that number to approximately 500. He stated the department has conducted extensive studies in Unit 13. He explained grizzly bear predation takes about ten times the number of moose calves as wolves do. Wolves primarily prey on moose during the winter period, not when the moose are calves. He stressed the major cause of calf mortality in Unit 13 is grizzly bears. MR. REGELIN noted there are approximately 17,000 caribou hunters who hunt in Unit 13 and probably 6,000-7,000 moose hunters. He stated until the board took action in January, there was a $25 special tag required to kill a grizzly bear and now there is none. Therefore, many people who would see a grizzly bear when they were hunting would not shoot it because they had not paid the $25. He felt there now will be a significantly higher harvest rate. Number 190 REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES stated Unit 13 is the area where there is frequently Tier 2 hunting. MR. REGELIN replied the Tier 2 hunting is for caribou not for moose. He said it is the only Tier 2 hunt in Alaska which has a large number of people involved. He stated the last time there was an open hunt in Unit 13, the department issued 17,000 permits to hunt and under Tier 2, that number has been limited to 10,000 to 12,000 hunters. He noted the department will increase that number this fall because the caribou population is somewhat higher than what the department desires. Number 225 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated frequently when there is a bill such as HB 170 before the legislature, invariably there are representatives from the Boards of Fish and Game telling members why the bill is such a bad idea. She wondered if bills such as HB 170 are such a bad idea and the department was not in need of such a bill because the department feels it is quite capable of doing the job without such legislation, then why does the legislature get to the point where it needs legislation like HB 170. MR. REGELIN responded that people are not satisfied with what is going on. He said ADF&G does not have the authority to take actions which the Board of Game has not authorized or the Governor does not support or does not allow the department to spend money on. He felt legislation like HB 170 comes forth because people are very frustrated and feel the system is not working for them. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recalled a piece of legislation a year or two ago which was supposed to put human consumption as the highest use. Remembering that, she clarified that the legislature, through its own constitutional authority, delegates management responsibility to the Boards of Fish and Game. MR. REGELIN agreed. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out if the legislature does not believe the board is doing a good job, it has the right to direct them to do the job the way they want it done. MR. REGELIN replied that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered what gives the Governor the right to override the law. She asked if the Governor is above the law. Number 262 MR. REGELIN stated the Governor is not above the law. He felt there are different parts of the law and the Governor has the authority to decide what money is spent on them. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES questioned where that can be found in law-- where the Governor is the one who decides where money is spent. MR. REGELIN said he could not tell Representative Barnes where that is stated in law. However, he stressed that if the Governor tells ADF&G not to conduct a program, the department does not have the authority to do so then. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Regelin to tell the Governor that only the legislature has the power to appropriate. She added there is a way for the legislature to appropriate where no one can move the money around or decide how it is spent and that is line item appropriation. Number 279 REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS recalled that Mr. Regelin had stated SB 77 did not have definitions. He asked him to expand on that statement. MR. REGELIN stated the ADF&G urged the legislature not to define sustained yield in SB 77. On the other definitions, the department went to the Board of Game, in November, and asked them to define certain terms contained in the legislation. He said the board discussed the issue for several hours and decided it was best to not have definitions in the bill because they are so variable from one population to the other. The board decided they would define each term on each population as it came up. He explained the board decided not to define sustained yield because it is something which is extremely difficult to define because it is a concept, not something which is concrete. He added that the Department of Law was quite adamant that sustained yield not be defined because of problems they were having with that in other issues. Number 312 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Regelin if he felt sustained yield is difficult to define. MR. REGELIN replied he does. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES clarified that sustained yield means sustaining the level to ensure that species will produce and carry forward. MR. REGELIN stated there can be a sustained yield by taking one animal out of a large population. He said sustained yield often gets confused with maximum sustained yield which is a mathematical concept in population dynamics of what size of the population the harvest rate can be maximized. He pointed out that sustained yield for one person may mean taking one or two animals and that is sustainable. For another person, sustained yield might mean taking 1,000 animals. In concept, he felt sustained yield meant harvesting a certain number of animals without the population being reduced. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the number of predators seem to oscillate with the availability of prey. He wondered if hunters were to increase their harvest, thereby reducing the number of prey, would that reduce the number of predators. Number 353 MR. REGELIN said Representative Green is getting into predator/prey relationships. He stated the predator population will follow the prey population but lag behind it for a year or two. He noted when the department engages in predator control to reduce predators to a certain number allowing the prey population to increase to a certain level, then the predators have a minimal impact or do not stop the growth of the population. He explained if the number of predators can be reduced for a short period of time (three years) and the prey populations are allowed to increase, the result will be a young age structure which is highly productive and added that the prey population will continue. MR. REGELIN said in the instances where the department has followed this through, the result is higher predator and prey populations in the system. He stated in some of these there may be a need to reduce the predators and in others it will take off and no further action is needed. He stressed each system is a little different. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referring to the graph, said if the three percent of human harvest goes to 10 percent and the 87 percent killed by predators dropped to 80 percent, there would still be predation on prey. He asked if the transfer of gathering from four-legged critters to two-legged critters still maintain the integrity of the herd. MR. REGELIN replied it is possible to maintain a higher harvest level with reduced predation if the overall population is reduced so it is more productive. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the push for SB 77 and for HB 170 is to try and increase human consumption. He pointed out that a human is a predator, so if he transposes himself into the wolf kill arena and reduces that, either by reducing the number of predators or by the fact the number of available prey will drop, that would work to the benefit of everybody except the wolves. Number 397 MR. REGELIN responded in general it would. He said it is not a one-to-one relationship. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled that Mr. Regelin had stated the department would like to see a 10 percent human harvest. MR. REGELIN said he used that example for Unit 13. He noted there are approximately 25,000 moose in that unit. He noted that figure was previously higher but the winters have taken care of reducing the standing crop. Therefore, the department should be around 80 percent of the carrying capacity. He stated if 8 percent to 10 percent of that population could be harvested each year, 2,000 moose would probably meet or exceed the demand in that area. Currently, the department is limiting the harvest to 600 which does not meet the demand for hunters. Number 417 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN felt the frustrations being expressed is due to the fact it is taking too long for ADF&G to react. MR. REGELIN stated the department if well aware of the frustrations. He said the Board of Game has taken action. He noted three years ago, the department had wolf control authorized by the board for the 40-mile caribou herd, Unit 28, and Unit 13 but that was stopped. Before that, Governor Cowper announced there would be no wolf control conducted under his administration. He mentioned that the department started a long term process of trying to develop a state-wide wolf management plan, working with the public. There are two sides of the issue. Right now, the department is hearing from the frustrated hunters. He pointed out that he heard from over 100,000 people who had the opposite view and added that most of those people did not live in Alaska. He said it is difficult to know what the Alaska population as a whole feels. He noted the department would like to do some surveys to determine the feelings of Alaskan residents. He pointed out the wolf is a public resource and the department is here to manage it the way the public would like them to. Number 465 REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said Mr. Regelin had just mentioned managing in a way the public wants. He assumed the management is in a way the resource will accept. MR. REGELIN felt there was a balance. He said things cannot be done which are going to harm the population in the long term but beyond that, there is a need to be responsive to the public and manage the wildlife in a balanced manner. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN noted that Alaska is unique in the way the population base is established. He stated he can appreciate the dilemma in trying to reach a resource and using it while not over- impacting it. He expressed concern about the large population centrally located trying to use the resource. MR. REGELIN agreed. He noted the management problems are basically on the road system. He said most areas in Alaska are not on the road system, the populations are high, the seasons are longer and the bag limits are the same or greater than what they were in the 1960s. He pointed out that many people want to have the same season lengths and bag limits they did in the 1960s and 1970s on the road system. He explained one of the big problems is that in 1960, there were 220,000 people in Alaska and today there are 560,000. The extra 300,000 people primarily live on the road system. Therefore, it is difficult for the department to move the hunting pressure where there is a lot of wildlife. Number 495 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Regelin if he was familiar with Article VIII, sections 3 and 4 of the Alaska Constitution. MR. REGELIN responded he has read it but could not quote those two sections. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said Article VIII deals with natural resources and Section 3 says fish, land, water, et cetra, will be managed for the people for the common use. She stated it does not say anything about wolves. She noted that in Section 4, the sustained yield principle is very clear. She recalled that Mr. Regelin had talked about the pressure from people outside. She remembered the campaign very well and the so-called tourists who were going to tell the people in Alaska how to run their state. She also recalled having a meeting with Princess Tours and Holland American Lines regarding the issue. She noted the state spends a lot of money promoting tourism in the state and she stated she would be very happy to have those people spend all of their dollars if they want to stick their nose in Alaska's business. Number 514 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said the original intent of HB 170 was due to the fact that SB 77 was not clearly defined. He stated SB 77 basically says that the current harvest level percentages are not acceptable and that ADF&G is managing people, not predators. He pointed out that by managing people, who are only three percent of the problem, the department is not getting to the problem itself which is habitat and predators. He noted that SB 77 attempted to give the department tools to increase the herds overall through predation control and habitat enhancement. However, the department said it was not clearly defined. HB 170 clearly defines what the legislature requires. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY recalled that Mr. Regelin had indicated the department was going to conduct some public surveys to find out which way they should go. He felt weighing of the public will is not the job of the department but rather is politics. The legislature weighs that public will through the legislative and statute making process. He said the legislature does not want the department to go out in regulation making process and further weigh the public will. He stressed that is the job of the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated there were concerns expressed by the department that historic levels in HB 170 were defined under artificial or qualified pretenses--after the predators were virtually eliminated. He said the problem with that argument is the historic high levels existed without predators. HB 170 says let us go back to some of that and do not eliminate the predators. However, when it was seen that the predators were gone, the populations were at an incredibly high level. He pointed out the desire is to return to that so there can be some predators and more ungulates, enabling people to have more of the resource to consume as is clearly stated in the state constitution. Number 563 PETE SHEPHERD, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated he is a retired biologist, having worked for both the federal government and the state of Alaska. He expressed opposition to the department's stance on the historic high levels. He said it would behoove the department to check the facts and historic records of the state. He explained the levels of game populations during the 1950s and 1960s were associated with many factors, not just a predator control project. He explained there were numerous fires which created habitat, there was a lack of hunting during the 1940s and World War 2, and also the predator control program. He noted prior to this time period, there were high levels of caribou, especially caribou populations in the 1920s. He also noted high levels at the turn of the century when there was no predator control ongoing. He reiterated he objects to the department picking out one time period and using that as a prime example. MR. SHEPHERD said the leadership might better educate themselves in regard to the meaning of sustained yield by familiarizing themselves with the objectives of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Number 587 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY recalled the department said HB 170 assumes that calves saved from predation will all grow up to an age where they could be included in the harvestable surplus population. He stressed that is not the assumption HB 170 makes. HB 170 only makes the assumption that many of the calves not killed by predation will be increased for human consumptive use. He stressed it is not on a one-to-one basis but in fact if the calves are saved from predation, more of them will grow up into the harvestable surplus. He noted the 10 percent of harvest by natural causes shown on the graph is a constant. The department is not expected to manage at the 10 percent level but can manage the wolf population taking 87 percent and are attempting to manage mostly at the three percent. He stressed the desire is to shift from the managing of humans to the managing of predators. Number 608 MR. SHEPHERD recalled the second complaint of the department is with the proposed definition of harvestable surplus which the department says is naive, unrealistic, and overly simplistic. He said that might be true but the definition of harvestable surplus is no more simplistic or naive than the department's claim that the proposed definition assumes that all predation is added to the mortality which has been shown to be false. The proposed definition says that harvestable surplus is equal to the recruitment of game minus annual mortality from all causes except predation and human harvest. This in no way assumes all predation is added mortality. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated the department had said by controlling predators the population will increase and it will go beyond the carrying capacity of any given area. He stressed that HB 170 does not only include intensive management tools of predation, but also habitat enhancement. He said one of the directions the legislature is trying to give the Board of Game at this time is to actively participate in habitat enhancement so there will be more food enabling the ability to increase the carrying capacity of these different herds. TAPE 95-25, SIDE A Number 000 RALPH SEEKINS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated one of the problems with the department's position is the fact the department has not defined any carrying capacity for many of the areas. He recalled the department had said if there were more animals, then the carrying capacity would be exceeded. He felt that is a weak argument because it has nothing to do with the matter at hand, which is the fact that only 3 percent of the harvestable surplus are taken by human hunters and the rest is taken by predators. He pointed out there is no predator control program but instead the department manages the number of humans who can harvest. MR. SEEKINS said part of the problem throughout the state is access into some of the areas. He stated there has been an attempt to also control access. There have been more and more areas shut down, with the department's recommendation, for aircraft access into some of the largest herds in the state. He noted the Western Arctic Caribou herd along the (indiscernible) River was closed last year to aircraft access within five miles of the river on either side of the river and about 100 miles up the river during the traditional fall hunting season. MR. SEEKINS recalled the department said there is the largest caribou herd in the world in that area, which is not at carrying capacity, yet decided to restrict access to it. He stated the department has never taken the time to define what carrying capacity is in these areas. He felt the reason everyone is present is because many of the areas are way below carrying capacity. He noted it is not a carrying capacity being looked at but rather a predation problem. He stressed the problem is the number of predators that kill the babies early in the spring. Therefore, there never is an opportunity to see if the habitat will support them. He reiterated the department is doing nothing to manage the resource. He pointed out that the legislature is in the position of being able to change that. Number 076 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated the department agrees the harvestable levels are too low. He told committee members the department had many years to increase those levels. However, the manner in which the department has been doing that is not working. He noted in the Presidential campaign, the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting different results. He stressed if the state continues to do the same thing over and over again in the management of the state's fish and game, the state will be insane because everyone will continue to see these populations dwindle. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that if the department agrees harvestable levels are too low and they are asking for tools to increase those levels, HB 170 is the tool. He noted there was a great deal of debate last year. He said HB 170 gives the department the legislative intent in statute, so there should be no mistakes. He stressed the department should be able to go out and increase game populations and do what their mission originally created the department to do. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Representative Kelly to comment on the department's statement that before they can determine if SB 77 is working, the legislature is trying to amend it. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated he is not familiar with the long history of SB 77. He thought SB 77 was written with the participation of the department and added the department did not want these definitions. He noted the department had said the Board of Game should recommend the harvestable yield, high levels, et cetra. He said the department then told the Board of Game they could not set the levels because the legislature did not set them. He felt the situation has been in limbo. Number 142 BILL HAGAR, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and said the committee is probably wondering why this issue is before them again. He stated the answer to that is to remove the game shortages and remove the department's manipulation of the political system. He noted, "Today we are seven years into our request to the department to correct the problem which the graph on the wall demonstrates. First, we tried, through the public process, Board of Game proposals (indiscernible) human harvest biology and the department said no. Second, we tried going from the Governor down using (indiscernible) constitutional mandate and the department said no. Third, we tried going to the legislature, resulting in SB 77, but the department is still saying no." MR. HAGAR said the fact that the people in the state have to resort to legislative direction indicates the department has gone off track in respect to what Alaskans need. He stated the department has not used the latitude to the point where legislative intervention is necessary to bring the agency into conformity with constitutional philosophy through the legal process of representing government. He stated after reading the department's position on SB 77, he is convinced the department still does not get it. MR. HAGAR said "We are challenging the department's unconstitutional philosophy, not the constitutionally achievable biology". The department has known for over 20 years of the constitutional mandate. He stressed the report card hangs on the wall (the graph). He stated any one of the biological principles contained in the pie charts in members folders is achievable-- biodiverse, ecosystem, equality, or human management. He noted there are only two philosophies, equal allocation and human management, which reflect the constitutional mandate. MR. HAGAR pointed out that the department for the past seven years has, and is still, rejecting implementation of the constitutional requirement. He stressed the department admittedly needs more legislative direction. Removing the game shortages spells a much needed relief. He said this will benefit the entire state and will help remove the conflicts associated with the constant shortage. The department now has over 325 registration permits for Tier 2 hunts on the wolf. MR. HAGAR stated after three years worth of research, he offered and developed the pie charts (indiscernible) the primary purpose was to find out where all the harvestable surplus goes and why there are so many shortages. (Indiscernible) demonstrates the department's philosophical management practices and (indiscernible) eco-management. He said if a correction is not made now, the state will be in a biodiverse management scenario. He noted there is now one bear for every two people in the state or approximately 250,000 bears. He felt the department has not been held accountable because the department was trusted when it said there was a sound biological reason for the shortage, which turned out not to be the case. MR. HAGAR said the charts further demonstrate a breach of trust by the department to the constitution, the people and resources of the state. He stated once again there is legislation to close the department's, the commissioner's and the administration's legal loophole to mandate the Board of Game to return Alaska to an abundance of all wildlife. Number 237 WARREN OLSON, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and expressed support for HB 170. He said Alaska has tremendous capabilities and has the land base and habitat. He stated the browse is definitely not being over-utilized. He noted there is proof from the 1960s of the state's capabilities. He felt if there is a need to give ADF&G experience in looking at habitat which has been browsed by moose, etc., the department should go up north to get some practical hands on experience. MR. OLSON stressed there are a tremendous number of people coming into the state. He noted the average residency in Anchorage is five years or less. He said if the state goes on people's expectations (who come into the state) to determine the counts on game and what is available, he would be very apprehensive. Years ago it was not unusual to see a number of moose when driving down the Kenai Peninsula. He noted that experience is not available today. Yet, the state has residents who lack the experience and knowledge of Alaska and the habitat and their expectations are much lower. He felt these expectations show up at advisory boards and ADF&G takes advantage of these advisory boards. He pointed out he does not want to hear what ADF&G cannot do, he wants to hear what they can do. Number 298 DAVID OLSON, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference and stated he remembers while growing up, seeing a significant number of moose along the roads any time of the year, which is not the case now. He stated an effort is needed to bring back populations to levels in years past. He stated there is also a need for accountability and mandates to bring back prey animals to populations at previous years highs. The goal of ADF&G should be to maximize the population and give them prey species using any and all means available. He felt it is impossible to satisfy the consumptive desires or needs of every household in Alaska but that does not mean the state cannot have this as a mandated goal. Number 330 LYNN LEVENGOOD, FAIRBANKS, testified teleconference and stated that Representative Barnes is very astute at her perception that HB 170, with the definitions given, returns and provides meaning to the constitutional mandate of sustained yield. He thought it was interesting that Mr. Regelin said the department's goal for Unit 13 is to harvest between 8 percent to 10 percent of the moose population, which would involve the human harvest of 2,500 moose. He pointed out that last year, humans harvested less than 1,000 moose. MR. LEVENGOOD noted that proposal number 55 in the proposal booklet for the March Board of Game meeting further restricts human harvest in that area. He stated the department indicated a problem with the moose calf survival and said it was poor. Calves were down in 1994 from the previous two years and were the lowest since 1991. He said the calf/cow ratio was 17 to 100 compared to 28 to 100 when moose were increasing in Unit 13. Over the winter, calf survival has been very low for a number of years. He noted the winter of 1993/1994 was the fifth severest winter in Unit 13. Winter severity is determined by measuring snow depth at survey stations throughout the Unit (indiscernible) where snow has exceeded 30 inches for a long period. MR. LEVENGOOD recalled that Mr. Regelin had told the committee the department desires to have the human harvest in that game management unit at ten percent. He felt that figure is still ridiculously low. He reiterated the human harvest in Unit 13 was less than 1,000 last year and noted the department wants further restrictions, blaming it on the weather. He stated the definition, which would give one-third for human harvest, is tied to sustained yield and will correct the problem. He urged committee members to pass HB 170 out of committee. Number 370 TOM SCARBOROUGH, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and expressed support for HB 170. He felt it was necessary for the legislature to take action and put in statute a directive for the management philosophy. Number 393 JACK COGHILL, stated during the time he served as Lieutenant Governor, a staff person Bruce Campbell and he put together a sustained yield pamphlet. He gave one to each committee member. He said when he served as one of the delegates to the Alaska State Constitution in 1955 and 1956, everyone wanted to make sure that the sustained yield principle of the state's fish and wildlife was maintained. He pointed out, referring to page 11 of the pamphlet, that on January 29, 1956, an attempt was made to remove the word "maintain" and insert the word "conserve" in Section 4 of Article VIII but that attempt failed. Therefore, there was a very clear intent on the part of the movers and shakers of the constitution, the desire to maintain the principle of sustained yield for the purpose of ensuring that human use was the first use. MR. COGHILL said HB 170 is a very clear constitutional mandate on the part of the legislature. He noted the first article of the state constitution is the human rights section and the second article establishes the legislature. He stressed the legislature is responsible for maintaining the principle of law and setting policies for the state. MR. COGHILL stated HB 170 amends a section within that law which directs the Boards of Fish and Game to consider certain aspects of the management of fish and game on the sustained yield principle in the constitution. He expressed support for HB 170. Number 457 JOEL BENNETT, REPRESENTATIVE, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, stated his organization opposes HB 170 as unnecessarily duplicative of the board's existing authority--managing predators and game populations. Such legislation duly restricts the flexibility of the board which should employ a variety of management tools in a variety of ways according to the best information from the department in order to achieve management goals. He noted that past history has shown with the Board of Game, to the extent the legislature involves itself in very specific regulation by statute, there has been no end to the problems in achieving responsible and reasonable management goals for the state. MR. BENNETT said his organization also feels legislation mandating intensive management in general, so that specified levels of human harvest can be maintained, fails to recognize non-consumptive use of wildlife as an important component of management goals. He stated Defenders of Wildlife objects to any language in such legislation that seeks to maintain prey populations at historic high levels. He felt this standard creates unreasonable high expectations and fails to recognize changing habitat conditions, human population pressures, and other factors, all of which make returning to historic levels unrealistic. MR. BENNETT told committee members that his organization shares the department's concern that defining high levels of human harvest at one-third of the harvestable surplus of a game population exceeds commonly accepted target levels of harvest on a biological basis. He said this would lead to sex and age taken which would be undesirable. He stated his organization feels this legislation is ultimately counter-productive to the best interests of the state of Alaska. There is a need to recognize that the image of the state is at stake when considering legislation. MR. BENNETT pointed out that the wolf is a high profile species across the country and Alaska has to be very careful not to appear unduly liberal in its attitude about predators--liberal in the sense of artificially depressing them in order to push prey populations to unrealistically high levels for human use. He noted what happens is it produces reactions nationally and in-state that undercuts Alaska's ability to regain management over wildlife on federal lands. He stated increased federal intervention will be the result of such legislation as HB 170 and will ultimately reduce consumptive uses that the bill is intended to promote. Number 515 MOLLY SHERMAN, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY (AEL), stated the AEL has serious concerns about HB 170. She wondered if it is deemed essential, as HB 170 says, to use intensive management techniques to enhance, extend and develop a population, why would it then be considered appropriate not to diminish human consumption in concert with intensive management. Prior to human consumption, predation was even greater. She stressed wanting to kill more game, particularly ungulate populations, is only one user source within the state. Wolf, bear and other predators are part of a healthy wildlife system. She felt predator control should only be discussed as an option when other pressures on game populations are also addressed. These pressures include habitat loss, recreational hunting and interference with migratory routes. She noted there had also been talk about not being able to get the game desired on a road system and stated that is something one gives up when deciding to live in an urban area. MS. SHERMAN noted another concern is that harvest levels are in direct correlation to fluctuations in big game prey populations. These populations often fluctuate dramatically--this fluctuation is natural and dependent upon many factors; weather, food supply, bull/cow ratios, conception rates, calf condition, hunting pressure and predation, among others. She said when intensive game management is conducted, it is an attempt to manipulate the natural oscillation so more sport hunting permits may be issued. While sport hunting is a valid use of Alaska's resources, it is not the only acceptable use. Currently, the Board of Game is required to consider the interests of all user groups. She stressed HB 170 would mandate that the board consider the interests of a single group--big game hunters. MS. SHERMAN stated the legislature, through HB 170, is usurping the authority of the Board of Game by mandating policy. This diminishes the mission of the board, which is to provide a forum wherein different, often competing interests can debate issues and arrive at consensus. She stressed this process is the very soul of democracy and a vital element in keeping game policy just for all Alaskans. She said if the intent of HB 170 is to increase the ungulate population in the state, it seems senseless, irresponsible and immoral to concentrate only on non-human consumptive uses. MS. SHERMAN said intensive management is costly. She stated wolf control is frequently linked to intensive management of game populations so it seems reasonable to consider these costs when discussing changes. She noted the ADF&G's Wolf Control Program is being audited by the state. She pointed out that any fiscal notes accompanying HB 170 will show only a portion of the cost of this intensive management. There are vast discrepancies between the projected costs and the actual payments made. She noted the total expenditures charged to the Unit 20A program for the 1993-94 wolf season exceed $220,000. The published/authorization total for the 1993-94 Wolf Control Program was set at $100,000. She stressed that is an increase of over 100 percent. MS. SHERMAN stated at a time when the state is in need of frugal fiscally responsible programs which capitalize on existing legislation, it is essential that all costs for HB 170 be carefully outlined and understood. Number 578 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES noted people continually come before the committee or other committees saying the legislature has overstepped its bounds when passing legislation directing the ADF&G to do something. She pointed out the ADF&G has no authority other than that which the legislature gives them. She said it is the legislature's responsibility. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the committee will revisit HB 170 at another meeting.