HB 186-WOOD BISON  1:46:08 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 186, "An Act relating to the authority of the commissioner of fish and game with regard to the importation or relocation of wood bison in the state." 1:46:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE DICK, speaking as prime sponsor of HB 186, stated has lived for 44 years in the area that the bison would be re- introduced. He advised that he is specifically familiar with the villages of Holy Cross, Anvik, Shageluk, and Grayling. He explained HB 186 does not prohibit the reintroduction of bison but restricts re-locating bison until more information and understanding of the impact in doing so is considered. He affirmed his trust in the current governor, but remarked that in the past some administrations have promoted policies which have been devastating to the country. REPRESENTATIVE DICK recalled opposition to the bill cautioning that anyone should make the decision except for the legislature. He remarked that a legislator will represent and have extensive knowledge of any specific area of proposed relocation of bison. Thus, the legislator is the one who would have a familiarity of the situation at hand. He reiterated that his bill, HB 186 does not oppose relocating bison, but the department must only do so with appropriate knowledge. He remarked on the range of wood bison, noting that two wood bison wandered from Canada about 1,000 miles to the border between Alaska and Canada so the animals have an extensive range. Further, the proposed relocation of bison would occur within 50 miles of Donlin Creek, which provides the source of the only major resource available to the Calista Corporation. The proposed location also lies within 50 miles of the inactive Kako gold mine. He further advised members that numerous pilot projects exist to consider peat as a resource, and one place in particular lies near McGrath. He expressed further concern over re-introduction of bison in the area along the Yukon River since substantial peat exists in the area. Since fuel prices are astronomical, villages have been looking for alternative fuel sources, he said. He cautioned members that changing the bison status could "lock up" the peat resources in his district. He reported that he has received numerous e-mails and while some resources might not be located in his legislative district, the Roads to Resources program could be affected since the bison have the ability to roam so far. 1:49:37 PM PAUL VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, reviewed some documents in members' packets. He referred to the first document titled, "Endangered Species law and Policy," which details the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services consideration of lowering or "down listing" the wood bison from an endangered to a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). He next referred to a copy of the Federal Register dated February 8, 2011, which substantiates the potential to reclassify or downlist the wood bison from endangered to threatened species. He highlighted a quote from the Wood Bison News which noted one rumor was that the wood bison would be removed from the threatened species status. Instead, the ruling was reversed and wood bison was added to the Endangered Species Act list, he said. MR. VERHAGEN then referred to a constituent blog dated 3/28/2011 that points out, in terms of federal categories of threatened or endangered species, the similarity between wood bison and polar bears. The polar bear has been designated as being on the threatened species list by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has had the effect of "locking up" 120 million acres in Alaska. He expressed concern that this type of action could occur in Interior Alaska if wood bison are re-introduced and if a federal judge issued a ruling under the "10(j)" provision of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 1:51:52 PM MR. VERHAGEN referenced a blog titled, "FWS Reclassifies Wood Bison as Threatened Not Endangered, Species." He said the blog demonstrates that this is an emotional issue, noting the title misleads readers from what actually happened. The second page of the blog provides a five-factor analysis that shows threats to wood bison are still present. The information also indicates that tougher regulations may be employed against existing business in areas near threatened species. He turned to information on the Endangered Species Law and Policy website which indicates a Section 4(f) recovery plan under the ESA has not been issued because a wild population does not currently exists in the U.S. He expressed concern that once wood bison were re-introduced in the U.S. the 4 (f) recovery plan could be developed and issued. He surmised any restrictions would be imposed at the time the 4 (f) recovery plan is issued. 1:53:19 PM MR. VERHAGEN referred to the Delta Bison Working Group recommendations following its January 11, 2011 meeting. He commented that the Delta bison are not designated as threatened or endangered by the ESA, but the report demonstrates the amount of effort necessary to try to resolve the conflicts in Delta Junction. He suggested the conflicts have been ongoing for 30 years. Still, the state has not found any solution to the issues. He referred to the "fallout" of introducing Delta Bison resulted in unintended consequences, which he thought could have been avoided if the legislature had considered the issues. MR. VERHAGEN pointed to a report in members' packets titled "Estimated Bison Damage to Delta Agricultural Fields - 2010 Charles Knight." This report details the 2010 estimated costs. He suggested similar unintended consequences could occur from the release of wood bison. He predicted the potential years it might take perhaps without resolution. 1:54:29 PM MR. VERHAGEN turned to a document titled "Intentional or Unintended Consequences?" He stated that the bill sponsor presented this information to his constituents to give them additional commentary on intentional or unintended consequences. The next document titled "Wood Bison" provides information to constituents specifically on wood bison. The last articles in members' packets are copies of Wood Bison News which are informative articles that detail the efforts made to re- introduce wood bison into the wild in Alaska. He concluded that the sponsor supports introduction of wood bison, but only in the event that wood bison are removed from the ESA and are not just reclassified from an endangered to a threatened species. 1:55:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether other areas are also being considered for the wood bison relocation. REPRESENTATIVE DICK answered first encountered the plan for relocating bison in the Minto Flats area. He related that when he heard the phrase "Trojan Bison" used since the Minto Flats residents warned him of resource development issues that could result from the relocation of bison. He was not aware of any third location under consideration. 1:56:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ requested an explanation of the difference between wood and plains bison. REPRESENTATIVE DICK explained that these wood bison are the only wood bison in North America except for the herds located in Canada. The plains bison are not endangered and a number of herds exist in the Lower 48. He advised that these are the only bison in all of the U.S. He reiterated his belief it would be unwise to introduce wood bison in the communities of Holy Cross, Anvik, Shageluk, and Grayling. 1:57:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the wood bison are native to the U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DICK responded that historically, between 100 to 500 years ago wood bison existed in the area. He reiterated the DNR is limited to relocating the animals to an area in which they previously existed. 1:57:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether the wood and plains bison in the Delta area could interbreed given that both are capable of traveling thousands of miles. REPRESENTATIVE DICK answered he did not have scientific data to base his answer, but offered his belief that mobility provides yet another reason why this needs to be "brought to light" and should be scrutinized. 1:58:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said he appreciated Representative Dick's sounding of the alarm given the possibility of unintended consequences. He offered his belief HB 186 would delay the relocation for at least a year. He asked what the sponsor envisioned would occur during that time, such as whether any hearings would be held. REPRESENTATIVE DICK predicted that as soon as the people of Holy Cross, Anvik, Shageluk, and Grayling heard both sides of the issue, the entire matter may come to a "screeching halt." He further stated that if his constituents were made fully aware of all of the issues and still decided to move forward with re- introduction of wood bison he would support the relocation of wood bison. 2:00:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said it appeared that the state Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has been working on this issue. She inquired as to whether the department has acquired a "10(j)" exemption from the ESA. REPRESENTATIVE DICK understood that the "10(j)" exemption is being crafted in a way that might speak specifically to the wood bison. He still questioned what "piece of paper" could be signed in Washington D.C. that could be trusted in Alaska. 2:01:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to the timeline for this project. REPRESENTATIVE DICK answered that the anticipated date for re- introduction of wood bison has been scheduled for the spring 2012. This bill might delay that action by a year, he said. He offered the possibility that HB 186 would not delay the re- introduction of wood bison. He suggested that people may wish to re-introduce bison due to moose or caribou herd reductions and just suffer the unintended consequences. 2:02:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked for clarification with respect to regard the "10(j)." REPRESENTATIVE DICK responded that because the proposed re- location of the wood bison is experimental the bison would be exempt from the ESA under the "10(j)" provision of the act. In further response to Representative Herron, he agreed that experimental equates to non-essential, which is the reason for the proposed exemption. 2:03:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related his understanding that currently the department could stock game in other areas of the state. He asked whether the department has followed its priorities based upon habitat requirements, population of native game, animal presence and other factors that would affect the successful establishment of this species. MR. VERHAGEN acknowledged those answers are yet unknown and is one reason the sponsor introduced the bill. 2:04:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether he has asked ADF&G to specifically address the statutes that pertain to re- introduction. REPRESENTATIVE DICK answered he has held conversations with ADF&G, but has not written any letters the department. 2:05:07 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON recalled a similar situation arose with musk oxen. He asked for the availability of any correspondence that relates to introducing musk oxen. REPRESENTATIVE DICK said he did not know. CO-CHAIR SEATON offered his view that reviewing what happened with respect to musk oxen might lead the committee to discussions of what might be applicable since an extinct population was studied prior to being re-introduced. 2:06:10 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to whether anything would prevent an entity from suing once the wood bison were in place. REPRESENTATIVE DICK recalled prior testimony that some environmental groups said they did not intend to file against the "10(j)" exemption due to the absence of potential resources for resource development in the area. He acknowledged lawsuits could happen but he was unsure if any would. He further recalled correspondence in opposition to the bill that suggested the bill was based on paranoia. He said, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." He acknowledged that even if the federal government does not renege on the "10(j)" exemption, the subsistence residents could potentially end up being the litigants rather than hunters. He concluded, "It's hard enough to live in that country." 2:07:58 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON recalled that the musk oxen had been classified as domestic animals before their re-introduction in Alaska. He inquired as to whether the sponsor could investigate that matter to perhaps find solutions to the issues with re-introducing wood bison. REPRESENTATIVE DICK acknowledged that was a brilliant observation. 2:09:15 PM EDWARD GRASSER, Lobbyist, Safari Club International, pointed out the distinction that the Safari Club International (SCI) is a conservation group and not a preservation group. Both chapters of the SCI support the re-introduction of the wood buffalo. He offered one tenet of the SCI is to recognize the North American model for wildlife management. The SCI believes that this project fits under the model, he said. He referred to [President] Roosevelt's idea that hunters and fishermen would pay a fee to support the conservation of species. He offered his belief this approach has been much more effective than has been the ESA's restrictions. MR. GRASSER offered his view that this is not an "us versus them" issue. As conservationists, the SCI believes the introduction of wood bison would be an economic boon to the villages in the area and would enhance their subsistence economies. The SCI believes multiple activities can occur and should not negate one in favor of another. 2:11:48 PM MR. GRASSER referred to questions about the ESA's "10(j)" rule. He reported that the SCI's attorneys in Washington, D.C. have been in court for 10 years with respect to the wolf de-listing process and re-introduction of wolves in the Lower 48 in the Northern Rocky Mountains and along the Great Lakes. He explained the "10(j)" rule, which is a process under the ESA that allows for an exemption of that status involving introduction of a species. The "10(j)" process represents a rulemaking process that includes non-government entities (NGOs) as well as state agencies. He characterized the process as a very involved process. He offered his belief that once established under the "10(j)" rule the wood bison would not impact any other activity. He acknowledged questions exist on whether the federal government could unilaterally rescind the "10(j)" rule. He said, "It's never happened and it's never been overturned in court as far as our researchers can find." He reiterated that the SCI has available some of the best litigators in the world in its Washington D.C. office yet has not discovered any instance in which the court ruling has been overturned. He related that if the federal government wanted to rescind the rule after the wood bison were re-introduced, the agency must use the same rulemaking process to overturn the rule as it used to establish the rule. He reiterated the federal government could not unilaterally make the decision to rescind the "10(j)" rule. He said he thought that represented a significant point in this equation. 2:13:34 PM MR. GRASSER recalled a similar instance in which the SCI was approached seven years ago by some of the principals in the movement to ban the Pebble Mine. He provided his involvement as serving on the national Board of Directors of the national SCI. He also served as the field representative of the National Rifle Association (NRA) at the time. He held extensive conversations with these groups, but neither one has opposed the Pebble Mine. He affirmed the SCI's view that the Pebble Mine process should go forward and the same should hold true for the wood bison project. The SCI has been involved in the wood bison issue since the 1980s. He explained that the SCI has worked with the ADF&G and has invested a significant amount of money into the project. Thus, the SCI has had a stake in this and has wanted the project to move forward. He acknowledged problems that the ESA has caused for Alaska on issues. Therefore, the SCI has laid groundwork to reform the ESA. He offered his belief that some structural portions of the act could be amended. 2:15:18 PM MR. GRASSER provided some historical information on introduction of the musk oxen into Alaska, which happened prior to enactment of the ESA. He reported that re-introduction of wood bison has been put off until the spring 2013 due to some state actions. MR. GRASSER concluded that the SCI does not believe HB 186 is necessary and is simply reactionary. The SCI also does not support inclusion of legislative approval as part of the wood bison re-introduction since it would make it much harder to move forward. He offered his belief that some people would use the bill to block re-introduction of the wood bison, whether the rationale was based on fact or not. The SCI opposes the bill since the SCI does not support the wood bison project being tied to the Delta bison project, he said. He offered his belief that the SCI has invested over $300,000 thus far on the wood bison project. 2:17:26 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE, with respect to his research on "10(j)" waivers, asked whether an injunction has ever been granted to temporarily stop a project while the lawsuit was evaluated. MR. GRASSER was unsure but offered to research this and get back to the committee. 2:17:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired as to whether he was a member of the Alaska Bar Association. MR. GRASSER answered no. 2:18:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, based on Mr. Grasser's expertise, asked whether the wood bison could survive wolves in the wild. MR. GRASSER said he was unsure they would be able to survive wolves. He reported that in his experience wolves are very efficient predators and can take down any animal they want. He deferred to the ADF&G to more definitively answer the question. 2:18:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked him to elaborate on the factors slowing down the "10(j)" exemption. MR. GRASSER related his understanding of the original agreement which included that once the wood bison population was restored general hunting would be allowed. The SCI has stated it would not support a "10(j)" rule that did not contain a specific provision to allow hunting. He said that the current version of the "10(j)" rule does not address hunting so the SCI and ADF&G do not support the proposed changes. 2:19:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the "10(j)" exemption were granted it is possible that hunting would not be allowed. MR. GRASSER answered that if the "10(j)" rule passed with an allowable hunting provision, then hunting definitely would be allowed. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled his earlier testimony that the federal government has been considering not allowing hunting. MR. GRASSER responded that the USFWS did not add in the hunting provision. He clarified that the federal government cannot just "willy-nilly" rescind the "10(j)" rule, but must adhere to the process. 2:20:55 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON, with respect to general hunting, asked whether the "10(j)" rule would need to include specific language to allow general hunting and not just subsistence hunting. MR. GRASSER agreed. He reiterated that currently the "10(j)" rule does not include specific language to allow hunting which is why the SCI opposes the current rule-making process. 2:21:49 PM MIKE SATRE, Executive Director, Council of Alaska Producers (CAP), on behalf of the CAP, explained the CAP is a non-profit trade association representing the producing large metal mines and major resource development in Alaska. He spoke in support of HB 186, which would require the legislature to approve the importation or relocation of wood bison in the State of Alaska. He pointed out several things the bill does not do, including that it does not prevent the introduction of wood bison in what appears to be its natural habitat. This bill would not interfere with the management of the wood bison into a sustainable herd that may provide meat or hunting revenues into rural Alaska. He acknowledged that HB 186 would require the legislature to approve of the actions of the commissioner with respect to the importation or relocation of wood bison in the state. The CAP does not have any project in the vicinity of the proposed wood bison project, but would like to be certain the full ramifications of such a re-introduction will be considered. He understood a detailed process has ensued. He hoped that passing this bill would only be limited to adding time to the approval process and would allow the legislature time to consider any potential negative effects it may have on rural Alaska with respect to application of the federal ESA. He pointed to similar issues with respect to polar bears, Beluga whales, and Steller sea lions. 2:23:53 PM MR. SATRE answered that the currently proposal may be covered by exemption to the ESA as mentioned in earlier testimony. However, that may not always be the case as the herd gets bigger and broadens its range. A petition exists to remove the "10(j)" exemption and cover the herd as a threatened or endangered species in the future. He acknowledged the possibility possible that type of listing could limit developmental activity. He expressed the CAP's concern about any action that would limit access activities in rural Alaska for development. He supported passage of HB 186 to allow legislature time to ensure that "10(j)" exemption is in place to protect Alaskans ability to live and recreate in rural Alaska and to consider any impacts the ESA may have, with respect to the wood bison. He said, "Rural Alaskans and their way of life is a truly endangered or threatened species and we want to make sure we aren't doing anything to affect them," he said. In response to Co-Chair Seaton, he offered to compile and submit written testimony. 2:26:39 PM BRYCE WRIGLEY stated while he is unconcerned with wood bison being re-introduced, but expressed concern that the re- introduction of wood bison could limit other development. He related he has held numerous conversations with ADF&G. He also expressed concern with regard to the 133,000 acres in Minto Flats area since it lies within traveling distance for the wood buffalo in the Nenana-Tochaket area. He reiterated his concern that re-introduction of wood bison could potentially jeopardize development of the Minto Flats area. He recalled, under the "10(j)" rule, that in the event the wood bison population diminished it would not affect game management. However, he said he was not convinced the ADF&G would exert effort to remove any obstacles that could impact the herd. He feared that if ADF&G did not take action the federal government would do so. He recalled when wolves were re-introduced in the Lower 48 in the Yellowstone Park area. He indicated Montana and Idaho took game management actions with respect to wolves but had been overruled by the federal government. He felt similar actions could ensue with respect to the wood bison even with the "10(j)" rule. 2:29:18 PM MR. WRIGLEY reported that almost all legal challenges to the "10(j)" rules tended to be taken up on more obscure species. He thought anything as iconic and American as a bison would generate emotional support and efforts would be taken to ensure the wood bison's' survival. He suggested in his research the only challenges that approximate the wood bison were challenges to the whooping crane and the California condor. MR. WRIGLEY referred to the belief that the federal agencies would not exert any pressure since the federal rule under the ESA only requires consultation on endangered species. He offered his belief that view represents a naïve assumption by ADF&G. He suggested a number of ways exist for the federal government to exert pressure on state agencies, including withholding matching funds or by "bullying." 2:31:12 PM Mr. WRIGLEY summarized three challenges to re-introduction of the wood bison: the legal challenges to the "10(j)" rule and whether the rule could be upheld; the federal interference in the management of the wood bison herd, which could "lock up" resources; and the amount of land necessary for agriculture, which could limit other uses. 2:32:16 PM DON QUARBERG stated he has resided in Delta Junction for 35 years. He has served on the Delta Working Group since its inception. He related that the DWG is a management group for the Delta bison. Additionally, he has served on the local Fish and Game Advisory Committee but is representing himself today. He took exception with Representative Dick's statement that ADF&G has done nothing to resolve the Delta bison herd conflicts. He related that ADF&G has done the following: cleared and developed several thousand acres of bison range, planted grasses and small grains as forage for the bison, developed a supply of fresh water, placed salt blocks to attract bison to the range, conducted forage trials to improve forage quality and to identify new and better forages. Additionally, the ADF&G has worked with the University of Alaska to develop native grasses on the range, worked with the U.S. Army to create additional forage on military land. Further, the ADF&G has developed hunting regulations to improve hunter success of in harvesting bison. He commented that hunters supported doubling their fees to provide additional funding to enhance the bison range. He remarked that regulations changes have changed hunting seasons to better manage the bison hunts, established an early hunt on private lands to better manage the bison movement off private lands, and have allowed the use of ground-based communication such as cell phones and satellite phones to enhance the harvest. 2:34:33 PM MR. QUARBERG related that ADF&G has unsuccessfully attempted to work with land owners to allow bison hunting on all farm land. Thus, some farms essentially have essentially become bison sanctuaries and that makes game management difficult. Additionally, the ADF&G has been unsuccessful in creating a share-cropping program to increase forage production on bison range. He recalled criticism on the location of the Delta bison range in close proximity to farms. He suggested that when the land was designated as the bison range it was land considered unsuitable for farming by the Agriculture Action Council during Governor Hammond's administration. He further recalled the legislature passed the proposal which became the bison range. 2:35:36 PM MR. QUARBERG spoke to his written comments on HB 186, which had been forwarded to the committee. Many people believe that wildlife should be allowed to be re-introduced and re- introducing wood bison would create a wildlife asset for the State of Alaska, he said. He related his understanding that commissioners must undergo confirmation by the legislature and are charged with managing wildlife for Alaskans. He supported the sponsor's concern on the court action on the "10(j)" ruling as a valid concern. He remarked that everything Alaska does is ultimately subject to a judge's ruling. He expressed his view that HB 186 is unnecessary. He encouraged members to oppose the bill. 2:37:33 PM STEVE BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association (AMA), on behalf of the AMA, referred to a letter in members' packets, which read [original punctuation provided]: My name is Steve Borell, I am Executive Director of the Alaska Miners Association and I am testifying on behalf of the Association. I believe you have our letter to Rep Dick in your packets so I will not read that but will make a few additional comments. We applaud the ongoing efforts of ADF&G to find a way to make this work while still protecting the State from the untended consequences of a listing under the Endangered Species Act. If the Wood Bison can be excluded from being listed as "Endangered" or "Threatened" by use of ESA Sec. 10(j) as "non-essential experimental population" would be a good step but we feel that the requirement for the Alaska State Legislature to approve this is important, at a minimum. We are aware that some officials within the US Fish & Wildlife Service have stated that the Wood Bison would not be listed as "endangered", but as "threatened" and that they can provide a promise under Sec. 10(j). We appreciate that if Sec. 10(j) was changed to exempt the Wood Bison, a second rulemaking would be required to later change Sec. 10(j) and eliminate that exemption. However, we would point out that this is the same agency that listed the Beluga Whale based on bad science and the Polar Bear based on political science. These examples have shown that the USF&WS can no longer be considered a credible independent science- based voice. Also, the USF&WS cannot ensure the outcome of a suit that will inevitably come from some environmental NGO. Regarding the bill, we recommend that the Legislature consider amending the bill to state that re- introduction of Wood Bison not be allowed until the U.S. Congress passes legislation that makes it certain that the Wood Bison cannot be listed as "endangered" or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, and that such re-introduction must then subsequently be authorized by passage of an act by the Alaska State Legislature. It would be wonderful if Wood Bison could be released but danger of ESA listing is just too great. MR. BORELL asked to make a few additional comments. He applauded the ongoing efforts taken by ADF&G to try to make this work given the possible unintended consequences of the ESA listing. The AMA views excluding the wood bison from the endangered or threatened by using the ESA's exemption under "10(j)" as non-essential experimental population as a step in the right direction. However, the AMA believes the legislature should also be a part of the approval process. He recalled some officials within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have indicated that the wood bison would be listed as a threatened species. Additionally, the USFWS indicated that promise could be issued under the ESA's "10(j)" rule. However, the AMA has seen recent rule-making processes in which the agency has simply decided it will do something and then takes action. He pointed out that the USFWS is the same agency which listed the Beluga whale and the polar bear using incorrect science and politics to do so. Thus, the AMA does not believe the USFWS can be considered an independent science-based voice, he said. 2:39:59 PM MR. BORELL suggested that HB 186 should be amended to include approval from the U.S. Congress prior to re-introduction of the wood bison to ensure the wood bison could not be listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. He offered his belief that the danger of an ESA listing is too great to allow re- introduction of the wood bison until all the necessary pieces are in place. 2:40:45 PM EUGENE PAUL, Holy Cross Tribal Council (HCTC), stated that he is a member of the HCTC and has been a tribal chief for over ten years. He has participated in numerous meeting with ADF&G and locally in Grayling and Holy Cross. He recalled the ADF&G has plans to build a corral in Shageluk to hold the wood bison for at least six months to acclimate the bison to the habitat. He spoke in opposition to HB 186 because of fear that the delay could devastate the communities. He understood that it could take years for the herd to build up. He did not believe than any roaming by the wood bison would impact any of the subsistence species that the villages harvest, such as moose. Additionally, the ADF&G has advised the communities that the wood bison would not be competing with other game resources. He understood that the regional corporation, Doyon, Limited, fully supports the re-introduction of the wood bison. He pointed out the regional corporation has already studied the matter and supports it. He related that ADF&G has actively kept the villages informed. He reported that the four villages fully support the re-introduction of the wood bison. In response to Representative Dick, he answered that he has not seen the video. 2:43:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE DICK urged Mr. Paul to watch the video which would illustrate what he is attempting to do. He highlighted his concern that residents have only heard one viewpoint. He cautioned that viewpoint was made by people who will benefit the most from the wood bison's re-introduction. He simply would like the people to be aware of all implications, including the possibility that the ESA could be invoked. He said, "My concern is the bison are going to be free roaming and the people are going to get penned up." He urged Mr. Paul and other residents to view the video. He reiterated his earlier commitment that if people still want the bison after hearing the other side of the argument, he will support their decision. 2:46:05 PM STEVEN MENDIVE stated that he has been affiliated with the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center, but is speaking today on his own behalf. He explained that the U.S. has been involved in bison restoration for over 100 years. He related that the wood bison was discovered in Canada approximately 60 years ago. He offered his belief that science and sound biological review has helped to ensure a sustainable wood bison resource. Over the course of time several areas demonstrate strong success in re- introduction of wood bison. He noted how fortunate it is that Alaska has habitat distinctly needed for wood bison. He applauded the extent that ADF&G has undergone to ensure a disease-free herd could be imported into the state from Elk Island, Canada, in particular, into Alaska's habitat. He also noted the tremendous challenges a restoration process takes, especially given the number of concerns. He offered his view that this process has been well orchestrated and does not need further oversight. He said that he appreciates the sponsor's concern, but the oversight is already in place with the commissioner's supervision, as well as seasoned staff who have been on this project for over 20 years. He also said he was surprised such strong opposition would arise amongst Alaskans when the resource is poised to serve all of Alaska's residents, not just certain areas. 2:49:16 PM MR. MENDIVE reported that Canada currently has six different herds exceeding well over 6,000 animals in the wild. He acknowledged that some pocketed areas have experienced challenges, but the herd on the western edge of Canada has an over-the-counter purchase of hunting permits for bison so it has worked well. He concluded this demonstrates the biodiversity and ability to expand and remain predator resistant. He suggested that so long as the herds remain under 100 animals the species would be considered sustainable and would not be subject to bear and wolf predation. He related the ADF&G has extended itself to rural Alaskans in an open process that demonstrates both sides and defines the advantages of re-introduction of wood bison. He remarked on the need to move forward without adding another layer of oversight that could delay the process. 2:50:05 PM [HB 186 was held over.]