SB 262 MANAGEMENT OF FISH/GAME POPULATION & AREA  SENATOR LEMAN announced SB 262 to be up for consideration. MARY GORE, Staff to Senator Miller, sponsor, said she had highlighted the changes for the committee. SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt the committee substitute to SB 262. There were no objections and it was so ordered. SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if the Tanana Chiefs supported the legislation with the current changes. MS. GORE replied that they do. LYNN LEVENGOOD, Fairbanks, supported the committee substitute. He said it was absolutely necessary to reverse the plummeting laws of consumptive use opportunities by politically based closures to their uses. BILL PERHACH, Alaska Environmental Lobby, commented on the assumption that game should be managed for the maximum sustained yield by human harvest. This is assuming that human consumption is the highest and best use. He said like a lot of people in the Denali Borough he makes his living through tourism. He has worked for the last 14 years with the packaged tour segment of the market and the last six years with eco-tourism which is just booming. In over 20 years he has seen tourism growth between 3 - 16 percent every year. They sell two things at Denali - the Mountain and watchable wildlife. He said the animals in the park are affected by what happens around the perimeter of the park. They are looking for some sort of acknowledgement that this wildlife is a product a kind of subsistence activity. It is the way they make their living - a nonconsumptive use of the wildlife. MR. PERHACH said there are two native corporations in the Denali Borough right now which are looking at tourism because they can't continue to live off of resource extraction. Ahtna, for example, is actively engaged in a project in Broad Pass. The Doyon Corp. just bought property in Kantishna where subsistence hunting is still allowed (inside the park). He thought that once Doyon started trying to make a living from tourism they might also request some relief from Senator Miller. Number 146 SENATOR HALFORD explained one of the conflicts is the source of funding for the management and he asked if it was reasonable for management of these resources to be paid for by the taxes, revenue sharing, and license fees of hunters. MR. PERHACH said he didn't see why the tourist industry shouldn't contribute. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if thought that managing for consumptive uses is somehow going to be detrimental to those people who view. MR. PERHACH said the folks he deals with are not going to get off the road corridor for their experience, so he didn't have a problem with subsistence and recreational hunting. He helps people who work for their meat. It's people who hunt in road corridors who are a problem for him and his clientele. He said this is a very complex issue and the bill is very simplistic. He didn't think they could predict what the impact would be if they continue to allow this type of access to game. He sensed that as hunting from the road increases, the game year round disappears. MR. PERHACH said his most important concern is that he get some acknowledgement that wildlife viewing is just as important as consumptive use. SENATOR HALFORD asked if he thought he'd win in the battle if wildlife were managed according to a public mandate. MR. PERHACH said he thought it would. TAPE 96-27, SIDE A Number 001 KEN TAYLOR, Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, said he noticed some changes that weren't mentioned before. On page 2, line 21 "highest" was substituted for "high" and "greater than" was included at the end of the sentence. On line 24 "the highest" was substituted for "a high." The same occurs on page 4, line 1 and line 5. There are three portions of this version of SB 262 that cause the Department concern. The first is in section 1 which mandates the game population should be managed solely for maximum sustained yield by human harvest. The definitions which follow would mandate harvest levels that could only be achieved only by reducing wolf and bear populations to extremely low levels and by wide spread establishment of antlerless moose hunts which even are prohibited in AS16.05.780. The second concern is that the bill would prohibit the expenditure of federal aid to ADF&G from management of non-game species. The fact is that the non-game program was established to meet the statutory requirements of the Alaska Endangered Species Statute which passed in 1971. The purpose of that statute is to establish a program for conservation, protection, restoration, and propagation of species listed as endangered in Alaska. He said their track record has been excellent in that regard. If these programs go unfunded and we fail to meet our conservation and management responsibilities for non-game or endangered species, Alaska's authority to manage these resources will be further eroded. Currently ADF&G has a place at the table of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on Endangered Species management. We are actively involved in decisions on Goshawks and wolves in Southeast Alaska, eiders and Aleutian Canada Geese, and peregrin falcons in the Arctic (recently delisted). If funding is eliminated for this small State program, we will be shut out of the endangered species decision making process, leaving this entirely up to the federal agencies. Our marine mammal program also focuses on endangered species such as the Stellar sea lion and the bowhead whale. MR. TAYLOR said that we fund only two positions to establish expertise in this area, but we are known world-wide. Their third concern is that section 2 removes authority from the Board of Game to restrict public access in a variety areas, including sanctuaries, refuges, and special management areas. Since statehood the Board has adopted several management areas and controlled use areas that restrict access methods and means to reduce conflicts between user groups, provide for various quality hunting experiences the public has desired, and to maximize opportunities for participation and hunting. Without this tool the Board will be forced to shorten seasons, establish additional tier II permit hunts which Alaskan hunters overwhelmingly oppose, or close areas entirely. The Board has recently taken a regional approach to considering regulatory changes and all areas will be reviewed to determine if they are meeting the objectives for which they were established. The provision in section 1(b) that mandates the Board to open an area at least three times larger than an area closed is really unrealistic. Nearly all the lands closed to hunting in Alaska are under federal management over which the State has no authority. The Board would essentially be prohibited from passing any regulations in the future that restrict methods, manner, or means in an area as hunting pressure increases or shifts from one area to another. Their only options would be to shorten seasons or to close them and be subject to litigation. Serving on the Board of Game is a tiring and thankless task. Subjecting Board members to litigation and personal liability for decisions they make in the interests of Alaskans would likely result in many of them resigning. Section 2(b) would prohibit access restrictions in sanctuaries. This provision is in direct conflict with AS16.20.094 and AS16.21.62 which specifically authorize the Board to adopt regulations governing public entry onto these lands. Without this authority unrestricted public access would soon render these areas useless as sanctuaries. The cost of this to Alaska's economy, national image, and ultimate authority to manage its resources is impossible to calculate. MR. TAYLOR concluded saying the Department really didn't see a great deal of change in this version from the original version and remains opposed. Number 130 SENATOR TAYLOR asked how all the other managers who are doing work under the Endangered Species Act were being paid. MR. TAYLOR replied in their Marine Mammal Program there are two positions that are funded in their budget ($163,000). All of the other positions, projects, and work that's done in marine mammals cost $1.5 - $2 million and are all federal funds. A sizeable chunk of money comes from the National Marine Fisheries Servey to work on Stellar Sea Lions. Because of that funding they have been working identifying separate stocks in the stellar sea lion population. The stock in the Bristol Bay area has been declining much more rapidly than the stock in Southeast Alaska. SENATOR TAYLOR said he knew the Department was involved in more non-game species management than just the two marine mammal programs he commented on and asked where the funding for that came from. MR. TAYLOR replied that they get funding from the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service to do goshawk and archipelago wolf research. They get funding for the peregrin falcon work through section 7 Fish and Wildlife Service Funds. These are all special project accounts. They aren't part of the permanent budget. SENATOR TAYLOR asked how many employees were being paid mostly from the State budget and just a token amount from federal funds. MR. TAYLOR replied comparing all the special projects funding to amount of funding that's in their base budget, they will find that what he has said is true. Most of the funding that goes to both non-game and marine mammal programs comes from other sources. Number 235 SENATOR HALFORD asked if the Endangered Species Act treats the Stellar sea lions as one population. MR. TAYLOR answered that he wasn't an expert on the Endangered Species Act, but he thinks the Act treats them as one population. The Department is arguing that they are two population stocks and there are provisions in the Endangered Species Act that allow for that. SENATOR HALFORD asked if the one population that wasn't in trouble is of sufficient strength to carry the population that is in trouble if they are managed as one species. He said he was trying to figure out if the State's position was the same as the congressional delegation's position regarding the reauthorization of Endangered Species Act. MR. TAYLOR said he didn't know what our delegation is doing on that issue and he wasn't an expert. He said that the population has declined overall in Alaska from 120,000 stellar sea lions in the 1950's to 30,000 statewide which is why they are listed as threatened. He didn't know if 30,000 was sufficient to carry the population. Number 306 SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if the Board of Game was the public official he was referring to when he said they might not be able to get people to serve if they are going to get sued. MR. TAYLOR replied yes and the reason he brought it up is because the Board of Game makes the decisions on which areas are going to be open or closed. They are the only public officials who do make those decisions, so the penalty clause will apply to them alone. SENATOR HALFORD said regarding the access provision - the public trust would be breached by restricting public access to State game refuges, etc. and he didn't agree with the concern that the animals move away and don't come back. Some access methods do provide some pretty significant impacts that stay there for a long time and may have some negative impact on tourism and he thought they should add an exception that might read, "except where such restrictions are solely for the purpose of protecting habitat from direct damage due to the method of access." SENATOR LEMAN said he wouldn't object to such an amendment. SENATOR TAYLOR said his only concern was that it would be misused as well as it was used and withdrew his objection. SENATOR HALFORD moved to insert on page 3 "except where such restrictions are solely for the purpose of protecting habitat from direct damage due to the method of access." There were no objections and it was so ordered. SENATOR HOFFMAN moved on page 2, line 10 to delete "or public official" and on line 11 delete, "a public official is not immune from suit under this section." His primary concern was being able to get competent people to serve on the Board of Game. SENATOR TAYLOR objected; he said he believed people needed to be accountable. SENATOR HOFFMAN repeated his concern that they wouldn't be able to get people to service. SENATOR TAYLOR agreed that it was a bit harsh, but he thought the point needed to be made that someone had to be accountable. SENATOR HALFORD said he thought there might be two questions where on line 10 the public official could be the Commissioner acting on an emergency closure or something else. He thought it wasn't just Board members and he thought it could be drafted in a way to exclude the Board members. SENATOR TAYLOR withdrew his objection. SENATOR HOFFMAN amended his motion to just Board members, not public officials. There were no objections and the amendment to the amendment was adopted. SENATOR LEMAN asked if there was any objection to SENATOR HOFFMAN'S amended amendment. There were no more objections and it was adopted. SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass CSSB 262 (res)(am) from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.