SENATE BILL NO. 46: An Act authorizing moose farming. Co-chair Pearce announced that SB 46 was before the committee. Co-chair Frank MOVED for adoption of the work draft CSSB 46 dated February 26, 1993. No objections having been raised, CSSB 46 was ADOPTED for discussion purposes. Co-chair Pearce invited Teresa Sager-Stancliff, Aide to Senator Mike Miller, sponsor of SB 46, to join members at the committee table and speak to the changes in the CS for SB 46. TERESA SAGER-STANCLIFF, aide to Senator Mike Miller, said the CS gave several state agencies regulatory authority over moose farming. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would be given the authority to promote and develop moose farming, and regulate it as it does domestic livestock. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) would also be given the authority to regulate moose farming as it does domestic livestock. That would mean DEC would be authorized to visit and inspect moose farms for experiments, provide care and breeding disease prevention, and certify that a facility would be able to prevent disease transmission from captive moose to wild moose or other wild animals, and from captive livestock to other domestic livestock. It would also give the Department of Fish and Game (DF&G) the authority to require certain provisions of a moose facility. DF&G would require a certificate from DEC on disease prevention and transmission, ear tattooing and an ear tag for identification. It would require escape-proof and entry-proof fencing, and notification of birth, sale, slaughter, escape and death of a captive moose. The applicant would have to agree to pay for a necropsy when a captive moose dies to determine the cause of death, and be required to notify DF&G if a wild animal enters the moose farming facility within 24-hours of the entry. The facility would have to register their moose with all three agencies, DEC, DF&G, and DNR. She said the importation of moose for moose farming purposes, and raising moose and domestic livestock on the same facility would be prohibited. She informed the committee that the two amendments being proposed were agreed to by Senator Mike Miller, sponsor of SB 46. In answer to Senator Kerttula, Ms. Sager-Stancliff said that the way CSSB 46 was presently written, domestic livestock and moose would not be allowed in the same facility. Senator Kerttula advised that brucellosis was a very dangerous and easily transmitted disease between domestic and wild animals, and this disease alone made him cautious about domesticating moose. Ms. Sager Stancliff agreed that was also a concern of Senator Miller's. End SFC-93 #32, Side 1 Begin SFC-93 #32, Side 2 DAVE KELLYHOUSE, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Fish and Game, thanked Senator Miller for including language that addressed DF&G's concerns regarding moose farming. He said that a new fiscal note had not been prepared for CSSB 46. He said that if the legislature and its constituents believe that the potential benefits of moose farming are great enough to offset the concerns and problems foreseen by DF&G, then he recommended the state proceed cautiously. He offered a conceptual alternative to CSSB 46 that would provide for a well-funded pilot project jointly administered by DF&G, DEC and DNR over the next five years. He suggested five years because in that time a moose could mature and reproduce, and monitoring could be done of the operation and procedures could be developed to safeguard Alaska's wildlife resource. He proposed that Alaska's wildlife was worth over a $100M in hunting alone plus hundreds of millions in tourist dollars. He said that whatever approach the legislature would take regarding moose farming, DF&G should be given regulatory authority along with DNR and DEC. He stated that DF&G had over 20 years experience for captive moose in the state. He reiterated that the potential for disease transmission to animals and humans, and the potential for poaching, are real concerns that must be dealt with if SB 46 was to pass. Co-chair Pearce questioned DF&G's request for a 5-year pilot project. She felt that DF&G already had spent 30 years on a pilot project at the moose research center, and questions should have been answered there. She said she was tired of DF&G saying no in a new way. Senator Kerttula said that money had been funded to visit a large Scandinavian moose facility. His opinion was that questions could be answered by investigating existing facilities. He said his main concerns were biological, and cost to the state in the enforcement of new regulations for moose facilities. In answer to Co-chair Pearce's request, Mr. Kelleyhouse agreed to have a new fiscal note and position paper from DF&G ready for the next committee meeting. Senator Kerttula asked DF&G to speak to his suggestion that information regarding moose farming was readily available from other facilities. Mr. Kelleyhouse said that Dr. Chuck Swartz, senior research biologist at the moose research center, had contacted all the game farm operations in North America and also one in the Soviet Union. He said the information Dr. Swartz had gathered has been the basis of DF&G testimony for the last two years. He said Dr. Swartz was developing a manuscript on moose farming, and it should be available within two weeks. Mr. Kelleyhouse explained that what he meant by a pilot program in earlier testimony was that DF&G would work with private enterprise at a moose facility. Senator Kerttula asked if DF&G felt that it would take another five years of research at a facility or does DF&G have enough information at this time. Mr. Kelleyhouse said he believed that moose farming would not be commercially viable in Alaska, and there were other problems too. He said the DF&G research and information has been collected in other jurisdictions and situations. If moose farming is going to proceed in Alaska under Alaskan situations, other questions would have to be answered such as, availability of feed, transportation corridors, etc. But he stated that DF&G would be willing to work with DEC and DNR in that regard. JANICE ADAIR, Assistant Commissioner, Chief Administrative Officer, Legislative Contact, Department of Environmental Conservation, said that DEC did not have any problems with SB 46. She pointed out that DEC has a meat and poultry inspection program, and within that program, employs a state veterinarian, Dr. Bert Gore. She quoted from Dr. Gore's letter which addresses disease transmission, dated February 25, 1993 (copy on file). She read, "Confined animals have difficulty transmitting disease to wildlife or other animals if there is no contact. Disease could only be transmitted from confined animals to others using a vector or intermediate host," such as a flea. "To date I am not aware of any vectors, i.e., flies, ticks, or snails, in Alaska which have been incriminated in disease transmission in livestock" with the exception of dogs and cats who "do get tapeworms from shrews, rabbits and some fleas." She also said that Dr. Gore, because of research information available, supported the farming of indigenous species in Alaska. Senator Kerttula said that he disagreed with Dr. Gore in his evaluation of disease transmission. He said a vector did not have to be involved in disease transmission. He said it could simply be a dog that went under a fence and had contact with an animal, or simply an animal that stepped in infected fecal matter. He warned that it was a dangerous situation and not to be taken lightly. Co-chair Pearce asked Cindy Roberts, Special Assistant, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, if she wished to testify. CINDY ROBERTS answered that the Department of Commerce and Economic Development was in support of SB 46, and directed the committee's attention to a position paper by the Department in their files. Co-chair Pearce invited Doug Welton to join the committee at the table. Since Mr. Welton had testified before in support of SB 46, she asked him to confine his testimony to the changes to SB 46. DOUG WELTON, testifying for himself, said that for five years he had been working on legislation to approve moose farming. He felt a key to passing SB 46 was defining the word "surplus." He said that all over Alaska moose were being killed by cars and the railroad. He felt that if individuals were allowed to salvage some of the "surplus" or orphaned moose, and relocated them to a farm, it would provide an opportunity for tourism and education. He was grateful that DF&G, for the first time, had offered their support to private moose enterprise. He felt DF&G had been studying moose for years. Mr. Welton admitted that moose had been found to be one of the most uneconomical animals to raise because of their peculiarities and need for large tracts of land. He agreed that anyone looking at moose farming would have to have other financial support. His idea was to develop a milk, yogurt and cheese market, and hoped someday, to have a small moose herd to pass on to his children. He said that raising moose gave him great pleasure, and he saw advantages to moose farming other than economical. In answer to Senator Kelly, Mr. Welton said he would keep his butchering operation separate from the tourist attraction. Mr. Welton said he would keep all the cows, but relocate any that he was unable to financially or physically care for. He said bulls would be butchered at around 18 months. His experience showed that hand raised moose were able to be bred at 18 months rather than three years. He said he would raise some of the moose as pets and some as livestock. Co-chair Frank directed attention to amendment #1 for SB 46 which changed the language on page 5, line 18 and 19, that said "on the same facility" to read "in the same fenced area." Co-chair Frank then MOVED for adoption of amendment ADOPTED for incorporation within a Finance Committee Substitute for SB 46. Senator Sharp directed attention to amendment #2 for SB 46 on page 3, which said that the moose farm would provide safe facilities for the veterinarian and the animals when required inspections were performed. Senator Sharp then MOVED for adoption of amendment #2. No objection having been raised, the amendment was ADOPTED for incorporation within a Finance Committee Substitute for SB 46. Co-Chair Pearce asked if Senator Miller's intent was to define the word "surplus." Ms. Sager-Stancliff said that Senator Miller had considered an amendment addressing orphan moose. Discussion followed between Senator Kerttula and Ms. Sager-Stancliff regarding orphan moose, and if orphan moose could be considered "surplus." Co-chair Pearce announced that CSSB 46(FIN) would be held in committee and heard again on Wednesday, March 3, 1993.