SENATE BILL NO. 250 "An Act relating to management of game and to the duties of the commissioner of fish and game." Co-Chair Sharp, sponsor of the bill, invited his staff member, Marilyn Wilson to the table. She read the sponsor statement to committee members. Co-Chair Sharp indicated he has an amendment to be offered after public testimony is heard. He noted a page taken from the Board of Game Winter 1998 Proposal Book. He pointed out the differences of definitions listed in the book to those laid out in this bill. He said the intent of the bill is to make the language more meaningful and make the definitions very clear. At this point, the committee heard public testimony. Co- Chair Sharp announced that testimony will be limited to three minutes to allow everyone a chance to participate. BILL HAGER via teleconference from FAIRBANKS was first to testify. He said the definitions and their linkage is vital to the Department of Fish and Game in implementing the intensive management plan. In his view, the department is arguing philosophy not biology and that SB 250 was needed in order to implement the laws adopted by the earlier bill, SB 77. In supporting SB 250, he is requesting fair and equal distribution for humans. LYNN LEVENGOOD via teleconference from FAIRBANKS, attorney representing the Alaska Outdoor Council supported SB 250. He asked Co-Chair Sharp about his proposed amendment and whether that would change the intent of the bill. Co-Chair Sharp explained his amendment requested very small changes that would not affect the meaning of the bill. Mr. Levengood stated his opinion that SB 250 was necessary for the implementation of the laws passed through SB 77. He said the definitions proposed in the current bill are mandatory to require the Board of Game to implement the intensive management plan. He objected to what he saw as the board's practice of trying to manage human beings rather than managing wildlife. He spoke of harvest objectives, and gave an example using the Porcupine Caribou herd. Senator Phillips asked if changes to the harvest objectives for the Porcupine herd would effect the international agreement between Alaska and Canada governing the management of the herd. It was agreed that the department representative would be better suited to address the question. SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR testified in favor of the bill. He asked about changes proposed in the Co-Chair's amendment. Co-Chair Sharp explained his amendment. Senator Taylor voiced his support of the original version of the bill. He stated that hunter success really has nothing to do with biology. He felt the Board of Game and ADF&G's efforts to date had been totally counter-productive. Co-Chair Sharp told the committee of the work done between his office and ADF&G on this and other bills. He thanked the department for their efforts and expressed his appreciation. WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Fish and Game testified for the committee. He told them the department has no objection to the definition change to intensive management proposed in Co-Chair Sharp's upcoming amendment. He did say that the bill's definition of harvestable surplus is different than the traditional method biologists have been using for years. He explained how biologists currently determine the harvestable surplus of a population using the recruitment rate rather than the birth rate as proposed in this legislation. However he felt the department could make the necessary adjustments. Mr. Regelin said the department does not think it is wise for a mandatory fixed number of harvestable surplus to be written in statute. The reason for this is the great variations between each population and even within certain populations. Instead, ADF&G is in support of requiring the Board of Game to set number for each population in regulation. The department has begun working with the board to set up a system to determine those numbers. On the matter of sustained yield, Mr. Regelin advised against defining a set number in statutes. He warned of Department of Law's concerns on the legality of such actions. Senator Phillips inquired on the department's reasons for advising against the mandating of these numbers. Mr. Regelin explained how each population is different and subject to fluctuations. Senator Phillips asked about the definition of "biologically achievable." Mr. Regelin expressed concerns about Section 5 of the bill. Passage of this section would put two statutes in conflict. He expounded, telling the committee of the statute governing the Board of Game, which specifically prohibits fiscal authority. He felt the Department of Law should explain this further. He suggested a change to this bill that would avoid the conflict. Mr. Regelin's idea would be to change the phrase to become "identified big game population". He stressed the need to clarify that the department is to spend its resources only on populations that have been identified as in need of intervention. This would circumvent the need for the Board of Game to direct the department on where to spend funds. Mr. Regelin then spoke to Senator Phillips earlier concerns regarding the Porcupine Caribou herd. He assured the committee that any changes enacted by this legislation would not affect the international agreement with Canada. He said the harvest levels are so low that herd numbers are not significantly impacted. Senator Torgerson inquired about the accompanying fiscal note. He questioned the high costs listed and wondered if some of the proposed duties aren't already being carried out by the department. If they are, he felt the funding needed shouldn't be so large. Mr. Regelin responded that the department had already drafted a new, zero fiscal note. He explained his reasons for the high numbers indicated on the first version. At the time of first receiving the bill, he was unsure of the intent of the legislation's impact on the department and therefore wanted to show the committee the breakdown of costs of running a wolf control program. He thought it could be helpful for the legislators to see those figures. Since then, he's come to understand the intention and predicts the department could adequately run the program using existing funds. The new fiscal note would be sent to the committee soon. This concluded the public testimony for SB 250. Senator Torgerson moved for adoption of Amendment #1, drafted by Co-Chair Sharp. Senator Adams objected. There was discussion between Co-Chair Sharp and Mr. Regelin about the definition issues. Mr. Regelin stated that the amendment would help clarify things. He referred to the wording allowing certain populations to be targeted for growth rather than strictly sustained yield - like the Fortymile Caribou herd. Upon hearing that the department had a chance to study this amendment and had no problems with it, he removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment #1 was adopted. Senator Torgerson offered Amendment #2 and moved for its adoption. He explained this would address Mr. Regelin's concerns stated earlier regarding direction of the department's resources only to identified big game populations. There was no objection to this amendment and Co-Chair Sharp ordered Amendment #2 adopted. Senator Torgerson then moved Senate Finance Committee Substitute for SB 250 with a new, zero fiscal note from committee. Co-Chair Sharp moved the bill from committee there being no objection.