SENATE BILL NO. 46 Act authorizing moose farming. Upon reconvening the meeting, Co-chairman Frank directed that SB 46 be brought on for discussion. TERESA SAGER-STANCLIFF, aide to Senator Mike Miller, came before committee. She explained that the bill would give the Dept. of Fish and Game authority to dispose of surplus moose by transferring them to private ownership--either to individuals or groups for commercial, scientific, or educational purposes. The legislation would also legalize the sale of moose meat. DAVE KELLYHOUSE, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Dept. of Fish and Game, next came before committee, voicing department opposition to the bill. He explained that, based upon experience in all jurisdictions previously providing for moose farming, the legislation will not likely result in significant contributions to Alaska's economy. Further, it is likely to require significant state subsidies for moose farming ventures without prospects of compensating revenues. Moose farming is also likely to adversely impact Alaska's wild game populations as well as businesses presently benefitting from state wildlife. After over fifty years of experience, moose have not proven to be a viable game farm species for either meat, draft animal purposes, or milk production. Of two farming operations in the former Soviet Union, one has closed and the other has been converted to a wildlife research station. Those operations found that moose were subject to behavioral stress and related illnesses in high density situations. They were unsuitable for draft purposes because they cannot rid themselves of body heat. Milk production was low, and feeding proved to be exceedingly expensive. The type of fencing required to contain a moose costs approximately $13,000 per mile. It would thus cost approximately $52,000 to fence a square mile of moose habitat. Without adequate natural browse, moose must be provided supplemental hand-cut browse or a special ration that costs twice as much as domestic animal feed. Moose do not do well in high stocking rates. Contrary to other testimony, they are not herd animals. They are solitary most of the time and group only during certain times of the year. Large acreages of land are needed to accommodate them. As with other agricultural endeavors, an expensive state subsidy is likely to be necessary for single-use dedication of land, fencing, etc. The department believes that, in terms of land use, active management of wild moose populations has proven capable of producing equal or more productivity per dollar than private ownership. Mr. Kellyhouse questioned assertions that moose farming would provide viewing opportunities for tourists. Department experience since statehood indicates that roadside zoos result "in a high number of complaints." While the department would likely have little jurisdiction over private ownership, it would nonetheless be expected to do something when complaints arise. The department's zero fiscal note assumes that the only department involvement would be to "find a surplus in coordination with the board of game and then inspect facilities to see if they're adequate." In reality, the department would probably experience far more involvement. As an example, Mr. Kellyhouse noted that the department has little authority over the Delta bison herd. However, when captive bison escaped, the department devoted two man-months to "trying to get those animals back." The effort was unsuccessful since the domesticated bison blended with the wild herd. There would be more of a problem with moose. A further concern relates to the "very real potential for disease transmission and introduction to the wild." Most game farms tend to have a variety of stock in close proximity. Moose are extremely difficult to contain. During rut males from outside the enclosure are likely to attempt to gain access. The reverse is true for confined males. Escapes are highly likely as is transmission of disease. ALICIA D. PORTER, Alaska Environmental Lobby, next came before committee, voicing lobby opposition to the bill. She said the legislation is considered biologically and fiscally detrimental to the state. History has shown that game farms are labor intensive and economically draining. Hidden costs relate to: 1. Identifiable costs to the Dept. of Environmental Conservation, including: A. Examination of animals for disease B. Inspection of meat for human consumption C. Preparation of regulations 2. Vulnerability of the Dept. of Public Safety to increased enforcement costs resulting from legalization of the sale of moose meat. Poaching of wild animals frequently becomes a problem in areas where the sale of game meat is legalized. After the Province of Alberta, Canada, legalized elk farming and the sale of elk meat, enforcement costs skyrocketed due to increased poaching. 3. Dept. of Natural Resources need to permit land as agricultural. 4. Dept. of Fish and Game need for: A. Issuance of moose farm permits B. Inspection of fencing and other facilities C. Surplus determinations D. Response to complaints from constituents and tourists when facilities appear to be substandard E. Predator control Ms. Porter noted that many agricultural projects in Alaska have failed to meet economic expectations and have turned to the state for subsidized, low-interest loans. The proposed bill is accompanied by a zero fiscal note. The Alaska Environmental Lobby believes that fiscal notes should be requested from DEC, DNR, DPS and DF&G. Ms. Porter voiced her belief that SB 46 would be a costly venture for the state to fund. OPAL WELTON next came before committee in support of the legislation. She presented written testimony on behalf of herself and her husband, Doug. (A copy of that testimony is appended to these minutes and is also on file in the original Senate Finance bill file for SB 46.) DOUG WELTON next came before committee in support of the bill. He explained that he and his wife, Opal, have been working on moose farming legislation for over five years. He took exception to Dept. of Fish and Game opposition and said that moose farming represents a conservation effort. Referring to Article VIII of the Natural Resource section of the state Constitution, Mr. Welton read the following: It is the policy of the state to encourage the settlement of its lands and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest. The response to attempts to educate the public concerning moose farming has been overwhelming support for the proposal. Mr. Welton further noted constitutional language calling for legislative provision for utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources, including land and waters. The key word is "conservation." He voiced his belief that moose farming would provide a means of counteracting the hunting and killing of moose. Further constitutional provisions relate to reservation of fish, wildlife and waters in the natural state to the people of Alaska for common use. Residents of the state are to benefit from Alaskan wildlife, not merely employees of the Dept. of Fish and Game and those who come to Alaska from other countries and states to hunt and fish. Mr. Welton noted that orphaned animals are often sent outside the state to zoos elsewhere. He suggested that Alaskans should have a prior claim on this wildlife, and he took exception to references to proposed moose farm efforts as "roadside zoos." He made reference to the reindeer facility at the University of Alaska and musk ox and reindeer facility at Palmer and noted that neither could be so classified. Mr. Welton again pointed to constitutional language and advised of the requirement that fish, forest, wildlife, grasslands, and all replenishable resources belonging to the state be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses. There are beneficial uses for moose aside from hunting. It could provide a healthier, leaner red meat than the beef on the market today. Constitutional language further states that the legislature may provide for facilities, improvements, and services to assure greater utilization, development, reclamation, and settlement of lands and to assure full utilization and development of fisheries, wildlife, and waters. Mr. Welton again stressed that full utilization should allow for more than merely hunting. Moose farming would not have to escalate into large commercial operations. Small rural farms would provide families with fresh milk and breeding stock for an ongoing meat supply. The legislature is obligated to provide Alaskans with these opportunities. JOHN CRAMER, Director, Division of Agriculture, Dept. of Natural Resources, came before committee. He voiced department support for the legislation, but noted his personal belief that a large-scale commercial operation for meat production would probably not be economically feasible. Noting Dept. of Fish and Game opposition, Mr. Cramer said he was unaware of the basis for concerns regarding a potential "significant state subsidy." Speaking to the likelihood of disease transmission, Mr. Cramer suggested that it should be addressed by the state veterinary rather than the Dept. of Fish and Game. He then suggested that the committee consult with the veterinary in the course of further discussion of the bill. Mr. Cramer further advised that lands already identified as agricultural lands could be utilized for moose farm operations. Farming efforts would not necessarily remove lands from other uses and set them aside as additional agricultural lands. Addressing comments by the Alaska Environmental Lobby that agriculture has failed, economically, in Alaska, Mr. Cramer said, "There are successes in every segment of agricultural industry in the state of Alaska, including game farming." The Dept. of Natural Resources and Dept. of Fish and Game could work together on fencing requirements. Current game farms are working. There have been no releases aside from the Delta bison incident. Regulations can be written and enforced in such a way that a significant hazard for wild populations would not be posed. Co-chairman Frank voiced his understanding that Senator Miller is working with the administration to change definitions within the bill. He then directed that the bill be HELD in committee pending those changes. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 a.m.