SRES 2/12/96 SB 262 MANAGEMENT OF FISH/GAME POPULATION & AREA  CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to order at 3:36 p.m. and announced SB 262 to be up for consideration. SENATOR MILLER, sponsor of SB 262, said the intent of the bill is basically for any acre that comes out of hunting for no good biological reason at the next Board meeting that five acres of land not already open to hunting replace it. Now, if there are good biological reasons for shutting land down, additional lands do not have to be put back into hunting. MR. LYNN LEVENGOOD, Fairbanks attorney representing Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association, said that Alaska consumptive users have lost nearly the size of the state of Wyoming in one form or another. The most recent and alarming trend has happened in 1995 when the Board of Game restricted land for harvest without any biological reason. The most notable was restricting over 200 square miles on the Alaska Peninsula from bear hunting. Recently the Board of Game closed 90 square miles in the Mat-Su Valley to hunting by rifles without biological reasons. Number 134 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked Mr. Levengood for the work he had done on this legislation. MR. WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, said that SB 262 would modify several existing statutes related to hunting and fishing in Alaska. The first section would mandate that game populations be managed solely for maximum sustained yield for human harvest and that defines consumptive use as the highest and best use of game. It would mandate that if the Board of Game closes an area or restricts hunting in an area in any way, it must open a similar area at least five times larger than that area which is closed. This provision has some major implications for the State subsistence law. If areas are moved into a Tier II or a Tier I hunt by the Board of Game to protect subsistence uses, other areas would be required to be opened before such restriction could be continued. In most cases such areas wouldn't be available, so the restrictions would probably have to go away or couldn't occur in the first place. The Board of Game would have serious difficulty in closing any season in any area under the provisions in section 1 of this bill. Each temporary closure due to a biological emergency would be subject to litigation as provided for by paragraphs (c) and (d) in this section. It doesn't specify they can be closed for biological reasons, it just says flat that you can't. Section 2 of SB 262 would outlaw restrictions on public access to any refuge, sanctuary, or special management area, and would provide for civil actions against public officials who allow restrictions to occur. It would also restrict the use of revenue from federal aid and licenses to certain programs. Sections 3 - 7 would modify statutes to guarantee access to refuges, sanctuaries, and critical habitat areas, for sport fishing, hunting, and trapping consistent with the maximum sustained yield. The Department has real concerns with this for a number of reasons. It would be impossible for them to manage any of Alaska's wildlife populations consistent with the definition of harvestable surplus, high levels of human harvest, and maximum sustained yield as provided in section 1. The most intensively harvested wildlife populations in the world can't meet these requirements. The three definitions all tie together and would require reducing predators to extremely low levels so that we could have more human harvest. There is no doubt if we reduce predators we could have human harvest, but in their judgment they would never be able to supply one third or more of the harvestable surplus as defined in this bill even where there's no predation. MR. REGELIN said even in Sweden they can't reach that level. They harvest about 30 percent of their moose each year. They have no predators and almost no winter loss, but 50 percent of the harvest they take is of calves that are four months old. Twenty-five percent is cows. He didn't know if we wanted to do that in Alaska, but he thought we couldn't achieve the same situation in the type of eco-system that we have. SENATOR TAYLOR asked for the number of moose harvested in Sweden. MR. REGELIN replied that they are taking over 100,000 moose per year in Sweden. SENATOR TAYLOR asked why Sweden, a tiny country, can harvest 100,000 moose every year. MR. REGELIN said that Sweden has about 400,000 moose and they are about one fifth the size of Alaska. Their forest management practices have allowed moose populations to increase to very high levels. They have intensive forestry on 160 acre blocks which they manage for moose. The big difference is that they don't have winters that kill animals and they don't have very many predators - one pack of wolves in northern Sweden and very few bears. The tree species they manage for is lodge pole pine which moose can eat. Here moose can't eat spruce. So weather and food resource are the real differences. Number 240 MR. REGELIN said paragraph 3 (b) is very vague. Most wildlife populations in Alaska are subject to federal subsistence management that is not recognized by State law. A strict interpretation of this paragraph would prohibit expenditure of fish and game funds or federal aid funds for management of all of these populations. Further, it would disallow intensive management in an area like the Nelchina Basin where the Nelchina caribou herd is subject to rural preference under the federal law. He didn't feel that this law would be workable. MR. REGELIN emphasized that the word has been spread that the harvest of wildlife in Alaska is way down. That's just not true if you look at the record. For instance, 20 years ago 3,000 moose were harvested in Alaska; last year 7,300 were harvested. We used to harvest about 5,000 caribou; last year we harvested over 30,000. Harvest statistics for Fairbanks are higher today than 20 years ago, nearly double. He said a bill like this would do a lot of damage to Alaska in the long run. Twenty years ago very few people were interested in wildlife management, basically just hunters. Today lots of people are interested in how we manage wildlife, are demanding services, and want a place at the table when decisions are made. It is happening throughout the nation. Hunters are not the only ones who own the wildlife. It belongs to all the people of Alaska and we have to be good stewards of this resource. Saying the only and best use of wildlife is human consumptive use in the long term will be really damaging to hunters, because he didn't think we could hold that position. MR. REGELIN said over 95 percent of their budget is directly related to maintaining and enhancing hunting opportunity. We also have to provide benefits to the other people who like to view wildlife. If those people are shut out of the equation, they won't stand for it. And they are the majority. Number 300 SENATOR TAYLOR said the only portion left of the Department of Fish and Game budget that comes out of the general fund is the commercial fisheries budget. The rest are federal pass-through monies and State monies from license fees paid for by hunters, from taxes paid by people who purchase guns, fishing poles, lures, etc. He asked what amount of funding they were receiving from these "other groups of people who want to sit at the table." MR. REGELIN replied that right now we are not receiving anything from them. They are working hard on getting some federal legislation with matching funds from the State so that non- consumptive users can pay their own way. He said there is no doubt that hunters have been paying their own way for years. Because of the dollars they have contributed there is very good wildlife management. They spend $620,000 of the ADF&G budget on all of the non-consumptive use programs, including wildlife education (Project Wild), work on endangered species, and about $350,000 on wildlife viewing programs. He said there is no doubt that the primary use of the fish and game fund and license fees has to primarily benefit hunting and fishing, and trapping. The Department does that. He emphasized that the Department uses four and a half percent of the budget to have a balanced program, so that when non-hunters see a controversial program, they don't turn against us. With legislation like this he was afraid non-hunters, about 60 percent of Alaska, would turn into anti-hunters. Number 331 SENATOR TAYLOR asked how many moose the people in Sweden harvested twenty years ago. He asked if they had significantly enhanced availability of moose to hunt, wouldn't they be enhancing the numbers of moose to view as well? He asked what recommendations he could make to avoid conflicts with subsistence users who should be the primary benefiters of this legislation. MR. REGELIN replied that the situation in Sweden is a completely different eco-system which Alaska will never match. In Alaska where they were able to manage most intensively there were almost four moose per square mile, although that level cannot be held for very long. Prescribed fires are difficult because State, federal, and private lands are all together in most places and mechanical manipulation is very costly. Predation management in Alaska, wolf control, has been very controversial for years. It's not going to change; it's an issue that affects not just game management and the Division of Wildlife Conservation; it affects the entire State of Alaska. Because of this, decisions on whether or not to implement predator management programs have been made by the Governor. The last four governors have been involved in those decisions. The Department tries to have the information ready to follow the law that says what information has to be collected, so the Board can make those decisions. These decisions are going to be made in the political branch, not the Division of Wildlife. Number 388 SENATOR TAYLOR asked what amount of money his department has requested for predator control. MR. REGELIN replied that they have asked for no funding. They are waiting for a review by the National Academy of Sciences and then the Governor will make a decision on whether or not to proceed. SENATOR HOFFMAN commented regarding page 3, section 3 (b) we would be inviting the federal government to come in and manage the resources the State would be prohibited from managing and the people of Alaska want to go in the other direction. MR. REGELIN agreed that the way the bill is structured it would prohibit the Department from spending any money in an area where the federal government has implemented its system of management. SENATOR TAYLOR questioned where the funding for his department comes from. MR. REGELIN explained that the only sources of funding are from the fish and game fund and license fees. Every one needs to have a State hunting license, whether they are hunting on State, private, or federal land. Number 428 SENATOR HOFFMAN asked which areas of the State and specific populations were not managed for consumptive uses. MR. REGELIN replied that Round Island is now open to hunting through a special agreement with the local Native residents of that area and in the 10 years he has worked for the Board of Game, two areas have been closed to hunting. One is Pack Creek and the other is the McNeil River Refuge. In the past they had harvested up to three bears per year at McNeil River and there is no problem with the population of bears in that area. The Board of Game heard that issue and as a Department they made an unprecedented request to the Board to close an area when there was no biological need. The reason is simply because this area had become an issue on the international and national stage. Hunting at McNeil was on TV night after night across the nation with Dan Rather making it look like people were harvesting bears at McNeil Falls while people were watching them. This was totally untrue, but that was the perception. It was turning non-hunters across the nation into anti-hunters. For three bears a year it was a tremendous way for anti-hunting groups to raise money. When he sees something that detrimental to the image of hunters, he felt it was a fight we couldn't win. He said he hates to see areas closed to hunting and his Department fights hard to enhance hunting opportunity. Number 468 SENATOR LINCOLN stated she would ask just two of her questions in deference to the many people that wanted to testify on this issue. She asked MARY GORE, Senator Miller's Legislative Aide, if SB 262 is a replacement for a subsistence bill. MS. GORE said Senator Miller would have to answer that question. SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Regelin if he read this bill as a subsistence bill or if it has an affect on subsistence or rural preference. MR. REGELIN answered that he didn't think this bill had anything to do with rural preference or the subsistence issue, but it does affect it because of the way the law is structured. It would affect how they would continue to spend money on populations that are only used for subsistence purposes. Number 518 SENATOR TAYLOR noted that that concern is handled on page 3, paragraph 3 where it says specifically that if they are going to use revenue that has been generated from taxes, license fees, and other fees paid by sportsmen, or funds received from federal aid in sport fish in wildlife restoration programs, then they shouldn't use it in an area where no one can hunt or fish. So those subsistence areas where the general public can't hunt should have some other funding source. BILL HAGAR, Fairbanks resident, said the goals of the Department of Wildlife Conservation have been shifted from biological sciences to behavioral sciences or social engineering. This bill provides the guidance the Department needs to manage game according to the constitution. MICK MANNS, Bettles resident, supported SB 262, because it would get us back towards our State Constitution. He said the sheep and moose populations are being wiped out and we've got to get things back to where there is a sustained yield. Without that nothing in the Department of Fish and Game would make much sense. Number 570 PETE SHEPHERD supported SB 262 because it sends a very pointed message to ADF&G, the Board of Game, and other State agencies which are philosophically and not biologically driven. Human consumptive use is a priority use of fish and game according to the Constitutional mandate. He credited the senators for recognizing the need for civil recourse for unjustified bureaucratic stonewalls and philosophical differences. The bill addresses the problems inherent in State agencies which appear to be at odds with consumptive use. TAPE 96-13, SIDE B TOM SCARBOROUGH, Fairbanks resident, said SB 262 is a lands bill. Areas hunters can use are being restricted more and more and he thought this legislation is absolutely necessary. MIKE TINKER, said SB 262 sets goals and objectives and gives direction to the Department to set policy so that they don't have to manage for such a wide spectrum of interests. Every agency needs clear goals, he said. Because of the complexities of managing wildlife let's get the biologists back to using biology, he said. It is extremely important to have the definitions included in this bill. Number 561 GEORGE YASKA, Tanana Chiefs Conference, said they like the use of the term maximum sustained yield. They do support certain forms of predator control. He said that the legislature has rarely funded maximum sustained yield programs beyond the Fairbanks area. He wanted due consideration given to areas outside of areas generally considered as non-subsistence areas. They are concerned that section 15.20.75 as amended would provide an unhealthy level of competition for subsistence resources within the moose management areas. He cautioned the legislature about guarantees for sports hunting within official management areas that are under Tier II restrictions. Guaranteed access under this amendment for sports hunters may not be unhealthy for sports hunters, but would be decidedly unhealthy for rural subsistence hunters that are generally not able to compete with the quota of hunters that would be found under the proposed scenario. Number 542 MR. LEVENGOOD reported that this bill is in no way a subsistence bill. It would prevent less land from being taken out of consumptive uses which would benefit all uses and it would provide a guaranteed access, not limited to sport hunters. In areas where Tier II preferences are given this bill would have absolutely no effect. SENATOR TAYLOR said he thought that predator control was one of the issues driving this legislation and there was a proposed $0 budget for predator control this year. SENATOR LEMAN noted that predator control could be very effective if done by people outside of the Department in rural Alaska. Number 504 SENATOR MILLER reiterated that this is not a subsistence bill and it wouldn't negatively impact subsistence. He said he would work with the Department on their concerns. SENATOR HOFFMAN commented that they say it wouldn't impact subsistence, but according to Senator Taylor's interpretation of page 3, section 3 that no money could be utilized to manage in areas in conflict with our State Constitution. That's exactly in the areas of subsistence. The resources could not be managed for subsistence hunts which would impact subsistence. SENATOR MILLER said that other general funds cover the subsistence budget. SENATOR LEMAN said they would hold the bill for further work.