CSSB 262(RES) - MANAGEMENT OF HUNTING CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the next order of business was CS for SB 262(RES), "An Act relating to regulation of hunting and trapping, to the definition of 'sustained yield,' and to controlled use areas." Number 474 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained there was discussion at the last meeting about means of access that couldn't be restricted until there was already damage. The changes are noted on page 2, lines 23 - 24. It now reads as follows: "Sec. 16.05.799. Regulation of hunting. (a) The Board of Game and the department may not restrict the use of a means of access for hunting game if that means of access is a traditional means of access for hunting game for consumptive use." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN further explained the word "has resulted" has been changed to "could result" on page 2, line 28. The word "would likely" has been changed to "would be unlikely" on page 2, line 30. The changes make the language more proactive instead of waiting for the game to be in bad shape. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN further explained the language has been changed on page 3, lines 1 - 2, to read as follows: "(2) has implemented active management measures that are necessary to aid in the recovery of depressed game populations in the area." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN further explained the Department of Fish and Game testified about the language being too restrictive that it couldn't restrict a method or means to take game. The language has been clarified on page 2, lines 3 - 5, to read as follows: "(b) The Board of Game or the department may not restrict the use of a traditional means of access for hunting game for the purpose of preferring or affecting the quality of the outdoor experience of a person or group." Number 512 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion and asked unanimous consent to adopt the proposed committee substitute for SB 262, version 0- LS1379\H, Utermohle, 4/23/98, for consideration. There being no objection, it was so adopted. Number 525 BRUCE BAKER testified in Juneau. There are six reasons why the bill is not in the public's interest. It flies in the face of a hundred years of progress and development of a conservation ethic in this country by eliminating reference to the very word "conservation" from two places in the current law. The insertion of the word "biological management" in Section 1 raises questions of its definition and the appropriate division of authority between the Department of Fish and Game and the Board of Game. The wording "has implemented" doesn't fit with the recent changes of "could result" and "would be unlikely." The bill ignores the importance of the quality of an outdoor experience disenfranchising Alaskans and visitors who spend hundreds of millions of dollars to have a quality outdoor experience. Section 3 makes this another "freeze- the-moose" bill by suggesting that consumptive meat deserves to be managed on a sustained yield basis when there are hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on Alaska to experience the mystique of the wilderness including the existence of wolves and bears. He suggested modifying the bill to reflect the state constitution that calls for a sustained yield for all resources. Number 571 DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), testified in Juneau. The AOC appreciates the intent of the bill by providing specific protections for harvest opportunities in traditional accesses. The changes are appropriate. Biological management is difficult to understand how it would be interpreted. The regulation of hunting on page 2, lines 22 - 24 is overly restrictive by saying "the department may not restrict." He suggested including the language "the department may not prohibit." The changes to the definition of sustained yield are appropriate. It may help clarify the importance of higher levels of prey. The discussion at the constitutional convention indicated that the language "subject to preference among beneficial uses" derives from a discussion on managing the enhancement of prey populations in recognizing their importance.