HB 356-LAND MANAGEMENT:HUNTING/FISHING/TRAPPING  1:53:32 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 356, "An Act relating to land management by the Board of Game and Department of Natural Resources for trapping and sport and subsistence hunting." REPRESENTATIVE LANCE PRUITT, Alaska State Legislature, stated this bill would prevent net loss of hunting grounds or lands. He said he introduced HB 356 with the goal and intent of creating a baseline number of public hunting areas to ensure people have the same hunting areas tomorrow as they have today. He highlighted that with greater access to the outdoors and natural resources comes a greater appreciation for conservation. License and tag fees are matched by federal dollars and help protect the conservation of wildlife statewide habitat. Making access more difficult to the average hunter actually results in less revenue for these conservation efforts. He said when opportunities are stripped from the average hunter, people may stop hunting completely and the state will lose valuable outdoor advocates, conservation revenue, and an important part of the state's economy. REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT reported that many states have already enacted similar legislation; however, applying this concept to Alaska is more difficult than in most states. He emphasized that this is an extremely important issue to himself and many Alaskans. 1:55:39 PM DIRK CRAFT, Staff, Representative Lance Pruitt, Alaska State Legislature, stated that Section 1 would add a new section to AS 16.05 requiring the Board of Game to prevent to the greatest practicable extent the loss of acreage available for trapping and hunting when the board establishes open and closed seasons under AS 16.05.255. It would also require the commissioner to report back to the legislature each year. MR. CRAFT related that Section 2 would add a new subsection to AS 38.04.065, which would require the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to keep certain land managed by DNR available for trapping, sport, and subsistence hunting, unless the land must be closed for certain reasons. This section also requires the commissioner to report back to the legislature each year. 1:56:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 1, Section 1, which requires the Board of Game to manage no net loss of acreage when open and closed seasons and areas are established and the department has reporting requirements. He related a scenario in which in game management unit (GMU) 15 is closed due to conservation reasons it appears that it would need to be reported as a net loss, even though the acreage hasn't been closed. He asked for further clarification on acreage, open and closed seasons, and how that relates to different species within that same area. 1:57:50 PM MR. CRAFT said that is a concern of the prime sponsor and additional research is needed. He highlighted that the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) manages resources much differently than in most other states. He deferred to the ADF&G for more details on resource management. 1:58:29 PM DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation (DWC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), acknowledged he also has questions, for example, if an area is open to one species, but closed to another, whether the department would consider it to be closed or open under this bill. He said that in general the department supports the principal of trying to keep as much land open to hunting across the state. He questioned if the department closed an area for conservation purposes and not for access purposes, whether the department would need to open another area of the state, which could be difficult due to limited options. Additionally, the area might only be temporarily closed for conservation purposes. He suggested there needs to be a bit more clarity in the language in terms of closures, including closures for single species, access, or conservation purposes. However, the department is supportive of the concept of trying to keep as much land open for hunting as possible. 1:59:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked how the department currently manages areas when closures occur. MR. VINCENT-LANG answered the department tries to keep as much land open to hunting as possible within the biological constraints. The department's goal is to get species recovered to the extent they can provide hunting opportunities. He clarified that in a few cases the Board of Game will adopt special use areas that largely pertain to local access considerations and in those instances they may close certain areas to certain types of access. However, the goal is to keep those areas open to other types of access; again, to try to have as much opportunity on the land mass to provide for hunting and fishing statewide. The department's basic premise is to manage within the biological constraints and allocation guidelines by the Board of Game. 2:01:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI related a scenario in which a management unit was closed for certain reasons, whether it would be the policy of the sponsor or the ADF&G to have a similar area within the same region open. For example, if a unit is closed in GMU 20 A, just north of Fairbanks, whether the goal would be to open up another area near Fairbanks or if an area in South Anchorage would be considered. MR. CRAFT answered that it is complicated in Alaska and much simpler in other states. He related that sometimes the area is closed for certain species or for conservation, noting Alaska is a resource development state so land is sometimes closed for other reasons. He said, "It is not always as cut and dry as we'd like it to be with this legislation, but we understand there's going to be a lot more work that needs to be done to get to where we want to go with this bill." 2:02:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT acknowledged that ideally the goal would be to open it up within the same area, but that is not always feasible. He agreed it would be nice to see something available to those hunters and some hunters would like South Anchorage opened up. REPRESENTATIVE DICK said he really likes the concept. He related a scenario in which there is a pool of land that is currently closed to hunting - for example, if the department closed Section A - whether the department could partially open some other portion within the area that would be shut down. 2:03:28 PM MR. VINCENT-LANG explained that the department tries to maintain as many areas as possible open to hunting and fishing within the biological constraints. He was not aware of any large tracts of land currently closed to hunting. He acknowledged some areas may be closed to hunting for certain species or during certain seasons for conservation concerns for a wide variety of reasons. He reiterated that the department tries to maintain a maximum amount of land open for purposes. He surmised one could argue that a few areas are closed, for example, around McNeil River because they are viewing areas, which theoretically could be opened up. However, he emphasized that would take a whole range of actions to open the area beyond what the department could do. 2:04:36 PM WYN MENAFEE, Chief of Operations, Division of Mining, Land, and Water (DML&W), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), in response to Representative Dick's question, explained that ADF&G manages the open and closure of wildlife hunting, fishing, and trapping in areas through their regulations, which is different from opening and closing of land that the division manages. The DML&W may end up restricting use that would prevent hunting in a certain area, but the division doesn't actually make a closure to hunting. He related a scenario in which in which there is an oil and gas operation or a mining operation in which blasting may occur. The division would give site control to the company via the lease to be able to restrict access to the area, which in fact, restricts hunting. The department does not currently make a "no net loss" decision in management practices. The department would not require some other land since a limited amount of land in state ownership so a pool is not available to draw from for replacement. MR. MENAFEE said it is different than managing wildlife in terms of where people can and cannot hunt by regulation like ADF&G does. The DML&W discusses whether access is available to hunt or not. 2:07:06 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked, for example, if a mine operator or oil and gas company would be able to control hunting and fishing access via a lease. MR. MENAFEE answered that is correct. When someone has exclusive lease of land, which is a provision in many DNR leases, then the operator can control access inclusive of someone hunting. Having said that, the division currently has nearly 100 million acres and in that acreage the propensity for hunting, trapping, and fishing occurs since the division doesn't place restrictions on the activity. Thus the activity would generally be allowed. He clarified it is only in the little, small pieces of land in which special uses have been authorized that restrictions can occur. 2:08:14 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired with respect to ADF&G's constitutional mandate, related his understanding the department must manage for utilization under the sustained use principle. He asked whether the department does not following the sustained use principle in any areas of the state. MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that it is relative, since one could argue that hunting opportunity around McNeil River; however, the decision has been made the sustained use best use is for viewing rather than hunting opportunities. He reiterated that the ADF&G manages for the biological resource and the use of the resources within decisions made by either the legislature or the Board of Game as to how to best use those resources. He was unaware of chunks of land that the ADF&G has set aside where there is opportunity for harvestable surplus or viewing opportunities that were closed or set aside that could be made available to the public. It is the department's goal to make as much of that area available as possible to the public to hunt or view. 2:10:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated, with respect to areas such as the Dalton Highway, that there is restricted access for off-road vehicles within a certain distance within the corridor. He asked whether the provision on page 2, line 8, which read, "(2) manage land under the authority of the Department of Natural Resources to support, promote, and enhance trapping and sport and subsistence hunting to the extent authorized by law" would restrict the state's ability to have non-motorized vehicle use off the corridor. More specifically, the state has been trying to extend roads to resources. He asked whether this provision would conflict with the restrictions the state has along the new roads. MR. MENAFEE answered the way it currently reads under [proposed AS 34.04.065] (j)(2), the fact that it says the DNR would need to manage land to support, promote, or enhance trapping and sport and subsistence hunting to the extent authorized by state law sets up a mandatory obligation to enhance those activities. Further, issuing any authorization that would restrict use would not enhance those uses so it sets up an inherent conflict with authorizing development that would in any way restrict that use. He offered his belief challenges exist to wrestle with the other aspects of responsibilities in other parts of the law. 2:12:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that "authorized by state law" means the legislature could legislate a restriction; however, oil and gas leases by regulation seems as though it would run afoul of the language the way it is currently written even though that may not have been the intent. MR. MENAFEE agreed, that while it may not be the intent, it does appear to put specific uses over other uses. Additionally, he agreed the language "the full extent authorized by state law" does cause a conflict. 2:13:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT, as prime sponsor of HB 356, responded that discussions with DNR have not yet succeeded in modifying the language; however, the goal is not to hamper oil and gas development or mining. He emphasized work continues on the conflicting language. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that he did not think it was the intent of the bill to create the conflict, but rather that the bill identifies issues that need further clarification. CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony on HB 356. 2:14:26 PM GEORGE PIERCE stated he is representing Alaskans. He said, "No on HB 356." He stated that a major problem exists. He suggested that the Board of Game needs examination, noting he listened to testimony on the Board of Game nominees. He took issue with the people the governor nominates to serve on the Board of Game. He offered his belief that people are not nominated to the Board of Game unless they are for predator control and the decisions for fish and game should be based on science and not politics. He reiterated he belief the boards are controlling the fish and game resources based on politics. He highlighted that the Kasilof area has been fighting with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the past two and a half years about a special use area at the mouth of the Kasilof River that is under consideration. The majority of the residents told them they did not want the special use area. The residents appealed the proposal, but the [board] is still continuing to take public testimony and treats it like nothing happened. The resources belong to the people and the game permits should not be given away to people in the Lower 48, he stated. He emphasized his desire for the legislature to investigate the Board of Game. He further requested that performance audits be conducted to see what the board is doing for Alaskans. 2:16:48 PM PRESTON WILLIAMS stated that lands in the Lower 48 have been closed, particularly on the federal level, but it still affects states. Sometimes states mirror the federal action to acquiesce. He offered his belief this bill is fine. He recalled access to mines being mentioned, and noted that mining roads often enhance hunting ability if hunters are allowed access during the season. He related his understanding the oil companies sometimes do coordinate access to hunting during the hunting season. He offered his belief the issues can be worked through and he would rather have a bill to close the gap on politics on other levels - not the politics of the legislature or the Board of Game. 2:18:05 PM MIKE CRAWFORD, President, Safari Club International (SCI- Alaska), Kenai Peninsula Chapter, stated that hunting and trapping is an Alaskan way of life and is part of our culture. Too many states have reduced opportunities not for conservation, but since non-consumptive users want an area that hunting is not allowed. He offered his belief that is what this bill will address. Further, if it is open to hunting it is open to all other activities generally and for that reason the bill should not be opposed by anyone. He suggested that if an area is closed and a new area is not available to open up, this needs to be compensated for by improving access to areas that are too difficult to reach. 2:19:20 PM EDDIE GRASSER, Lobbyist; Regional Representative, Safari Club International (SCI-Alaska), stated that he is also the former National Rifle Association representative for Alaska. He said he grew up in Alaska. He offered his belief significant land has been closed equal to some states' area and size, but this bill does not address whether an area can be opened to offset a closed area. He stated the intent of the bill is not to have any more areas closed to hunting. He recalled that he used to hunt in the Wrangell Mountains, the Paint River, and certain areas of Chugach State Park, but hunting is no longer allowed in those areas. MR. GRASSER said the list of closures for hunting and trapping goes on and on. He has been working with the bill sponsor and his goal is not to stop legitimate development in Alaska, such as mining, oil and gas, and other legitimate uses. The SCI- Alaska's commitment to conservation is such that the organization understands some seasons will need to be closed at times. 2:21:03 PM MR. GRASSER recalled when he was staff to the [House] Resources Committee years ago, that a constituent called after the director of the State Parks had closed the area on Byers Creek for reasons of public safety. He understood the reasoning the division used to avoid human and bear conflicts; however, hunters might also want to have access to the bears that would congregate there. That type of decision - to close bear hunting in an area with lots of bears - for reasons of public safety did not make any sense to his organization. He encouraged members to consider potential future closures of millions of acres to hunting, noting tens of millions of acres have been closed since he was a boy. 2:22:02 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked what the reasons are for closure. MR. GRASSER said that primarily the closed areas are federal and related to Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Additionally, if a facility is built on state lands in a matter of time a proposal will come before the Board of Game to close the area for public safety reasons. He offered his belief that hunters may need to oppose some development projects for this reason. 2:23:07 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification on facilities. MR. GRASSER answered the type of facility he was speaking to include boardwalks and viewing stations. 2:23:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked whether he was recommending a committee substitute that would relate to preventing closures rather than to trade for no net loss of hunting. MR. GRASSER acknowledged there might be a way to do so. He explained that this bill was crafted from boilerplate legislation that has been passed by other states, as previously mentioned by the bill sponsor. He suggested that the bill's genesis was the result of leading sportsmen's groups such as the NRA, SCI, and National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Boone and Crockett. He said the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the NRA actually took the lead in crafting the boilerplate language that is the genesis of this bill. It seemed to the SCI-Alaska like a good way to stop closures. He recalled the debate on Paint River, related to a fish ladder, which raised the issue of attracting more bears to the Paint River. Some people wanted the area closed to prevent bears that normally habit the McNeil River from wandering to and being taken on the Paint River. He stated that the fish ladder was never built, but the Paint River was never reopened to hunting. MR. GRASSER said he would support Paint River closure if the department opened the south side of Chugach State Park from Anchorage to Girdwood open for sheep hunting; however, that effort did not gain traction. He said, "More people are locked out from hunting because of closures than there are people being locked out for viewing or whatever." He concluded the SCI- Alaska's interest is to stop more lands from being closed to hunting, which the NRA supports, too. 2:25:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI observed, regarding the issue of public safety, that page 2 of the bill provides DNR with the authority to close an area for public safety reasons. He said he thinks that is still part of this bill, which would allow for a determination by DNR to close certain areas to hunting and restrict hunting and fishing access. He said he wanted to place this on the record. MR. GRASSER agreed. 2:26:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, regarding the federal lands that have been shut down or restricted. He said he has drafted an amendment that would address the ability of the department to work cooperatively with the federal agencies and federal lands to allow for further access. He asked whether that is something that his group would support. MR. GRASSER offered his belief that they probably would do so since access is a huge issue throughout the nation. He related that as a national board member of the SCI, he has attended lots of meetings during the last four years. He has worked with Responsive Resource Management, and one of the leading experts in the nation on hunting and fishing issues. He highlighted that access and getting youth out of doors represent two of the main issues revolving around the future of hunting heritage, not just in Alaska, but nationwide. 2:28:00 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE, after first determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 356. [HB 356 was held over.]