SB 68-ANTLERLESS MOOSE SEASONS; CLOSURES  3:30:52 PM CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SB 68 saying she intends that this is a conversation-starter on creating a working document. VIVIAN STIVER, staff to Senator Giessel, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that SB 68 came about to start a statewide conversation on the responsibilities of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), the Board of Game and the local advisory councils (AC) for antlerless moose hunts. A meeting was held in Fairbanks in December 2013 regarding cow hunts, because it had become very controversial in that area. She explained that antlerless hunts are for cows, yearlings and bulls that don't have antlers, and there have been ongoing concerns about the use of antlerless hunts, the philosophy and the science behind this management tool. Antlerless hunts benefit Alaskans by enhancing public safety and they also allow Alaskans to put moose meat on their tables. 3:32:53 PM SENATOR COGHILL joined the committee. 3:33:30 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee. MS. STIVER explained that currently when one applies for an antlerless moose hunt, the hunt can be cancelled after applications have been taken and fees received. This bill prohibits the closure of an antlerless moose hunt by a local advisory council (AC) once the applications and fees have been accepted, but it would still allow for the commissioner or his designee to close that hunt for an emergency. She said it is only a $5 fee to apply for this drawing, but people still are disenfranchised when a hunt is closed. So, the bill addresses that while still allowing for the very important ability to close it for an emergency. SB 68 also removes the yearly requirement by local advisory committees and the Board of Game for proof of the antlerless moose hunts and the approval of yearly elimination of the resident brown bear tag fee. These approvals were changed to from annually to every three years at a Board of Game meeting. SB 68 retains the right of local advisory committees to approve these hunts but limits this approval to regularly scheduled board meetings occurring every three years. 3:34:30 PM SENATOR STEDMAN asked if language on page 3, lines 4-5, means the season or area may not be closed until the next regular scheduled Board of Game meeting. 3:34:51 PM MS. STIVER answered that it means that once the area has been opened and the applications have been sold for it, it cannot be closed by the AC until the regular season of the following year. She checked with the department to see if that biology is prudent and found that leaving an area open for one year should not have a big negative impact on an intensive management tool. CHAIR GIESSEL asked her to elaborate more on the timing. MS. STIVER answered that ACs will approve a hunt after the first of the year, but a person can apply for these hunts from November to December 15. But then the hunt can be cancelled. SB 68 says once the opportunity has been sold, an AC may close the hunt but not until the following year. That means the following November/December applications will not be collected and the hunt will not occur in that unit or subunit. SENATOR COGHILL asked if a regularly scheduled meeting for that region would be within the next year. MS. STIVER replied that the bill proposes having these meetings with the Board of Game cycle at three-year intervals. So, they would approve hunts on a three-year basis. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for examples of times when an AC had closed an antlerless moose hunt and the reasons for it. MS. STIVER said she couldn't give him an example, but folks on- line could answer that question. SENATOR STEDMAN asked what problem SB 68 is trying to fix. MS. STIVER answered that the first part of the sponsor statement talks about philosophy, especially about killing cows, but it is one of the options under intensive management to keep the biology at the best it can be. 3:38:33 PM MIKE TINKER, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association, Ester, Alaska, said the Interior had been involved in these issues for a long time, and provided a brief history of changes to AS 16.05.780, the one title that prohibits taking of antlerless moose. He said antlerless moose are only hunted by residents, only hunted for meat, are used in most of Alaska's youth hunts and are subject to either registration or drawing permits. MR. TINKER explained said if the Board of Game changed to authorizing antlerless moose hunts in cycle (every three years) rather than annually, both time and energy would be saved. Changing "chairmen" of the advisory committees to "chair" in AS 05.260 is not a problem, but additional language that was added during drafting can change the intent of making things easier for the board. New subsection (c) about fees is a totally separate issue. If the legislature wants to take up the issue of what happens to permits and/or permit fees when hunts are cancelled, the field is much larger than for just antlerless moose hunts. Such language should be considered elsewhere so that it would encompass all permit hunts. 3:41:12 PM MR. TINKER said the sponsor statement indicates that there are always concerns around antlerless hunts not being good for overall health of moose populations as evidenced by 1970 trials on antlerless hunts. Those examples begot AS 16.05.780 in the first place, and they made the local ACs key in the process of antlerless moose hunting. As Senator Giessel pointed out, he said there are multiple benefits to Alaskan resident hunters when antlerless moose hunts are planned and carried out successfully. Most important to the big picture of healthy moose populations is use of this tool to help balance the composition of the moose herd and bring the total population for a unit or subunit down to the objective population. Those population objectives are set by the board. Antlerless moose hunts can be for a small number of moose like nuisance moose or a large number because habitat can't provide sufficient nutrition (an example that started the larger hunts in Unit 20(a) in the Fairbanks area). The population objectives set in regulation take all those things into consideration. After a decade or more of careful management, Mr. Tinker said, antlerless moose hunts are still not popular in some areas, and the ACs work through some very contentious meetings to make the recommendations and decisions that are needed. 3:43:15 PM As an AC member, Mr. Tinker reviewed how the authorizing process works. The department, through its regional staff, makes an annual population and composition (number and percentage of various sects and age classes) estimate. In intensive management units, the biologists determine that the population is within the objective range. They bring that information to the affected ACs for discussion. If the analysis shows that the population is above the objective and that the annual recruitment (number of calves added to the population) is affecting the trend upward, the department may recommend hunting some antlerless moose. He explained that not all antlerless moose are females; late fall and winter hunts include bulls that have shed their antlers under the definition of "legally antlerless." MR. TINKER said that commonly the department and ACs agree on where and how many antlerless permits can be given. There is often a huge amount of public participation in this decision. The ACs then vote to approve the antlerless component of next years' hunt in some form, and if they vote to approve, the ACs and the department bring the proposal the hunt to the board for final approval. This procedure keeps local hunters in the loop. This annual review between the department and ACs will somewhat continue no matter what is done to AS 16.05.780, and that is because the same information is needed to inform the public on what to expect in the next season. Even in uncomplicated hunting situations, the public wants to know about the potential for season changes, number of all kinds of moose permits, and other changes to the annual hunt. 3:45:29 PM ACs should never be taken out of the delegation to be able to make emergency closures, Mr. Tinker stated. Draft language in AS 68.05.260 to exempt that authority is ill advised in his opinion and totally unnecessary. The public needs to be kept as closely involved in these decisions as possible. MR. TINKER also said that the zero fiscal note from the administration for SB 68 wasn't considered in enough detail. He used the February 13-20 Wasilla Board of Game meeting as an example of taking up these out of cycle antlerless reauthorizations. The meeting was for Central and Southwest Regions that has two reauthorizations; then there were five from other regions not on the agenda. Those five required staff support, travel, per diem, and at least a full day of the board's time. (Board members are paid a stipend equal to a Range 20 state pay grade.) The ACs stayed longer than usual or came extra to support the decisions. At just that one meeting, maybe more than $15,000 was spent. That money could have been used for AC communications or even an extra meeting, as some ACs only get to meet once a year to go over hundreds of proposals. MR. TINKER advocated for changing only the board's requirement to take up the reauthorizations annually and leave the department and AC functions alone. He said last minute closures after the application process are always based on biological considerations. The most common one is that the moose census information is not available until after the application period. Therefore, recommendations are made to the board with the idea that the department will fill in some number of permits when that information is needed. The legislature should keep in mind accommodations for that late information, seasonal weather affects and other issues - easy access because of early freeze up, for example - and not limit the ACs on when they can discuss the emergency concepts with the department. The Board of Game doesn't need to get involved in the emergency process, but it would be nice to keep the public and department in the various regions talking about it. 3:48:53 PM SENATOR COGHILL asked if the department uses credible population count methodology for counting moose. MR. TINKER answered that the department uses several methods to estimate the population of moose. The Interior commonly uses areas that are divided into "UCU" units, which may only have 10 square miles in them, but other areas are much larger. A certain percentage of the area is counted every year and is analyzed based on consideration of how many units would be similar to those counted. That data is compiled into a population estimate and the probability of that estimate is very similar to the calculus of how many units are counted. For example, if there are 200 units and 30 get counted, that is a lower probability estimate. If 110 units get counted, that is a high probability estimate, and the population objective given to the ACs as a range will always reflect that. He explained that other methods are not as accurate as the area by area counting and the probability range is bigger. So, instead of having a range of 2,000 moose, there might be 5,000. That can be a big consideration in composition counting of bulls, cows and yearlings, because the numbers aren't exact. In contrast, the department uses a "hotspot" counting method (GMU 13) where it counts the same few areas every year. As long as the moose don't move around a lot, that is probably good enough, but if the moose population starts expanding out or contracting in, the probability range would be down. SENATOR COGHILL commented that he learned that an early freeze impacts access to certain populations so that count can be dropped significantly. 3:52:53 PM AL BARRETTE, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, said the original problem was going from an annual reauthorization to a three-year cycle (every region meets every three years). So, instead of having to go through 18 reauthorizations of antlerless moose annually, it would be more feasible to do it on a regional basis on their scheduled three-year cycles. He liked the bill, but the question was raised about conflicting language on page 3, lines 2-5, that says an area may not be closed until a regular scheduled meeting. What if something happens with the population before the next meeting? The commissioner can already close it by emergency order (EO). So, there would be competing statutes. 3:55:39 PM Also, language in sections 7-12 on page 3 appears to be taking away the AC's jurisdiction to use EO authority. Language on page 2, line 6, should say the commissioner "may" delegate authority to ACs for emergency closures instead of "shall." That would match current Advisory Committee emergency closure regulation in 5 AAC 97.110. He added that no EOs have been initiated by ACs to date. 3:57:01 PM MR. BARRETTE said he didn't disagree with the tag fees in the bill, but felt a clarification was needed. For example, this year there were stranded musk ox on free floating ice on Nunivak Island, and language on page 2, line 18, is written to say that a musk ox floating on ice tag costs $500. However, the Board of Game currently may, by regulation, reduce or eliminate the resident big game tag fee for musk ox for all or a portion of a game management unit. In his example of Nunivak Island one hunt can be registered for and the fee has been reduced to $25, but then a drawing hunting costs the winners $500. His point is that Nunivak Island is a portion of Unit 18, yet there are two different regimes for tag fees, and the statute doesn't seem to justify the board being able to do that. 3:58:39 PM DOUG VINCENT LANG, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, supported SB 68. He said he was a former director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation within the ADF&G, but today he is testifying as a private citizen. He recognized that antlerless moose hunts have been controversial for many years. The controversies center on whether hunters should be allowed to harvest cow moose. Some believe philosophically that doing that is wrong, while others believe it is biologically flawed, because it removes the breeding stock. But many other hunters believe that these hunts provide important hunting opportunities for the surplus moose to be had. Biologists believe the tool is necessary to ensure that moose populations are properly managed for sustained yield and without it preventing populations from exceeding their carrying capacity is very difficult. If the carrying capacity is exceeded the entire moose population can crash. In those cases, the very moose you are trying to protect by not allowing cow moose hunts are being sacrificed due to starvation. MR. LANG said it may also be necessary to manage moose for public safety or social concerns in many urban areas such as Anchorage, and wildlife managers do allow female harvest in many hunts across the state. To address public concerns regarding these hunts, the Alaska legislature passed a law that allowed local ACs to effectively veto them annually. While this sounds good on the surface, it has created problems. Local ACs have closed antlerless hunts after they have been approved by the BOG and scheduled by the ADF&G. This has resulted in these hunts being noticed in the annual drawing hunt pamphlet and hunters putting in for them. If they are fortunate enough to be drawn, they are often kicked out of other hunts because of the permit limits. If these hunts are later canceled, the hunters cannot be compensated for their loss as it is impossible for the department to redraw. This is unfair to the hunters who are often unaware that the approved hunts can be canceled up to weeks before the hunts occur or the impact a canceled hunt can have on their other moose hunt opportunities. He said this bill aims to find a better compromise between assuring local ACs have a voice in these hunts while minimizing the impact to hunters. It allows a majority of local ACs to veto these hunts at regularly scheduled board meetings for the area, but prevents them from deleting them in other years. This preserves their input, but lessens the impact vetoes can have on unsuspecting hunters putting in for drawing permits. This occurred this past year when a majority of local ACs failed to provide the proposed antlerless moose hunts in Kincaid Park in Anchorage. This veto resulted in the board not being able to consider this proposal. However, if they had approved the proposals, the ACs would have been prohibited under this legislation from vetoing those hunts over the next three years until the next regularly scheduled board meeting. 4:02:30 PM Finally, he mentioned a graph that shows how one cow moose can produce hundreds of moose, and while this is theoretically possible, it's not realistic. These moose can only reproduce when conditions are ideal including habitat. If moose exceed their carrying capacity, the population can crash, killing the very cows they try to save, through starvation. He supports putting these moose in peoples' freezers rather than having them die through starvation. 4:03:28 PM CHAIR GIESSEL thanked him for speaking to the committee and opened public testimony. STEVE VANEK, representing himself, Ninilchik, Alaska, said he had been a secretary of the Central Peninsula Advisory Committee in Ninilchik for 40 years. He supported SB 68, except he thought the ACs should be involved annually to be able to close a cow season and closures can only pertain to the next season. If people already have their permits, they should be allowed to hunt, he said. 4:04:47 PM SENATOR MICCICHE joined the committee. CHAIR GIESSEL, finding no further comments, left public testimony open and held SB 68 in committee.