HJR 32-REMOVE WOOD BISON FROM ENDANGERED LIST  2:03:41 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 32, Urging the United States Congress to remove wood bison from protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and to grant control of wood bison in Alaska to the state. 2:04:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE DICK, prime sponsor of HJR 32, reminded members that last year the committee heard HB 186, but that HJR 32 will be the ultimate answer for both the state and the wood bison. The people who will benefit the most are the people of the Yukon. Many groups and individuals within the state and the nation are concerned about the bison. His concern all along has not been with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but with special interest groups that could potentially file suit in federal court. He drew attention to the [e-mail] of support from Deputy Commissioner Craig Fleener of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. 2:06:06 PM PAUL VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, Alaska State Legislature, presented HJR 32 on behalf of Representative Dick, prime sponsor. He said last year Representative Dick filed HB 186 in an effort to prevent the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) from reintroducing wood bison into the state without approval by the legislature. However, between then and now, things have happened with regard to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Several states have spent years working to get gray wolves removed from the list [of endangered species] - with one court ruling in their favor and then the next ruling against them. These states eventually they took their case to Congress. Congress intervened, exempting the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act; further, Congress made its decision not subject to review by the courts. From Representative Dick's perspective, a similar action by Congress would remove problems with releasing the wood bison into the wild without the restrictions that come along with the Endangered Species Act, and would allow management of the wood bison by ADF&G. 2:07:18 PM MR. VERHAGEN said HJR 32 urges Congress to intervene on the state's behalf by exempting wood bison from the ESA. He related that in a recent letter to Representative Dick, the regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Geoffrey Haskett, takes issue with some of the statements made in HJR 32. However, Representative Dick does not question that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has spent years working with ADF&G in an effort to reintroduce wood bison. He does not question that the service wants the project to move forward, nor does he question the service's diligence in ensuring that the agreements reached between the service and ADF&G comply with the most current interpretation of the Endangered Species Act. Rather, Representative Dick sympathizes with the service as it tries to keep up with the various rulings and is constantly chasing a moving target - and that is the point that Representative Dick is making. While the Endangered Species Act was created with the best of intentions by people with sincere concern for the environment, the contradictory rulings have bogged things down to the point that it appears the biggest obstacle to the wood bison's success in Alaska is the act itself. If wood bison were to be treated the same as the plains bison, they would be wandering the landscape and Alaska would not have worry about locked up resources. Although passage of this resolution will not change anything itself, it will serve to remind Congress again that in more than a few instances the Endangered Species Act itself has become its own worst enemy. It may also prompt Congress to step in and resolve Alaska's wood bison problem. If Congress were to also exempt all bison, including the plains bison, then Alaska would not need to worry about recent lawsuits that have been filed to include plains bison under the protection of the act. 2:10:11 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS), version 27-LS1234\E, Bullard, 2/24/12, as the working document. There being no objection, Version E was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired how much it is costing per year to keep the wood bison at the Wildlife Conservation Center while the state waits for the federal government to get its regulations in order. MR. VERHAGEN understood the cost is $100,000 per year. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently granted the state $200,000 for the bison's care. REPRESENTATIVE DICK added that ADF&G and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) are working together to get the bison out on the landscape and are looking for an island where the wood bison could be temporarily released until they are taken off the endangered species list. The committee took a brief at-ease. 2:13:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether some of the changes made in Version E were in response to the letter from Mr. Haskett of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. MR. VERHAGEN replied the changes that were made preceded receipt of Mr. Haskett's letter, although some of the changes made were suggested in that letter. 2:13:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired about the current status of the "10(j) rule" that would designate wood bison in Alaska as a nonessential experimental population. He commented that the rule seems like it would be a way out, but has been talked about for several years. REPRESENTATIVE DICK responded the 10(j) exemption is still being applied for, but the real question is the "4(d)" exemption that speaks to whether the animals can actually be hunted once they are reintroduced. The State of Alaska has said it will not reintroduce the animals if they cannot be hunted at some point in the future, so it is really the 4(d) exemption that is the stalemate between ADF&G and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked where the state and service are in their current negotiations for the hunting of the wood bison. MR. VERHAGEN understood ADF&G has received approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director on the hunting aspect, but said work on the 10(j) portion is still ongoing. 2:15:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired whether there are any examples of an endangered species being removed from the list by region. MR. VERHAGEN answered that that is the only thing that has ever happened. Congress removed the gray wolf in the area of Idaho and Montana. He said he did not know if other examples have occurred since then. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether the possibility has been explored of removing the wood bison from the endangered species list in Alaska only. REPRESENTATIVE DICK replied that since the only wood bison in the U.S. are in Alaska that thought did not cross his mind. 2:16:43 PM MIKE MILLER, Executive Director, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center, offered his appreciation for the work toward some "can- do options." Regarding removal of the wood bison through a congressional act, he said Eddie Grasser is working on that right now. Three weeks ago Mr. Grasser met with U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski and Congressman Don Young to discuss attaching something to the U.S. budget. There is optimism for this happening and it would be the best thing for everybody concerned with the wood bison. He suggested that questions regarding the 10(j) rule be directed to Doug Vincent-Lang. Both ADF&G and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are trying to come up with agreeable language, but it would be good to proceed with both the 10(j) rule and the complete congressional delisting at the same time. 2:18:19 PM MR. MILLER, in regard to caring for the wood bison, said he manages the 102 animals for the State of Alaska. The expense is not all that monumental - Carlisle Transportation hauls the 1,000 bales of hay from the University of Alaska Fairbanks in Palmer to the center and the U.S. Forest Service has provided land for the bison under a 15 year lease. This leased area can be expanded as there will be 40 calves this spring. He encouraged everyone to continue a can-do attitude, explaining that because the wood bison is on the endangered species list these animals cannot go back to Canada and cannot be slaughtered or sold. Therefore, finding a good end result is necessary because these are living breathing things that will likely outlive the people involved. He noted that Canada now has 6,000-8,000 wood bison and has reduced its status to that of threatened. Resource development in Canada has been compatible with the bison. Finding some sort of a resolution this legislative session would be a great thing for the state of Alaska, not only for the hunting and tourism opportunities, but also for the return of an extinct animal to the landscape. 2:20:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired what the normal life span is for a wood bison. MR. MILLER responded that in the wild, because of hardships, 16 years would be an old bison. However, in captivity wood bison can live up to 60 years and can calve into their 40s, with a calf every year instead of every other year as in the wild. He said putting the wood bison on an island would be abandoning them, the problem would not go away, and it would only be a short-term thing. He said he would like to discourage doing that because he can find foundations that will provide the $100,000 in cost so that there is no expense to the state. REPRESENTATIVE DICK commented that ADF&G has been unable to find an island that does not already have cattle, except one that is way out in the Aleutians and the cost estimate for moving the bison out there was $800,000, which would be incurred again for moving the bison back. 2:22:50 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE closed public testimony on HJR 32 after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify. He invited any amendments. CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 which would remove the second whereas clause from page 1, lines 8-10. CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for purposes of discussion. CO-CHAIR SEATON noted that the third paragraph of the [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] letter disagrees with the statement made in lines 8-10 of the resolution. He did not think that this whereas clause is necessary at all for accomplishing the goals of the resolution, so he is offering this as a friendly amendment. REPRESENTATIVE DICK said he has no problem with the amendment. CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection. 2:24:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON directed attention to page 2, paragraph 2, of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter which addresses the claim in HJR 32 that releasing wood bison in Alaska would subject their habitat to restrictive provisions. The paragraph also states that these "exaggerated statements about the ESA are creating a negative and fearful environment that makes it more difficult to achieve common ground." She pointed out that this claim occurs in the resolution on page 2, lines 22-25, and asked whether these lines should be deleted. CO-CHAIR FEIGE commented that it depends on a person's point of view on the Endangered Species Act. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI requested a response from ADF&G. 2:25:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reiterated her question for Doug Vincent-Lang of ADF&G. DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), began by providing some background on wood bison from the state's perspective. He said the state is working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the 10(j) rule and a rule that would designate these animals as nonessential experimental. He added that he thinks the agencies are fairly close to reaching some type of agreement that those rules provide sufficient language to assure that those animals are not affecting resource development across the state. However, on the broader national scale there is concern about the certainty of those rules being able to withstand legal scrutiny, especially if challenges to those rules are filed in courts outside of Alaska, in which are ultimately defended by the U.S. Department of Justice and for which the State of Alaska may not be a party in the settlement of those lawsuits. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is right that all intent is to use these rules to prevent undue restrictions on designation of critical habitat or on jeopardy findings on species that are out in the landscape. Getting to a rule that assures that certainty will go a long ways towards that end. However, that is only part of the question that the state will still have to answer after that rule is published. The state will again have to very closely look at how valid those rules are or how firm those rules will be in terms of withstanding judicial scrutiny, especially if those lawsuits are filed outside of Alaska. 2:28:52 PM MR. VINCENT-LANG further noted that there is recent evidence that some of these rules may be renegotiated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the states that have released nonessential experimental populations in their landscapes. The State of Alaska is working towards those rules with the hope that those rules will provide the state with the certainty that it will not be in the same position with wood bison that it is with sea otters today, which is that the state introduces a species and is then left with the uncertainty of how to manage those into the future. From the state's point of view, the most certainty that can be had before release of wood bison on the landscape is to have an exemption for the species under the Endangered Species Act similar to what was done with gray wolves in Idaho and Montana. In those cases the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was very much in agreement with the states as to the need to delist those wolves, but it was the judicial system that prevented it from happening. There is a certain amount of fear out there regarding the certainty of those rules and regarding what would happen if those rules were overturned in the future. 2:30:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired whether Mr. Vincent-Lang believes this whereas clause should remain in the resolution. MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that that whereas reflects what he is hearing at his desk - fear out on the landscape regarding the certainty of those rules and what could happen if those were overturned. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for some examples of ESA-listed animals that have been [reintroduced] into the wild as nonessential experimental. MR. VINCENT-LANG responded that these include wolves in the Lower 48, grizzly bears, and falcons, as well as some others. He added that the state of Wyoming is now having trouble with grizzly bears that were reintroduced under nonessential experimental populations. 2:31:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ requested a detail of what nonessential experimental means. MR. VINCENT-LANG explained that when first passed by Congress the Endangered Species Act did not have a provision for nonessential experimental populations. As such, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and states were trying to reintroduce species onto the landscape, the only way to do so was under the full protection of the Endangered Species Act, which resulted in immediately the carryover of that designation as well as the designation of critical habitat. It therefore became very difficult for states or federal agencies to go to private landowners and others with the suggestion that these animals be reintroduced on the landscape. So Congress amended the act with a provision for designating animals being reintroduced into the landscape as nonessential experimental to that species. As such, special rules could be written associated with that species to disallow the designation of critical habitat and allow a taking of that species that would otherwise not be allowed under existing Endangered Species Act statutes. It was basically a way to say that if these animals were brought onto the landscape they would still be categorized under the Endangered Species Act, but that they could be treated differently in terms of how they were regulated under the act. 2:33:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired whether an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been negotiated to allow the designation of nonessential experimental for these wood bison. MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that the state is working with the service towards getting a nonessential experimental population designation and the associated regulations regarding what is an allowable take for those wood bison on the landscape. The allowable takes would be any take that is associated with a resource development activity or an allowed take would be hunting. That is one step in this process that would help the state get towards the end, but before the state puts animals in the landscape under that rule it would need to be assured that the rule would withstand judicial scrutiny, especially if it was filed outside the state of Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ understood it is ADF&G's intent to get that clarified and confirmed before any animals are reintroduced. MR. VINCENT-LANG related that ADF&G has told the legislature and the public that it will not introduce wood bison into the landscape until everyone is convinced there is certainty to the rules and that those rules would be defendable. None of that would be necessary if Congress exempted wood bison from the Endangered Species Act, as requested by HJR 32. He said that from his point of view, conservation success is getting these animals out on the landscape and the biggest reason this is not happening is fear associated with the uncertainty about how the Endangered Species Act will be implemented. Removing that fear would go a long way towards getting these bison out on the landscape quickly. 2:35:21 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether the grizzly bears that were [reintroduced] as a nonessential species are allowed to be hunted. MR. VINCENT-LANG replied in some cases yes, but explained that some of the problems being had with some of these species in the Lower 48 that were nonessential experimental is that there were also wild animals that were out in the landscape. As those animals are mixing with the nonessential experimental animals it becomes a very complex question. Fortunately, Alaska does not have that issue right now. REPRESENTATIVE DICK pointed out that the target of HJR 32 is not the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but the U.S. Congress. The intent is to build a little sense of frustration into the resolution so that Congressman Young can show this to his colleagues. While sorry if someone at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is offended, he said the state must be firm enough to make its point clear. He reminded committee members that the Donlin Creek Mine has $100 billion worth of gold and is only 50 miles away from the proposed site of reintroduction. Drawing attention to page 3, lines 10-12, of the resolution, he said these lines say everything: "WHEREAS these facts serve to demonstrate this point: The wood bison's status on the list of species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is what most endangers them". If the wood bison could be put on the landscape to roam free they would be able to multiply. His point is that listing them as an endangered species in the act makes them endangered because the state is afraid to put them out there. 2:38:15 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to report the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HJR 32, version 27-LS1234\E, Bullard, 2/24/12, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHJR 32(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.