SB 250 - MANAGEMENT OF GAME CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to order at 3:39 p.m. and announced SB 250 to be up for consideration and said that it further defines intensive management. MS. MARILYN WILSON, Staff to Senator Sharp, sponsor, said in 1994 legislation was passed implementing intensive game management. Since that time, the ADF&G and the Board of Game have had difficulty interpreting and implementing this legislation. SB 250 narrows down and defines legislative findings that provides for high levels of harvest for human consumption consistent with the sustained yield principle. It further states big game prey populations should be managed biologically by amending AS 16.05.255(g) and adding a new definition for sustained yield. The Board of Game is further instructed to establish harvest goals and seasons for managing big game prey populations to achieve a high level of human harvest. The Commissioner, by delegation of the Board, shall cooperate and assist by implementing regulations, management plans and other programs to accomplish these goals. To further assist the Board and the Department, the bill contains definitions for harvestable surplus and high levels of human harvest. These are terms that are in existing law and it has become evident they beg for clear definition. MR. WAYNE REGELIN, Director, said he wanted to refresh their memory about how the intensive management law was intended to work. It required the Board of Game to adopt regulations to restore to abundance, or to increase productivity of big game populations identified by the Board of Game. The Board was to go through a process to determine if the population was depleted or not productive and if enhancement was feasible. If that were the case in a population, the Board is prohibited from reducing the take of that population unless they adopted a regulation to intensively manage that herd. The Board worked hard to try to figure out how to implement this law and decided to do so on the basis of an individual regulation. Each time a regulation proposal was considered that would reduce the harvest level of a big game population, the intensive management law was triggered and they would go through the review process. This has proved to be an inefficient and ineffective way to implement the law. The ADF&G suggested that the Board of Game change their process and implement the law in a more comprehensive fashion. Last year, the Board agreed to that concept and has been moving forward to make that happen. He thought that, not only did the Board and administration realize it wasn't an effective way to do it, so did the legislature. That's why they have SB 250 before them. MR. REGELIN said SB 250 would require the Board of Game to establish population and harvest goals to manage all big game populations to achieve a 25 percent harvest level. This bill defines a harvestable surplus as being equal to the number of animals born in a population less the number of animals that die from all causes other than predation or human harvest. This would require the ADF&G to have to manage every ungulate population in the State to meet the 25 percent harvest goal regardless of whether there was a demand for that level of harvest by hunters or not. The cost would be prohibitive and wouldn't be necessary for many of the populations. The Department would rather focus their funds and management efforts on the high priority populations based on hunter demand. Also, it's just not possible to achieve a 25 percent harvest rate for some populations without severe reductions in predator populations or the harvest of significant numbers of females. His Division has been working with the Board of Game for nearly a year to implement the intensive management law. The Board of Game took the first step in this comprehensive approach last month at their meeting in Bethel. They passed a regulation that will have them identify big game populations that are important for providing high levels of human harvest. They use four criteria to make this decision: historical use of the population, accessibility for the hunters, utilization for meat, and hunter demand. The Board would also prioritize the moose and caribou populations that are the most important based on hunter demand. In March, the Board of Game will meet again and consider some definitions that would help implement this law and will begin the process of identifying the next populations that are high priority. They would hold hearings to determine what the hunter demand should be. Local advisory committees would be involved as well as other hunters. The Board would set harvest objectives based on demands that are achievable. They would not have to rely on a formula- driven system that is arbitrary, that may not meet the needs of the hunters, and in some places would be biologically impossible to achieve. He urged them to let the Board process continue. He thought the approach they are using now will work with the intent of the law without using an arbitrary formula that isn't good wildlife management. Number 120 SENATOR TAYLOR asked for some examples of why it would be bad wildlife policy to manage predators so humans had more animals to consume. MR. REGELIN said he didn't think it was bad wildlife policy to manage predators. They would like to regulate them like other big game species and try to do that in many places through their normal hunting and trapping efforts, especially with wolves. However, reducing the wolf population becomes extremely controversial. The public doesn't like it. One tool they were able to use without a lot of controversy was the land and shoot which was defeated on an initiative in 19 out of 20 Senate Districts at the last election. Now they try to use innovative things like in the 40 Mile caribou herd area through a combination of sterilization of wolves and moving them out of the area. SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Regelin to clarify the proposed required 25 percent harvestable goal and asked if he did have to do that what would happen? MR. REGELIN responded that he thought the bill now says all big game populations would be managed for this harvest level which he thought could be worked out to allow the Board of Game to prioritize so they only do the biggest and the ones most important for human use. If it were the law, they would try to manage for those goals along with the Board of Game. In some places, it just can't be done and in some places it can. For example, management unit 20 A, just south of Fairbanks, a very important area for human use, has about 13,000 moose. This is probably more than they have had for a long time. Those 13,000 moose produce 6,200 calves a year. The 25 percent goal mandated in SB 250 would be a harvest level of 1,485 moose. They could do that for moose without doing any predator control and they would like to have a higher harvest in that area. They do not want a bigger herd and there is a 25 day season in that area. Last year the hunters took 678 moose. They have a very limited cow hunt, but advisory committees don't want cows shot. They can't get a much higher population harvest without harvesting cows or they get a very distorted bull/cow ratio and defeat their own purpose. Besides cows, to have that 25 percent harvest level, you need to distribute the hunter effort evenly across the entire unit which is extremely hard to do. Some places are inaccessible and some are impossible because they are in a military fly zone where hunters can't go. They would like to harvest more, but aren't sure how to do it. They don't want to do it without the ability to harvest cows. This is an area where you don't want to be driven by an arbitrary number. However, in the same management area they have the Delta caribou herd, about 3,500 animals. It used to be 7 - 8,000 animals. The department is trying to rebuild it since it reached a low of 1,800 animals and harvest is very restricted in this area. It was entirely closed for a few years. To achieve the 25 percent harvest level of that caribou herd would require them to reduce the wolf population in that area by about 75 percent. He didn't know if that could be done. He didn't like to spend a lot of effort and money and take a lot of political pressures to try to manage a herd that's never going to be more than 5,000 - 6,000 animals. He would rather put those efforts into something like the 40 Mile caribou herd where there are 25,000 and we could have 200,000. Number 273 SENATOR TAYLOR said where he referenced arbitrary and capricious formulas it said, "opportunity with a high probability of success for humans to harvest at least one quarter of the harvestable population," on page 2, lines 5 - 7. It doesn't say you have to go out every year and kill 25 percent of every game population; it's just a goal. He asked him if he thought he was doing his job if he balked at killing wolves if it was biologically required. MR. REGELIN responded that there is no argument that says they can't go out and do that except you have to remember that it's a publicly owned resource and they are supposed to manage them the way the public wants them to be managed. SENATOR TAYLOR interrupted saying that they set policy in the legislature and they represent the public and he is part of the executive branch that is supposed to carry out the policies the legislature sets. He asked how many wolves had been taken in the last three years in area 20A. MR. REGELIN replied that they hadn't taken any out of that population at all. SENATOR TAYLOR asked why not. MR. REGELIN answered because they didn't have an approved wolf reduction program right now. They had one on the books which became extremely controversial and was curtailed. He said we need to manage predators where it's the most important to do it. It's highly controversial. They are not going to be able to do it statewide on all the smaller populations. They have to be careful and do it where they have a lot of support. SENATOR TAYLOR said that his department made the decision not to protect or enhance the 20A caribou herd, other than to stop human harvest, by not killing any wolves and having no program. MR. REGELIN said that herd is continuing to grow and they would like it to grow more and are trying experimental ways to reduce wolf predation, but they aren't going out to kill them right now. In the 40 Mile area, they have moved 19 wolves earlier this winter as part of the experiment they are doing with sterilization and movement. They have sterilized six packs and have moved 19 wolves into other areas and will move about 30 more in March. The hope is that the sterilized wolves will maintain their pack territory and not have any pups and not have others join them. SENATOR TAYLOR asked them if they caught the entire pack. MR. REGELIN said no, they caught the alpha male and alpha female and sterilized them. One can tell easily by looking at wolf behavior out of an airplane which ones are alpha. He explained that when they sterilized the alpha animal, they moved out all the subdominate adults and left only pups. Those pups will be removed this spring. Typically young wolves are learning to kill at about the same time young calves are out there. They can kill a tremendous amount of calves and this seems to be working in the Yukon Territory. He explained that the neutered animals still eat, but they don't have to teach the pups to kill which takes a lot more animals. The rate really goes down. They hope to do this for three or four years and get that population on a growth projectory. He thought they could have over 100,000 caribou out there in short order. SENATOR TAYLOR asked how their program compared with the private program that was done on the 40 Mile. MR. REGELIN answered that the private program was the trapping community that some of the fur buyers paid an incentive for wolves taken in the area. The department has done their best to work with those people and have kept the trapping open except in the pack territories where they have sterilized the wolves. They don't want them to catch the sterilized wolves. He said trappers took quite a few wolves over a period of two years - about 30 percent. He said they helped the sterilization experiment by reducing the number of wolves on the periphery so that fewer subadults would move in. A 35 percent harvest rate doesn't decrease the wolf population. They can reproduce at the rate of 30 - 40 percent per year. So at 30 percent, you're just maintaining the population. Number 360 SENATOR LINCOLN said she was having difficulty reading section 4 the same as Senator Taylor. He read it as a recommendation of at least 25 percent while Mr. Regelin thought it was a mandate. She asked him why he concluded it was a mandate. MR. REGELIN said the way the language was constructed it was certainly meant to be a mandate. He has never heard it wasn't supposed to be. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if there were definitions somewhere. She didn't know what opportunity with a high probability means. She also had difficulty with the $600,000 fiscal note which would be affected depending on the interpretation. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said it didn't matter how much they push on this end of the rope, the other end doesn't move. SENATOR LINCOLN said it sounds like the pushing at this end of the rope has already started because the Board of Game has already started to implement what the authors of this legislation are attempting to do. If they have moved so much in one year, why not allow them time to address the concerns that are here. Who are they in the legislature if they think they can become the Board of Game? SENATOR TAYLOR said they just set policy for them to carry out. He noted that the department is only going to identify four populations to be managed in this fashion. He asked how much the privately funded program cost the department on the 40 Mile. MR. REGELIN responded that he made the assumption to limit it to four populations in the fiscal note, because he tries to make the figures real. Each population would cost about $150,000. The private program did not cost the department a penny. It was a private program that takes about 30 percent of the wolf population every year. The wolf population will not decrease when you harvest 30 percent of the population. They have to be reduced by 60 - 75 percent for four years to make it work. That's why the efforts of both the department the trappers are needed to make this a successful program. SENATOR TAYLOR said figures from his department on the 40 Mile herd are about 126 wolves the first year, 80 or so the second year and they did that at no cost to the department. At the end of the second year there was an increase in calf survival in that population of about 13 percent. He said Mr. Regelin could have just answered that the trappers were doing the department's job for them and that the herd is increasing. MR. REGELIN responded that if he thought that was an accurate statement, he would have said it. There was a small increase in the caribou survival rate and the trappers get credit for that. The department has studied wolf predation on caribou and moose populations for many years. No one can argue with the 35 percent(that trappers take). If they were taking 60 percent, he wouldn't have to do this. But they weren't. He said the trappers are still being very effective out there. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he thought it was so expensive to do it, why didn't they just let the legislature go out and provide an incentive for the trappers to go do the job they can't figure out how to do. He asked what moose the people of McGrath have been able to harvest over the last three years. MR. REGELIN replied that last year the community of McGrath harvested 87 moose in McGrath, one of the highest levels of harvest they have had in quite a while. They are working closely with those people to teach them how to trap in that area. They are providing trapper education schools and encouraging them to trap. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they had to be taught to go out and do the job his department was not doing in that area. MR. REGELIN replied that they had requested them to provide trapper education classes for a lot of the people out there and they have done so. It's very difficult to do and a lot of people don't know how. They were asked to come out. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if his sterilization program was so effective, why weren't they teaching them how to neuter wolves. MR. ROD ARNO, Alaska Outdoor Council, supported the basic concept of SB 250, but would like to continue working with the bill's sponsors regarding definition of terms. Managing big game prey populations under the sustained yield principle embodied in Article 8, Section 4 of Alaska's constitution is ecologically sound and environmentally correct. It's also needed now to reduce the allocation conflicts they see along road accessible areas where urban and rural hunters are meeting. Although SB 77 was passed in 1994 and the fund for enhancing abundance was provided by the legislature in 1995, little has been done to meet the demand for the harvest objectives of those Alaskans who choose to have wild food harvest as part of their lifestyle. In the 1995-'96 season, over 47,000 tags were put out for moose and about 30,000 who took out their tags returned them and 7,000 actually got a moose. There are low moose populations in game management unit 12, 19c, 19d, 20c, 20d, 20e, 20f, 21, 24, 25, and 26. Some of them are as low as they have been in the last 20 years. Something needs to be done to correct the chronic game shortages. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if there were parts of the bill that they questioned since they only support the concept of it. MR. ARNO said there are parts they still want to work on because they are not biologically achievable and the other is the definition of sustained yield. So far there is no definition because of all the variables. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if he had some sort of historical data that show how many licenses were given in one year and how many were actually successfully by percentage. MR. ARNO answered yes, he had figures from ADF&G. The number of licensed hunters for nonresidents for the last 22 years has fluctuated between 8,000 - 10,000. It hasn't increased. The number of resident hunters has been close to 80,000 and has fluctuated 5,000 - 7,000 either way. The overall number hasn't increased. SENATOR LINCOLN asked what the ratio was of resident hunters that were successful to nonresident hunters. MR. ARNO answered that there was a higher percentage for non- resident hunters because they are guided. The success rate shows 60 - 70 percent for guided hunts. SENATOR LINCOLN explained the reason she asked is she wanted to know how many of the nonresident hunters were just new and would fit into the 47,000. MR. ARNO answered that he wasn't sure of that figure, but figures on the take by nonresidents show there weren't as many moose taken in the unguided category. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if there were any suggestions on changing the three definitions that were provided on page 2. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said the sponsor wanted to work on those in a subsequent committee. SENATOR LINCOLN asked on section 5(b), if you read, "The Board delegates authority to the Commissioner to act on its behalf and the Commissioner shall cooperate and assist the Board." Then it says in (c), if there's a conflict between the Board and Commissioner, then there's going to be public hearings, etc. She asked why they would need (c), if (b) says that the Commissioner SHALL, not the Commissioner MAY. SENATOR TAYLOR answered because it would be very difficult for the Board to take the Commissioner to court and order him to do it. The Governor appoints both the Commissioner and the Board. SENATOR LINCOLN said it seemed redundant to have (c) in there. SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SB 250 with individual recommendations. SENATOR LINCOLN objected saying because as a resources committee they can't do anything about the fiscal note, but one of their responsibilities is to correct the language if there is question. It seems as if there are questions, even by the Outdoor Council, of whether the opportunity is recommended or mandated and whether (b) and (c) is redundant. SENATOR HALFORD asked for a hand vote. SENATORS LEMAN, HALFORD, GREEN, and TAYLOR voted yes. SENATOR LINCOLN voted no. The motion carried and SB 250 moved out of committee.