HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE March 8, 1997 9:22 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair Representative Ramona Barnes Representative Fred Dyson Representative Joe Green Representative Irene Nicholia Representative Reggie Joule MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams COMMITTEE CALENDAR CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON GOVERNOR'S APPOINTMENTS TO: Board of Game Gregory P. Streveler Nicole Whittington-Evans Lori Trent Quakenbush Michael R. Fleagle - HEARD AND HELD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION No previous action to record WITNESS REGISTER GREGORY P. STREVELER, Appointee Board of Game P.O. Box 94 Gustavus, Alaska 99826 Telephone: (907) 697-2287 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding his appointment to Board of Game. NICOLE WHITTINGTON-EVANS, Appointee Board of Game HC02 Box 7019A Palmer, Alaska 99645 Telephone: (907) 746-7019 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding her appointment to Board of Game. LORI TRENT QUAKENBUSH, Appointee Board of Game P.O. Box 82391 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 479-3210 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding her appointment to Board of Game. MICHAEL R. FLEAGLE, Appointee Board of Game P.O. Box 33 McGrath, Alaska 99627 ;Telephone: (907) 524-3385 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding his appointment to Board of Game. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 97-23, SIDE A Number 0001 CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing Committee meeting to order at 9:22 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Ogan, Masek, Dyson, Green, Nicholia and Joule. Representative Barnes arrived at 9:35 a.m. Absent were Representatives Hudson and Williams. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that public testimony would be taken after all appointees had the opportunity to speak and answer questions from the committee. He asked appointees to remain on teleconference throughout the hearing. There would be a future meeting if public testimony was not completed. CONFIRMATION HEARING: GREGORY P. STREVELER, BOARD OF GAME Number 0186 GREGORY P. STREVELER, Appointee, Board of Game, testified via teleconference. Currently self-employed as a teacher and resource consultant, he said previous employment included being a wilderness guide, carpenter and professional gardener. MR. STREVELER said he had been asked by previous board members to serve on the Board of Game. He stated, "My qualifications I think are that I've had 30 years' residence in northern Southeast Alaska. During that time, I've lived a semi-subsistence lifestyle where I've supported my family partly by fishing and hunting, and filling my freezer that way, and filling the root cellar with vegetables with my garden." MR. STREVELER stated, "I have pretty broad experience as a biologist. I worked for about seven years for the National Park Service in Glacier Bay as a[n] ecologist. And I've worked as a professional biologist in my own (indisc.) here since 1980, mostly on resource issues, some of those related to mammal populations. And I feel pretty strongly that the game populations of this state should be managed by people that have local experience. So I threw my hat in the ring." Number 0366 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked about an entry on Mr. Streveler's resume that read, "Contractor, to National Audubon Society, to prepare environmental education materials on natural history of Beringia, 1991-92." MR. STREVELER said he and his wife had spent time in the Russian Arctic and were looking for ways to follow that up. At that time, the Audubon Society was cooperating with what was then the Soviet government, looking at conservation in the Arctic; they wanted to prepare bilingual natural history resources for schools in Nome and Providiniya, for example, so the children could study the same ecosystem. He and his wife had helped prepare some of those. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether it was a research program or simply a conversion from Russian to English. MR. STREVELER said it was a combination. He had spent three weeks in the Arctic with a Russian botanical team. His wife, a wilderness guide, had spent time along the coast. The two then spent part of a winter "picking people's brains" from the North Slope Borough and through their Russian contacts, to establish the natural history of the area in a broader context than their own personal histories allowed. Then they had written some brochures. Number 0501 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked about Mr. Streveler's experience as a contractor on the A-J Mine. MR. STREVELER said, "I just terminated that. I was a subcontractor with a company named Ch2M Hill, and the pertinent purpose of that company's mandate was to prepare environmental impact analyses for the possibility of that mine. And my little company's role was to evaluate the upland resources and the marine bird resources." Number 0553 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked for a brief overview of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and possible effects of that mine on birds and other animals. MR. STREVELER replied, "It depends which alternative you looked at. One of the possibilities was the upland dry tailings site on south Douglas. And that one we decided would have some moderate-to- important impacts, depending on the species you looked at, on the uplands. But in a regional sense, it was probably reasonably characterized as minor. And then for the marine tailings disposal, when we looked at the marine birds, I think it's fair to say that the impact on marine birds would seem to be pretty small." Number 0603 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked Mr. Streveler, "What is your familiarity with wolf control issues in Interior Alaska?" She further asked, "Do you have a position on this issue and on the ballot initiative which passed this past fall?" MR. STREVELER responded, "I've watched the issue pretty close, but being from the Southeast, I wasn't directly involved in it. But I guess my closest involvement was that during that time, I was contracted by Audubon Society and Dave Clonbuck (ph) from Audubon was on the planning team. And so I was able to get some direct information by just talking to him. As far as I could tell, from a distance, that was a pretty good process. I guess I was kind of disappointed when the process didn't seem to really settle the issue very well." MR. STREVELER said, "As far as my personal feeling about wolf control, I'm just going to have to learn more about it on a case- by-case basis as they come up here. For instance, it seems pretty clear to me, just on first look, that there are situations, at least here and there in the Interior now, where you can make a pretty good argument that some sort of intensive predator management is necessary. But I'd want to look at that on a case- by-case basis. But I'm not categorically opposed to it." Number 0714 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked what the sustained yield principle mandated in the state constitution meant to him. MR. STREVELER replied, "It means that the wildlife resource should be utilized to the extent possible, so that it's there for my kids and your kids and their kids and their kids' kids." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler had read the sections of the constitution relating to sustained yield and common use. MR. STREVELER said he had, but he could not quote them. Number 0768 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN read from the Constitution of the State of Alaska, Article VIII, Section 3, which says, "Common Use. Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use." He added, "And of course our Supreme Court has interpreted that no particular group can have an exclusive use of that, with exception of, of course, of limited entry, which was a constitutional amendment." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN read from Article VIII, Section 4, which says, "Sustained Yield. Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial users." He asked whether Mr. Streveler was aware he must take an oath to defend the Constitution of the State of Alaska in order to serve on the Board of Game. MR. STREVELER said yes. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler was willing to uphold those portions of the constitution. MR. STREVELER said yes. Number 0846  CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to AS 16.05.255(e) [inadvertently called AS 16.05.257], which outlines the legislature's interpretation of the sustained yield principle and intention to accomplish that through intensive management. He read from the statute, which states, "The Board of Game shall adopt regulations to provide for intensive management programs to restore the abundance or productivity of identified big game prey populations as necessary to achieve human consumptive use goals of the board in an area where the board has determined that, 1) consumptive use of the big game prey population is a preferred use". CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that the statute continues. He said the legislature, which sets state policy, mandated that the Board of Game manage on a sustained yield principle using intensive management, which included predator control of bears and wolves. He asked whether Mr. Streveler was willing to follow the constitution and legislative intent in these matters. MR. STREVELER said yes and added, "One of the principle things I've done since my appointment - and I've had time to study up - is to try to really get my mind around this act because it seems like a real central thing in spelling out your folks' intent to us." He said the act "puts some pretty difficult questions and trade-offs before us." He stated his belief that since it was state law, he must interpret it in good faith. Number 0096 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK referred to the constitution and said, "It is intended to keep the majority from trampling on the inherent rights of others. And one of the main tenets of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the protection of one's beliefs from persecutions by others." She asked Mr. Streveler, "Do you believe urban populations who represent the majority of Americans now have the right to curtail or eliminate the culture heritage of hunting and trapping held by other Americans for reasons or purposes other than biological considerations?" MR. STREVELER said no. He had lived in a community of a couple hundred people most of his adult life. He also lived across Icy Strait from one of the biggest Tlingit communities in Southeast Alaska. "So I'm pretty familiar with this stuff, and I believe very strongly that local cultures and local subsistence needs are real important," he said. MR. STREVELER stated, "Having said that, I would say that it seems to me pretty clear that my role on the game board is to try to look at all legitimate users and balance their needs and hear everybody out on ... what uses of the countries they propose and to see what a person can do to accommodate those." Number 1087 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated her belief that over the past few years, the Board of Game had increasingly acted to prevent hunters from accessing wildlife populations by restricting access into certain areas. She said in recent examples, no biological concerns were involved but closures were enacted anyway, "based on giving one group's viewpoint precedence over others." She said similar proposals would be before the Board of Game and asked, "Will you, as a board member, protect the public's right to access common property resources, or will you continue the trend of imposing the views of one group on all other Alaskans?" MR. STREVELER replied, "In all honesty, I don't know if I would characterize the trend that way, but I think that I guess our role on the board is to allow any uses that aren't destructive of the country and the resources, and that respect other users. It's kind of a balancing act, as I see it." MR. STREVELER said he had lived in fairly remote country most of his life and understood the advantages of having access to it. However, he also understood the problems that wide-open access can sometimes cause. Board members' jobs included trying to clearly see the trade-offs; determining whether game populations and habitats were in good enough shape to allow access; and determining whether the protection of the resources was "up-to-snuff enough" that if more access were allowed, the situation could be watched carefully and regulated properly. MR. STREVELER believed it was complicated. He said access seemed to be an ever-more-central question in much of Alaskan game management. Rather than saying categorically, "Well, we either want more or we don't want more," he believed individual game management units needed to be considered, as well as the trade- offs. Number 1214 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asserted that it was a yes-or-no question of whether Mr. Streveler, as a board member, would protect the public's right to access common property resources. MR. STREVELER replied, "I guess honestly I can't give you a categorical yes or no on that. I would say that I certainly believe in protecting the public's right of access, no doubt about that. And I would even go farther and say that I agree that the public has a right to increase the access, but only under circumstances where we see that the implications of that access aren't destructive to the wildlife populations or wildlife habitat. That's our mandate." Number 1274 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "Also, will you continue the -- I say a trend because that's what's really happening here, imposing the views of one group on all other Alaskans. What is your views on it? I didn't quite understand if you were in favor or against that?" MR. STREVELER responded, "I'm not in favor of ever imposing the views of one group. But it seems to me that (indisc.-- coughing) role on the board is to balance these views and to look for ways to accommodate use, not to push forward the agenda of one group." Number 1314 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to his earlier question about Beringia. He asked, "Did you do any work with the United Nations or any work that was used by the United Nations in ... that area where they ... tried to declare an international biosphere?" MR. STREVELER replied, "Not that I'm aware of. No, I certainly didn't work with them directly. I'm not sure whether they got any of our materials." Number 1348 REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES referred to Representative Masek's characterization of board action as a "trend of imposing the views of one group on all other Alaskans". She asked how Mr. Streveler would characterize that instead. MR. STREVELER said he was fairly new to the board and did not know every action they had taken. However, he believed he had a basic understanding. "And the way I view what the board has done is kind of like I described how I'd like to do it, which is to look at things on a case-by-case basis and see ... how the arguments fall," he said. "And since the amount of proposals before us seem to be increasing for and on access-related questions, it gets to be a tougher and tougher balancing act ... to accommodate everybody's uses. So as I look at the past record of the board, I see it getting more complicated because there's more people wanting to do more things, and it's harder to figure out a way to do that. But I don't see necessarily that the board has been tilting in favor of one user group. I could stand to be corrected if you see it otherwise, but that's how I read it." Number 1418 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "The constitution, as it is presently written, do you support it, or do you support amending the constitution to give one group of Alaskans a priority over the other?" MR. STREVELER said he neither supported nor opposed it. He said he was aware, from his personal life and the lives of his friends, of the importance of access to subsistence resources, for instance. "And I really very much hope that this divisive subsistence issue can get behind us," he said. "But I don't claim to have any crystal ball on what the best way to do it is, ma'am." Number 1474 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated her belief that the constitution, as written, gave all Alaskans, through the Uses section, access to fish and game for the purposes of subsistence. "However, often, when the legislature involves itself of the management of fish and game, it is often said that that is not the role of the legislature," she said. "I would like you to tell me how you see the role of the legislature." MR. STREVELER replied, "Well, as I see it, you folks have the right and responsibility to guide us through legislation, and then we implement the laws that you set up as constitution mandates." Number 1520 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "The constitution and the laws actually say that this legislature has sole control over the resources of this state, be it fish, game, water, land or any other resource. We delegate some of our responsibility. Through statute, you do not have a constitutional right. Through statute, we delegate some of our responsibility to the Board of Fish[eries] and to the Board of Game to manage those resources." She asked him to comment. MR. STREVELER responded, "Well, I agree that that's the way it is. And I assume the reason you've delegated to us is because you assume we know something about fish and game. And so I guess I see our role as trying to bring the knowledge of seven people that have spent part of their lives trying to understand these things to bear on an issue. And so I guess, in a phrase, I see our role as trying to interpret in an intelligent fashion, related to a given piece of land, the intent of the legislature." Number 1583 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether Mr. Streveler had a hunting license, when he last hunted, and for what. MR. STREVELER indicated he had a license and had last hunted three months ago for deer. He added that he hunted almost every year for a couple of deer for his freezer. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked how long he had lived in Alaska. MR. STREVELER said, "Since 1967." Number 1617 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "Now, you've been appointed by the Governor, and you're up for confirmation by the legislature. If you're confirmed, what is your understanding of who you work for? Do you work for the Governor or for the legislature?" MR. STREVELER replied, "Well, to be perfectly honest, sir, I think I work for the people of Alaska. And I interpret the legislature's laws as they're on the books with regard to game, but it seems to me that our mandate is to try to make the best sort of unencumbered decisions we can within the framework of the law." Number 1656 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked to whom Mr. Streveler felt responsible, other than the people of Alaska. He asked, "Are you once confirmed and then an independent agency, is that what I hear? Or are you listening to input from either the Administration or the legislature?" MR. STREVELER said he was sort of feeling his way through that. "It seems really clear to me that the legislature is the body that sets the framework under which we operate," he said. "We're a member of the public, and because the Governor appoints us, ... there's a certain relationship we have with the Governor. But I'm pretty clear in my mind that the Governor is not the boss." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that constitutionally, the legislature was responsible and had delegated that authority in 1974. "But there is the final reside with the legislature," he added. Number 1715 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler knew how many acres in Alaska were off-limits to hunters. MR. STREVELER said he did not know a total figure. Number 1731 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said 54 million acres of national parks in Alaska did not allow hunting, possibly more than that in some areas. He asked, "Would you ever support restricting hunting for watchable- wildlife opportunities?" MR. STREVELER replied, "Well, I'd certainly consider it. I don't think I could say categorically `no, I wouldn't.'" He pointed out that he had worked for the National Park Service and had a pretty good idea how they were run. However, he had made a conscious decision to stop working for the National Park Service "because I was a little uncomfortable with their way of dealing with local people," he said. MR. STREVELER continued, "And I realize that we do have a lot of reserves. I'm not ecstatic about increasing them." He said at the same time, he and his wife had worked as wilderness guides, and he understood the tourism industry somewhat. "And there's various uses for wildlife, and it seems maybe we've got to balance those," he stated. "So I can't say categorically that there shouldn't be additional areas closed to hunting, or that there shouldn't be additional areas opened to hunting. I'd like to look at it on a case-to-case basis. But I would say, just in a generic sense, that I'm aware we have a lot of areas closed." Number 1800 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN indicated he believed some of these statements conflicted. He noted that Mr. Streveler had affirmed he would defend the state constitution and follow the statutes. Representative Ogan believed it was clear under Title 16 that consumptive use of the big game population is a preferred use. He expressed concern, given Mr. Streveler's tourist background as a wilderness guide and his wife's business, that Mr. Streveler might continue the board's "trend of closing opportunities to hunt." He said, "I think there's a proposal by the Wildlife Alliance before the board this upcoming board meeting. What are your leanings on that proposal, or are you aware of that proposal to close bear hunting on parts of Kodiak Island?" MR. STREVELER said he had read it. However, he wanted to hear all the "ins and outs" before giving a firm answer. He believed it would be jumping the gun to do otherwise. Number 1865 MR. STREVELER referred to Representative Ogan's first statement. He said having worked for the National Park Service, and having decided not to work for them, had if anything made him more aware of the down sides of closed areas. He did not "jump into them" without a lot of premeditation. "I fill the freezer from deer that are just outside Glacier Bay National Park, and I have to go to places outside the park to do that," he said. "So I'm aware of the way it cramps local people when you make a reserve sometimes." MR. STREVELER noted at the same time, many people in Gustavus made a good living because the park was closed to hunting and had viewable wildlife. Referring to Kodiak Island, he said its bear resource was world-class to people for a variety of reasons. "And I honestly think we have to look at those various reasons before we jump one way or another on a question," he said. Number 1913 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated, "I would submit to you that it's world- class because the tax on hunting and fishing licenses and ammunition and supplies has paid for the management of that resource. And Kodiak has been one of the longest-hunted bear areas in the world. And in spite of that, and because of good management, it is a world-class area." He asked, "Are you aware that when you take a large boar out of the population, you're actually increasing bear populations because the large boars will actually kill the cubs?" MR. STREVELER said yes. Having spent a summer on Kodiak, he knew that country a little. He stated, "I basically agree with what you said, and I think the management has been pretty good as far as I can tell. It's world-class for the hunting, that opportunities are there. But it's world-class also for other reasons. And it seems to me that I have to be aware of those as a board member." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler saw hunting and viewing as incompatible uses. Number 1975 MR. STREVELER replied, "Do it every day. I sure don't. I was on Lemesurier Island three months ago hunting deer, and I was sitting around there. Half the time, I miss a deer because I'm too busy watching the other wildlife. So no, it's sure not incompatible in many cases." MR. STREVELER referred to Pack Creek on Admiralty Island and explained, "There, when you've got big predators like bears, for instance, sometimes it makes good sense to have one small population that has a few bears in it that have become ... conditioned to sticking around people, because then folks get sort of a natural thing where you don't have to be a real good outdoorsman to kind of sneak up on a bear or something, but you can just get off the plane or off the boat (indisc.--coughing). And if you've been around people that have a chance to do that, I'm pretty impressed with ... the profound meaning it can have for somebody to watch a bear fish in a stream or something like that." MR. STREVELER said when he went south, he realized how glad he is to live in Alaska. "And a lot of people I see coming up from down south are pretty amazed at the opportunities they have here to see wild country and bears fishing and stuff like that," he said. "And part of the meaning of this state, I think, to the world, is to offer those opportunities." Number 2043 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she had introduced HB 168, which only allows restriction on access if there is a biological justification that cannot be mitigated by usual management techniques, such as seasons and bag limits. She asked whether Mr. Streveler opposed or supported HB 168. MR. STREVELER replied, "I don't do either right now. I've read the bill and that's about all I've done. I really haven't had a chance to talk to people about it. But I will say this in all honesty. I hope that you folks will see enough value in the people that are appointed to the board that you give us the tools we need to do our job. And one of the things that I see is that there are a lot of instances where the questions before us are kind of complicated. And if we have the ability, and hopefully we'd use it with great moderation and respect for the people that would be affected by it, but I hope that we have the ability to design a management scheme for a given place that can really work." MR. STREVELER said being kind of green on the board, he did not know how he would come down on some of these issues. "But I guess in just being green, I hope that we will have a pretty broad array of tools to work with," he said. "I hope you give us the chance to do that. And I don't know right now if that cramps us in a way that would be hard for us or not. I've got to study that." Number 2122 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler's comments about being green referred to political leanings or lack of experience. MR. STREVELER laughed and clarified he meant lack of experience. Number 2133 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "Given that answer, if you had the choice of where you're kind of sitting on a fence on the issue, would you err on the side of the watchable-wildlife crowd or the hunting crowd?" MR. STREVELER replied, "I'd try to err on the side of the animals." He said as he saw it, the board's first responsibility was to the habitat and the animals. If those populations were healthy, a lot could be done with them by any user group. He said he would not come down "on the side of one folks or the other." MR. STREVELER indicated he, his wife and all his neighbors hunted. They depended on that, as well as on the fish in Icy Straits and other resources. "But at the same time, you know, my next door neighbor's a charter boater, my wife's a wilderness guide, the guy down the road's a commercial fisherman, you know, the fellow down the road a little farther has got an airplane and he's a fly-in hunter-and-fisher guide. So a lot of people around me make a living through ways that don't exactly relate to hunting but have kind of that flavor to them. So I don't see it as one group versus another in Gustavus." Number 2195 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said, "Let me try to pin you down on this a little more. So let's assume, just for the case of discussion, that there's no biological reason to restrict hunting. There's adequate populations. There's not going to be compromise in any way. There's a proposal to restrict hunting access for viewing wildlife. Would you come down on the side of the hunter or the wildlife viewer?" MR. STREVELER replied, "I'd have to have a specific." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked which side he would come down on. MR. STREVELER said, "I guess if you need a categoric answer, I can't give you one. I'd tell you in all honesty that in the Pack Creek situation, there was not a strict biological reason. The bears weren't in jeopardy. But so many people felt really, really strongly that both for economic reasons and for personal reasons they wanted one small spot on Admiralty that was open to bear viewing, I voted for that. So I'm not going to tell you in all honesty I would be against that in every case. But being a hunter myself, I'm going to be pretty careful about the times I vote that way." Number 2245 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES read from Article VIII, Sections 3 and 4 of the state constitution, which Co-Chairman Ogan had read earlier. She said Co-Chairman Ogan had asked Mr. Streveler how he "would come down as it relates to beneficial uses under the constitution." She requested a general answer to that, followed by an answer to her own question: "Do you believe, for example, that the folks in urban Alaska have as much right to go hunting to feed their families, to put food in their freezer, as do those that live in the rural areas of the state?" MR. STREVELER said, "I think everybody in the state has an equal right to fish and wildlife in the state." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked him to again answer Co-Chairman Ogan's question. MR. STREVELER asked for clarification. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Co-Chairman Ogan to restate his question. Number 2343 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said, "I asked you the question whether or not, if there was no biological reason to close an area to hunting, and there was a proposal to close an area for wildlife viewing, which side would you come down on. And you haven't been able to answer that specifically." MR. STREVELER replied, "With respect, sir, I think I did. I gave you a specific instance of where I did come down, where there was not a biological reason necessarily, but there was another reason that had to do with tourism and which had to do with peoples' desire to have one small part of Admiralty for a different purpose, that I did come down." MR. STREVELER continued, "But I also said that because I'm a hunter and because I'm aware of the effect the national parks can have on hunting and stuff like that, I'm not a kind of person that's going to just do that all the time. I'm going to look at it; the justification's going to have to be pretty solid. So I'm not categorically opposed to closures to hunting for other reasons, but ... I'm not going to be the kind of person that just is ... wildly in favor of it every time I hear about it. It's going to have to be something that's very darned justified for a pretty tight reason. MR. STREVELER said in the case of Pack Creek, they had received hundreds of letters from locals and from people all over the world saying, "That place is really important to us; please don't open it up." "And so we didn't," he said. "And I think we've got to listen to folks like that too. So I'm not trying to evade the question. I'm trying to give you an honest answer to something that I think's a tough call on it." He emphasized that although there would be times when he could see doing that, he would be "pretty darned careful not to overdo it." Number 2412 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler had, at any time, received coaching or input by the Governor's office on how to answer questions from the committee. MR. STREVELER replied, "I've had some conversations with people in the Governor's office. But I try to keep my own mind to myself on this because I think it's between me and you guys." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN clarified he wanted to know whether Mr. Streveler had received any direct coaching from the Governor's office on how to answer questions for the hearing. MR. STREVELER said no. Number 2450 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler had been advised by the Governor's office on what type of questions might be asked. MR. STREVELER said yes. "And they gave me some general things to be considering," he said. "But as far as specific issues, no." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether he had been advised on how to answer those questions. MR. STREVELER indicated he had talked with people from the Governor's office and had several telephone conversations. They had described the committee process, for example. TAPE 97-23, SIDE B Number 0006 MR. STREVELER said he had not asked for, nor received, any specific advice on specific issues. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked when he last had a conversation like that. MR. STREVELER said, "Yesterday." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if other people were involved in that conversation. MR. STREVELER said no. Number 0021 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "Do you feel it would be proper for the legislature to, once you're a board member, to influence your decisions on the board?" MR. STREVELER replied, "I'll tell you what my hope is. My hope is that you'll end up trusting us enough that you'll abide by our decisions and feel that we've well-served your mandates. ... I guess that's what I think the board process is about. I guess I'm not very interested in being on the board if we're just given such a tight rein we can't use our own heads." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN stated, "I can assure you, if we trust you, we'll confirm you." He asked whether Mr. Streveler felt it would be proper for the Governor's office to apply pressure or try to influence his actions as a member of the Board of Game. MR. STREVELER said no. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Streveler knew of anyone from the Governor's office applying pressure or trying to influence the Board of Game prior to decisions being made. MR. STREVELER replied, "Well, they haven't tried to do that to me yet. And I'd resist it if they did." Number 0061 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "Can you make a commitment to contact me should any such influence or contact occur while you're a member?" MR. STREVELER said yes. Number 0073 REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE asked whether Co-Chairman Ogan's question applied solely to people from the Governor's office or to people from either the Governor's office or the legislature. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, "I would go on record as saying Governor's office and the legislature." REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked Mr. Streveler, "And that was the answer to both of them?" MR. STREVELER said, "Yeah, I see no reason I can't tell you about that. It would seem to me something you have a right to know about." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN responded, "I would appreciate it, as chairman of this Resources Committee, to hear about it if anyone leans on you, from ... either body." Number 0100 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said she was curious about that last question. "It doesn't seem to me that it's mandated that he has to call you about anything like that," she said. "I guess that would just be a personal request?" CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN replied, "That's a personal request as chairman of the Resources Committee. I want to know if there's influences being put on the game board members by members of the legislature or the Governor's office." REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said in all the years she had been in the legislature, she had never heard that question asked of an appointee to the Board of Game who was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she had served on the committee many more years than other members and had heard that question asked. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked Mr. Streveler and called on Nicole Whittington-Evans. CONFIRMATION HEARING: NICOLE WHITTINGTON-EVANS, BOARD OF GAME Number 0158 NICOLE WHITTINGTON-EVANS, Appointee, Board of Game, testified via teleconference. She had started working in Alaska as a wilderness guide for the National Outdoor Leadership School, based in Palmer, and taught climbing and backpacking skills on month-long wilderness trips in the Chugach Mountains, Talkeetna Mountains and Alaska Range. She had also done numerous wilderness expeditions in the Brooks Range and sea kayaking on Prince William Sound. Furthermore, she had worked as a raft guide on the Kenai Peninsula and summited Mt. McKinley twice since 1988. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said since moving to Alaska, she had worked hard on wildlife issues in the conservation community; as a team member of the Fortymile Caribou Herd Planning Team; and on the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee, which unanimously supported her. She voiced her commitment to bringing people together from diverse backgrounds and working to create positive solutions for the state and its wildlife resources. She noted that she has a Master of Science degree in Environmental Studies with a concentration in wildlife policy and conservation. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS stated, "I am a good team player and will work hard as a board member to listen to all interests expressed by the public to make the best decisions I can for the state and for the resource. I feel my committee experience, commitment to wildlife and commitment to fair process make me a good candidate for the Board of Game. I am capable of reviewing scientific information and data and will make the best decisions possible, with an open mind." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said she hoped the committee would not categorize her but instead listen to what she says and who she really is. Number 0256 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated when the committee met the previous fall, there was discussion of devastation by the spruce bark beetle, especially in the Kenai Peninsula area. He said testimony from scientists indicated removal of the dead trees was beneficial for young growth, which provided browse for "several of our more- desired critters." However, a letter Ms. Whittington-Evans signed the previous May, opposing logging on the Kenai, stated that logging activities have a proven track record of adversely impacting wildlife habitat. He asked her to reconcile those. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I understand that, particularly for moose habitat, young undergrowth and logging can at times be beneficial for that species and other species. What I intended in writing that statement in that letter was to indicate that logging and road building, which is a portion of logging activities, can and does have an effect on wildlife resources and habitat. And that is substantiated in other parts of the world, and has also been substantiated in Alaska." Number 0332 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he assumed she was familiar with the moose range in Kenai, which had roads and yet was a favored viewing areas for moose. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said she was. Number 0342 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that whereas her signed statement used the word "adversely," she had not said that in her reply. He asked whether she was now saying she had meant road building, and whether she was saying road building adversely affects moose populations. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "That is one way of interpreting it." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked her to tell him, so he did not have to interpret. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS responded, "Road building is an activity of logging which can affect and impact wildlife habitat. It does not do so in all situations. And clearly you have mentioned one area where road building has not adversely affected the moose population." Number 0391 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked her to reconcile why in one case she said it adversely affected moose populations, while in other areas she said it did not. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "It's my understanding, from biologists that I have spoken with, that moose are a very different species than, say, brown bear. And road building and brown bear habitat, and impacts to brown bear populations, do have correlations with a negative or adverse impact." Number 0395 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated few brown bear roam that area. He stated that whereas she had said "logging activities," that was now confined to "road building and associated logging activities" being adverse to wildlife habitat. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS responded, "To clarify my statement, logging and road building can have adverse impacts to wildlife populations. In this specific incident that you have brought up, road building has not affected the moose population, and I recognize that." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that did not answer his question. Number 0473 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted a proposal currently before the Board of Game related to a one-bear-per-lifetime bag limit for brown bear. It suggested the brown bear bag limit and permitting requirements in Unit 13 were too liberal. He stated, "Unit 13 has been identified for intensive management, according to the sustained yield principle of the constitution, which you'll take an oath to defend. And this proposal was submitted by the Wildlife Alliance." He asked whether, on December 13, 1982, Greenpeace had changed its name to Wildlife Alliance. Number 0533 MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said that was her understanding. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she was former Executive Director of the Wildlife Alliance. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said yes. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she had testified before the board on numerous occasions in that capacity. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said yes. Number 0554 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "Could you generally categorize that you testified in favor of expanded hunting or in favor of restricted hunting?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I cannot categorize my testimony in that way. During all of my testimony with the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, I started out stating that I was not anti-hunting and that I was not testifying to oppose hunting. ... I guess I wouldn't categorize my testimony in either of those camps." Number 0600 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether it would be "pro-wildlife-viewing or pro-hunting." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "Well, the mission of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance is to represent nonconsumptive use. And in that context, I would have to say that it was primarily for wildlife viewing, not at the exclusion of hunting." Number 0628 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked if that was her mission on the board. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS responded, "Not at all. I understand clearly the difference between the role of advocating for an organization and the role of being a board member for the Board of Game, where I would not be advocating any position at all. I would not be an advocate. I would listen to all interests that were brought forth to the Board of Game on any issue and try my best to respond to concerns that are raised and to create the best solutions that I can, given the information before me." Number 0668 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN posed a hypothetical situation in which the Department of Fish and Game says there is no biological reason to close an area to hunting for the purpose of wildlife viewing, nor would there be harm to the sustained yield principle mandated in the constitution. He asked, "Would you fall on the side of the watchable-wildlife or the hunter?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I think I have a proven track record in the Anchorage advisory committee of working to create and improve opportunity for hunters." Number 0707 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said that did not answer the question. Again posing the hypothetical situation, he specified that no detrimental effect to the population in question would happen because of continued hunting. If there were a question of whether to close an area to allow wildlife viewing, he wanted to know whether she would "err on the side of the hunter or the wildlife viewer." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I would take the information that the Department of Fish and Game has presented and use it to the best of my ability in creating the best solution for both -- for all users of the wildlife resource." Number 0750 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Chris Evans was her husband. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said yes. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said Mr. Evans had left a message on his recorder in support of Nicole Whittington-Evans as a Board of Game appointee, which stated in part, "I believe that she would give a good, balanced representation to the game board, which it needs especially in regards to tourism and other-than-consumptive-use types of issues." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said her husband's name was actually Chris Whittington-Evans, but she assumed it was his message. "I think that what he is intending to say is that I would bring a perspective to the Board of Game which would include a, you know, a tourism perspective, which up 'til now is not currently on the board," she said. Number 0826 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted that Alaska has 54 million acres in federal parks that are off-limits to hunting. Hunters are in the field about 30 days of the year, usually after the tourists have gone. In addition, hunters have for decades supported, through user fees and taxes, wildlife organizations including the Department of Fish and Game. He asked, "And so you're telling me that ... we need people on the board that have more of a wildlife viewing perspective, given the fact that we have ample opportunity in the state? Or do you think we need more opportunity?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I did not say that we need more people on the board who represent viewing wildlife or watchable wildlife. I believe that we need to increase hunting opportunity where it is appropriate, and I will work to do that. And I have a proven track record of doing that in the advisory committee." Number 0896 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it appeared Ms. Whittington-Evans was a member of the Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association and currently employed by the Alaska Center for the Environment as Western Gulf Coordinator for the Alaska Rainforest Campaign. He asked what that campaign was about. He further asked how she could avoid influence from the organization for which she worked. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I was a member of the Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association, and I have resigned my position as a board member of that organization. I do currently work for the Alaska Center for the Environment, and my job there is primarily coordinating community organizing for the Western Gulf portion of Alaska. And what we have focused on primarily is forest-related issues in the Prince William Sound area and on the Kenai Peninsula." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS continued, "My work at the Alaska Center for the Environment is not related to wildlife issues. I have kept my work, both on the Fortymile Caribou Herd Management Planning Team and with the advisory committee in the last two years, separate, completely separate from my work at the Alaska Center for the Environment." Number 1007 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated her work as an advocate for the Alaska Rainforest Campaign and for nonconsumptive users pointed at her being focused in "perhaps the wrong direction for most Alaskans." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said she did not believe that was true, nor did she know how to respond. Number 1061 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested her background, what she was advocating or had made written statements about, and the organizations to which she belonged indicated she was anti-hunting, despite her assertions to the contrary. He asked whether she had lived in Alaska since 1992. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said yes. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether she had spent significant time in the woods or off the road system "other than just viewing critters." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I've spent a lot of time off the road system as a wilderness guide, teaching mountaineering and backpacking skills in the Chugach, Talkeetna and Alaska Ranges." Number 1138 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether hunters were permitted to take game in those areas. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I witnessed numerous hunts in the Talkeetna Mountains, in Management Unit 13, Nelchina caribou and moose hunts and sheep." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether this was as a guide, hunter or observer of hunters. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said, "As a wilderness guide, I observed these hunts." Number 1168 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether that adversely affected those she was guiding. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS recalled an incident in 1989 where 4,000 permits had been issued within a period of three-to-five days. She was backpacking in the Talkeetna Mountains and was in the Chickaloon drainage. "And we were, I would have to say, inundated by hunters," she said. Airplanes were flying in every 20 to 30 minutes, dropping off hunters. They heard gunshots on a regular basis during the three days. "And we had both very positive and some negative incidents as a result of that," she said. "But it was a very good, thought-provoking and educational experience for everyone involved." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what time of year that occurred. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said August. She specified it was a three- day hunt, one of many hunts she had witnessed in the Talkeetna Mountains. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, "So this doesn't occur, then, during the summer, during a lot of the viewing ... periods?" He also asked whether this intense hunting occurred statewide. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said she believed it was "a one-shot kind of deal." She had never witnessed a similar hunt. In general, hunts tended to occur over longer seasons, with hunters more distributed or widely dispersed over time. "I just brought that up as an example of a very interesting situation that occurred that was a great educational opportunity," she explained. Number 1340 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that was in 1989, three years before she moved to Alaska. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS concurred. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "And you have that experience, which was, as you say, educational. And you still moved up here. And you still are employed by ... an environmental group. And yet you maintain that you would be perfectly objective and scientifically- oriented, rather than opinion, in your deliberation?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "That's correct. I moved up here because I love this state. I love the wildlife resource that's available to all of us, along with the land resource. I started coming up here in 1984. I worked as a wilderness guide here before I moved up here. That experience was very profound for me, and it has definitely affected me, and it has not turned me away from hunting. It has not turned me away from working with these issues, and I will do my best to review the scientific data." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said she had a Master of Science degree and would objectively review the scientific data and incorporate that into her decision-making. She would not be influenced by opinions and would do her best to review all the information before her. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that her degree was in environmental studies. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS concurred. Number 1451 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK assured Ms. Whittington-Evans that comments and concerns about her were just part of the process and discussed the necessity of carefully choosing board members. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said within the last 20 years, Americans had become increasingly urbanized, resulting in an increasing detachment from natural systems and cultural views different from those held by rural people toward wildlife and wildlife management. She said, "Some leaders within the environmental movement are now admitting that they were mistaken in their views on major policy questions involving America's wildlife wild lands. And those same individuals are admitting that `environmentalist' is really nothing more than a new religion that has more to do with controlling the lives of other Americans than it does with protecting natural values." REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to a book entitled, "No Turning Back," by Wallace Coffman (ph), and indicated it said environmentalists care less and less about reason and science, and increasingly more about controlling the future. She asked whether Ms. Whittington-Evans felt the environmental community continues to make constructive contributions through the public process in areas of wildlife management, or whether she felt, as did Mr. Coffman, "that they are no longer basing their position on good science." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS responded, "It's hard to generalize for the entire environmental community. And I work in a community that is made up of individuals with a lot of differing opinions. And there are different types of approaches to working within the environmental community. And to answer your question about whether or not the environmental community is continuing to make substantive and legitimate, I can't remember the exact words you used, but ...." Number 1684 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK restated her question. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I do feel that the environmental community does provide a constructive contribution to the entire process. As you were saying earlier, the things that have gone around about me are part of the whole process, and we need to hear from all opinions and perspectives of Alaskans. They, like any other constituents, present a constructive part of this process. That is not to say I necessarily personally agree with what the environmental community in this state has done with regards to wildlife management. I hope that answers your question." Number 1775 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said, "Well, not entirely." She asked, "Do you believe that urban populations who represent the majority of Americans now have the right to curtail or eliminate the cultural heritage of hunting and trapping held by other Americans, for reasons or purposes other than biological considerations?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I don't agree with any one group overriding any other group. And I believe that we need to have wildlife resources available to all types of people and users. So, to clarify more, I don't agree necessarily with an urban perspective taking over a rural perspective." Number 1842 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "Will you, as a board member, protect the public's right to access common property resources, or will you continue the trend of imposing the views of one group on all other Alaskans?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I will protect that right, ... always considering the conservation of the resource." Number 1880 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said, "Alaskans with a history and a culture tie to hunting and trapping, you know, we have to make that equal with the subsistence issues. And the question is whether residents of Anchorage, Fairbanks or Juneau, et cetera, should enjoy the same protections from such anti-hunting views." She clarified that she was speaking of "Alaskans with a history and a cultural tie" living in those cities. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said she very much supported individuals who have a cultural tie or history using the resource, and she also would respect all users of the resource. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "So whether they're living in Anchorage or Fairbanks or Juneau, if they have the history and a cultural tie to hunting and trapping, do you believe they should enjoy the same protections from such anti-hunting views?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I do." Number 2016 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK briefly described HB 168 and asked her position on it. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said she neither had read the bill nor had a position on it. "It sounds to me like a reasonable approach," she added. Number 2070 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "Well, how do you feel about access to hunting and fishing in this state? Would you be in favor of closing down a certain area without any biological justification that cannot be mitigated by usual management techniques?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS responded, "In general, I would say no. I would not favor closing down an area without biological or sociological reasons that are legitimate. But again, I believe as a member of the board, I need to look at these situations on a case-by-case basis, listen and learn as much as I can from all of the information presented before me in order to come up with the best solution." Number 2156 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK mentioned subsistence and asked whether Ms. Whittington-Evans supported amending the state constitution to "comply with the federal law that's ANILCA on having a priority to rural-versus-urban hunting and fishing in Alaska." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS discussed dual management, saying, "... the way it is set up right now, with double sets of regulations and overlapping advisory boards, I do not feel that this is ultimately the best thing for wildlife, wildlife habitat, or for those who use the resource. I believe wildlife should be managed by the state. I believe as a board member, my role will be to do the best I can to implement the regulations which carry out the statutes and court decisions that are relevant to wildlife issues. And we need to, as board members, carry out the full intent and spirit of legislation that is relevant to board issues." Number 2280 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK requested a yes-or-no answer. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS stated, "I think that we need to work on a constructive solution, and I think that a compromise from both the federal and the state governments are going to be the only solution to this dilemma." Number 2345 VICE CHAIR MASEK took over the meeting in the absence of the co- chairs. Number 2362 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked about the make-up of the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee when Ms. Whittington-Evans joined. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "When I got on, it was pretty much entirely made up of sport hunters, trappers, sport and commercial fishermen. And it was my understanding that I was the only member of that committee who could be categorized as a nonconsumptive user." Number 2432 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked, "Upon your arrival to that committee, did you have a feel of what the reception of that committee was to your presence, knowing of your involvement in things like the Wildlife Alliance?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said overall, it was difficult to say. Some members had been very welcoming. [Answer cut off mid-speech by tape change.] TAPE 97-24, SIDE A Number 0006 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to a letter from the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory Committee, which gave her unanimous support. He asked, "Were all of the members that were there two years ago, that were skeptical with you coming on to the system, they're still there? And they're ones that are supporting your appointment to this board?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "In large, the majority of them are. There were a couple of members that were elected off during the most recent election, and they are no longer with us, or with the committee, but ... they were not actually the ones that were the most skeptical." Number 0073 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether some who were initially more skeptical were still on the committee. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said yes. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked, "How would you say that they've come to be able to support you for this nomination?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I think that I've worked hard to create a constructive working relationship with all of the members of the committee. And I have listened and learned from and incorporated their input into decisions that I have made and votes that I have taken." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN rejoined the committee. Number 0151 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked, "During the period in which you were the director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, what was your involvement in the wolf control issue, and how would you explain this association and the stance of the Wildlife Alliance on predator control to those rural bush residents who consider wolf control to be vital to their subsistence lifestyle?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "When I worked for the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, that was during the '92 wolf control proposal by the state. And the board of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance opposed those proposals for a number of reasons. Probably the most critical was a question of fair process regarding the recommendations made by the wolf management planning team and the actual outcome of these proposals, and how the recommendations [of the planning team], in the eyes of the board members of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, ... were not properly reflected in the proposals." Number 0346 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked what her involvement was in that. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said, "My involvement as the Executive Director was to testify on behalf of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance in front of the Board of Game, opposing those proposals." Number 0371 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked, "In your present work as the Western Gulf Coordinator for the Alaska Center for the Environment, how would you approach the wolf control issue now?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "Well, my participation on the Fortymile Caribou Herd Management Planning Team demonstrates the type of process that I am interested in being involved in, where diverse interests, very diverse interests, come together and sit down and work out constructive solutions to a dilemma or problem that is facing an area. And I worked closely with rural Alaskans on that plan, and I feel that my positions currently regarding wolf control are quite different than what they were when I was working for the Alaska Wildlife Alliance." Number 0487 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked what the difference was. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said, "The difference was that I was representing a board with the Alaska Wildlife Alliance that opposed, unanimously opposed, all of the proposals before the Board of Game in 1992. Out of that context, and as ... a citizen, a member of the public, I am willing to work with people to analyze and understand situations, incorporate all of the information and try to come up with the best solutions for an area. And I think those two are very different." Number 0554 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked about Ms. Whittington-Evans' personal position on the type of predator control in the wolf initiative. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said, "It might be helpful to know that I support the concept of obtaining food from the resources available immediately surrounding us, such as moose, caribou, fish and other things such as vegetables (indisc.) from a garden. I believe ultimately we are all consumptive users. And obtaining food from our surroundings, where there is sufficient supply to support these activities is, in my mind, the most energy-efficient and least- impacting way to live, and one that is ultimately the best for the state and for the environment. It is also a necessity for rural subsistence users." Number 0664 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "You did not answer my question." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS concurred and said that was background. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she did not want background but her personal position, then and now. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS began, "At both times, I was not anti-hunting and ...." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES interjected, "I didn't ask you that. I asked you what your position was on wolf control, as it relates to a predator on a food source. Your personal position." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS stated, "My personal position is that I think we need to have sound scientific justification, a potential for prey to increase, a habitat that has the capacity to support an increase, and the impacts of predator populations on prey species ...." Number 0773 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said Ms. Whittington-Evans was incapable of a direct answer. She asked what "traditional use" meant to her. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "Traditional use means using the wildlife resource to subsist and having had a history of doing so and a cultural tie to doing so." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked what she meant by "history" and "cultural tie." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said, "Both a personal history and, potentially, a family history." Number 0826 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES suggested most Alaskans, and even people who came to America on the Mayflower, had a history of living off the land or eating wild game. She asked whether traditional use meant an urban resident who subsists from game or one specific group of people. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I don't think it's necessarily one specific group of people. I think that it can be somebody living in an urban area that has, over time, used a wildlife resource for their own subsistence." Number 0886 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to Ms. Whittington-Evans' reply to the question of amending Alaska's constitution. She asked, "And would you tell us what your constructive solution is?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "As a board member, I'm not sure that it's relevant whether or not I support amending the constitution." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES retorted, "It's relevant whether you get my vote or not, and it takes a number of us to confirm you." She asked for an answer. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said, "I support a constructive solution. I am not an expert on this issue at all. There have been people working very hard, [with] much more background and experience in this than I do, for many years." Number 0979 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "What is your constructive solution, then?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "The closest thing ... that has been brought to my attention that might be a possibility is the suggestion or proposal by Lieutenant Governor Fran Ulmer a year ago. I personally do not have my own constructive solution." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES noted that a portion of the Lieutenant Governor's constructive solution was to amend the constitution. Number 1022 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to letters not included in the committee packets. He said he would read excerpts from these, which were signed by Ms. Whittington-Evans within the last year. Acknowledging these were forestry issues, he said, "I think we have established in this record, and certainly on numerous occasions in this committee, that habitat is best served when mature trees, especially dead mature trees, are removed and allow browse to grow." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN read: "We're losing our Kenai Peninsula. While most of us go about the normal routine of our lives, Kenai Peninsula forests are being clear-cut at an alarming rate." He read another excerpt: "Perhaps we've visited the Homer Spit in the last year and seen the logs and mountains of wood chips lining the spit, waiting for transport across the seas." He said, "I presume you're aware those were from dead trees." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said yes. Number 1102 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN again read: "If this continues unchecked, we can say good-bye to the Kenai Peninsula as we know it. Logging activities, including road building, have a proven track record of adversely affecting fish and wildlife habitat and water quality. Together, we are making a difference in Alaska's forests. Sincerely, Nicole." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN again read: "Stevens, Murkowski and Young have continued their attacks on our environment. Stevens, Murkowski and Young are attempting to undermine the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act. Our delegation is helping to reverse this situation. Your delegation. End Ketchikan Pulp Company's long- term contract. Don't extend it. For more information, please call Nicole." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN read a final excerpt about her: "The Rainforest Coordinator, ... Nicole Whittington-Evans, says `just say no to any more logging on the Chugach.'" Number 1142 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated the committee kept trying to determine, to no avail, her current views. Seeing those articles by and about her made him question the credibility of her answers. He asked, "Would you please come out and refute these articles or accept the fact that this committee may not be inclined to support you? Because we're not just sure what your answers are." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "I think it's important to remember that that was written under the context of the salvage rider that was passed in July of '95. And all of those statements were related to logging under the salvage rider, which I think a number of Alaskans have shown that they felt this was ... not a constructive piece of legislation. And so ... when I was quoted as saying `just say no to logging on the Chugach,' or `to any more logging on the Chugach,' that was under the context of the salvage rider." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS clarified, "I do not oppose all logging. And I do not oppose all logging on the Chugach. So I think it's important to remember that within the context that it was written in." Number 1243 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether that also applied to the Kenai. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said that was correct. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, "So you're refuting these things, then, as not having applicability in the future?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said that was correct. Number 1257 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that if there was no time for public testimony, there would be ample opportunity in the near future. Number 1301 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked whether Ms. Whittington-Evans saw hunting and viewing as incompatible uses. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said no. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked whether she would oppose closing any more areas for hunting to allow for viewing only. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "As with other issues that have been raised, I think that each individual situation needs to be ...." REPRESENTATIVE MASEK interjected, "Well, in general, Ms. Evans, do you view ...?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said in general, no. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK restated her original question. Number 1335 MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "In general, I would not support closing hunting to allow for viewing areas only." REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked whether she believed in using scientific data to make sound management decisions where predator-prey relations are concerned. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "Absolutely." Number 1378 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "Would your views also go along with that of Mr. Gordon Haver (ph)?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "No, not necessarily." Number 1394 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she had been advised by anyone in the Administration regarding this hearing. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said, "I have had conversations with the Administration about this, and ... they have been trying to prepare me and others in doing the best job we can during these confirmation hearings. And they have tried to indicate, to the best of their knowledge, what types of questions might come up and have given me advice to be honest and open and do the best job I can." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether they had advised her on how to answer those questions. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said no. Number 1449 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she felt it would be proper for the legislature to apply pressure, after she was a confirmed member, to influence her actions as a board member. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said no. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she felt the same way about the Governor's office. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said, "I do." Number 1464 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she had any knowledge of the people in the Governor's office applying pressure or trying to influence the Board of Game before decisions were made. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said no. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "If you're feeling pressure from any legislators or the Governor's office, would you make a commitment to contact me about it?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said yes, she would make that commitment. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN responded, "Well, you have my commitment I'm not going to try to influence you after. ... The only appropriate way that I think it should be done would be something from the legislature or the committee about following either constitutional mandates or statutes. But it would be an official action, and I wouldn't oppose the Governor's office doing that, either." He said he adamantly opposed any private influence. Number 1505 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "I would like to know who in the Governor's office is coaching you." MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS responded, "I've had discussions with Heather Bradner." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "Is that the only one?" MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS replied, "She and her office mate last night spoke with me about this hearing." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked the office mate's name. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said she believed her name is Cindy. Number 1544 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether the briefings of appointees had been given together or separately. MS. WHITTINGTON-EVANS said separately. Number 1561 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked Ms. Whittington-Evans and called on Lori Quakenbush. CONFIRMATION HEARING: LORI TRENT QUAKENBUSH, BOARD OF GAME Number 1581 LORI TRENT QUAKENBUSH, Appointee, Board of Game, testified via teleconference. A research associate with the University of Alaska, she is a 24-year resident of Fairbanks with a bachelor's degree in wildlife management and a master's degree in biology. She has worked in Alaska as a biologist for at least 15 years, including work in the Pribilof Islands, Kodiak, Sitka, the Fairbanks area, Kotzebue and the North Slope. MS. QUAKENBUSH said she is a hunter whose family basically lives on moose, salmon, halibut and so forth. She said she believes her interest in Alaska and her background, including her background in biology, would serve her well as a member of the Board of Game. Number 1645 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she considered her background as a federal biologist a conflict with state management of fish and game. MS. QUAKENBUSH said no. She said he was referring to the six years, from 1990 to 1996, when she worked as a wildlife biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She had worked mostly in wetlands permitting and worked a lot with oil companies on the North Slope, basically to try to minimize impacts on wildlife resources, migratory movement and things like that. "I recognize the type of conflicts that you're worried about, but I don't see that there's any problem there," she added. Number 1688 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, if there was a proposal to close hunting in favor of wildlife viewing but no biological basis for it nor impact on the resource from overhunting, whether she would "err on the side of the wildlife viewer or the hunter." MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "Well, I don't view that as a yes-or-no question, either, which I know you're going to be upset to hear about. But what I would actually like to do is not to separate those groups of people. I myself am a hunter and a wildlife viewer, and I think the majority of the hunters you ask will also say they fall in both categories." She did not believe those two categories or activities were mutually exclusive. "And I think we deal with actually the same individuals in both groups of people," she said. MS. QUAKENBUSH continued, "Even if you are looking at separate people, ... I think there's plenty of situations where you can do both in the same areas. And I think it's useful to try to do that as much as you can. I think it's important for people who only view wildlife to understand why and what hunting is all about, and vice versa. So I guess as a solution to that, I would actually try to accommodate both user groups if they are separate, or both types of activities in the same places, as much as possible." Number 1767 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "So you don't have any strong feelings that the fact that we have 54 million acres plus that are off-limits to any hunting, that that's an adequate amount of wildlife-viewing- only?" He took issue with her statement that it's the same individuals. He believed they were talking about people who did not come here to hunt, who were tourist-oriented and perhaps had never picked up a gun in their lives. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN suggested hunters may have more opportunity to view animals than nonhunters, because the former spend a great deal of time learning the habits of the animals. He believed hunting areas and opportunities had been continually eroded and compromised in Alaska. He expressed concern about appointing people to the Board of Game who would be biased towards wildlife viewers. MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "Well, I don't have a bias towards wildlife viewers, and I don't necessarily have a bias ... towards hunters. I see my role as a member of the Board of Game as ... looking at all of the different types of activities that people want to do in those areas and deciding on those things. But like I said, I think the people that you're talking about, who have never picked up a gun, are exactly the types of people that you might want to ... not have a separate viewing area for." MS. QUAKENBUSH believed many people come to Alaska to see wildlife. It was important for them to recognize that we hunt and trap, for instance. "And I think that adds to their visit to Alaska," she said. "So I would not look to, you know, to close down certain areas to hunting. But, you know, I don't think that it's necessarily either-or. I think there's some other solutions to specific instances. And I'd look at them on a case-by-case basis." Number 1901 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether Ms. Quakenbush was willing to utilize "good science" in the wake of possibly hundreds or thousands of letters, phone calls, or other pressures being brought from an emotional standpoint rather than scientific facts. MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "I am a scientist. So I recognize science, both the good and bad, and I think I'd be a good judge of what the science would be. I understand a lot of the issues before the board are likely to be very emotional and contentious. And I view my job as, you know, looking at all of those things and all the information that's available and trying to make the best decision I can, with six other members of the board, for the resource and for the people of Alaska." Recognizing some issues would be very emotional, she saw looking through that emotion as part of the job. Number 1979 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "I'm sure you've been listening to the questions that have been asked." MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "I have." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether Ms. Quakenbush believed the state constitution should be amended. MS. QUAKENBUSH said, "I don't subscribe to either amending it or not amending it. I've been in Alaska for a long time. I have seen this issue come up over and over again. I'm not an expert on the issue, and I don't even pretend to have a solution to this problem. I think if there was an easy solution to this problem, it would have been solved by now." Number 2015 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said in her opinion, there was an easy solution. However, people would have to be willing to accommodate each other for the solution to be found, because she believed it existed under the Uses section of the state constitution, as written. She asked how Ms. Quakenbush would vote if she voted today on whether to have a constitutional amendment. MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "Well, I like to pride myself on being an informed voter. And I would have to do a lot more background and a lot more looking into, you know, what's already been brought up about this issue before I would like to vote on it." Number 2061 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked how long she had been a biologist. MS. QUAKENBUSH said since 1982. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "And you have worked in the biological field in Alaska most of that time?" MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "All of that time." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said this issue had been around all that time. She asked, "As a biologist working in the field, you have not, at any time, decided to yourself, nor acquired the knowledge, as to how you felt about one group of Alaskans being able to use the resources over another?" MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "I think there is merit for both arguments. I guess what I would say right now [is] that dual management for wildlife is a difficult way to manage wildlife. But as a board member, my duty is to uphold the state constitution and work within the state constitution as it fits now. And I don't really see, you know, how I personally feel about the issue, if I knew how that was, as being relevant to my job as a board member." Number 2109 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said it was relevant because of the complex issues as the constitution relates to Alaska's fish and game and the different user groups. She noted that Ms. Quakenbush would be asked to make decisions based upon different uses and the different user groups. MS. QUAKENBUSH responded, "And I will do that, based on the constitution as it reads now." Number 2124 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "And do you believe that the constitution, as it reads presently, allows for the different consumptive uses of the resource as it relates to a subsistence lifestyle?" MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "I think that it does, to a certain extent, from the part of the constitution that you've been quoting, Section 4, about sustained yield. ... The last part of the sentence of that is `subject to preferences among beneficial users [sic],' and that might be where the preferences that you're talking about might be." Number 2151 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded, "That and the section in the constitution just before it that relates strictly to the fact that the resources belong to all the people for their common use. And based upon that, you would have a reason to distinguish among user groups? And do you believe then, that as it relates to feeding one's family, subsistence off of the resource, that one user group should have priority over another?" MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "Well, that's the way it is right now. If we have healthy wildlife populations, and there's enough for everybody, that's not something we need to worry about. But we do have subsistence regulations or laws or whatever. And the way fish and game issues are set up now, that's how it works. And I can't change that, as a board member or as a member of the public." Number 2192 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "If you had to make a choice between commercial use of the resource or personal use, what would you do?" MS. QUAKENBUSH asked her to define "commercial use of the resource." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "That means that somebody who hunts for it for -- makes a living off of hunting for it, to sell, or to sell their services, or for people to feed their families." MS. QUAKENBUSH said, "I definitely think that for people to feed their families is an important -- is a priority of the resource (indisc.). Number 2230 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether, if she thought feeding one's family was the first priority, that applied to all Alaskans or just one particular group of Alaskans. MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "For all Alaskans." Number 2240 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked about her commitment to states' rights in another arena. He referred to a recent executive order that "created a tremendous lock-up of land" in a state which, like Alaska, had few electoral votes. Although it did not directly affect the Board of Game, he believed it had a direct bearing on her views. He expressed concern that western states were being sacrificed for votes in the eastern United States "through the environmental consideration." He asked for Ms. Quakenbush's view of that, indicating she did not have to answer. MS. QUAKENBUSH said she would like to be able to answer but was unfamiliar with that issue. Number 2297 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained that the Antiquities Act "locked up" a significant part of Utah, including some small towns, and shut down a couple of mines. He stated his belief that Alaska is vulnerable from that same standpoint. He wanted to know Ms. Quakenbush's feeling about that attitude of federal encroachment on states' rights. MS. QUAKENBUSH said she could address that in some manner. She stated, "There are a lot of lands in Alaska that are federally managed. And they manage their wildlife resources differently than the state does. I look upon that as a positive thing in a lot of ways. We can argue whether we think there should be, you know, less land that's being federally managed. But one of the things that that allows us, as wildlife managers, to do in Alaska is to know that there are places in Alaska that act as refuges for wildlife populations, and also places where the ecosystems are being allowed to fluctuate more naturally, which gives ... more of us an opportunity to intensively manage or try to manage populations for sustained yield and in other parts of the state." MS. QUAKENBUSH continued, "I recognize that, you know, we could still argue about how much of that in the state is necessary. And it would be nice to have more areas opened for hunters and other uses. But I really do think that having a blend of those types of management schemes in a state like Alaska is actually, overall, it's very beneficial." Number 2392 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said, "When you take an oath to defend the Constitution of the State of Alaska, part of that, I believe, goes along with being able to defend the statehood compact. In the statehood compact, we were given the right to manage fish and wildlife in our state, and I believe, with every ounce of my belief, that the federal government has exceeded their authority to manage fish and wildlife in our state and are violating the statehood compact. And I'm very concerned about how you -- you said you look on it as a positive thing to have federal management in some ways." Number 2417 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES commented that President Carter had locked up 54 million acres in Alaska with the Antiquities Act. MS. QUAKENBUSH referred to the question asked of other appointees about whether or not anyone from the legislature had tried to influence board opinions. TAPE 97-24, SIDE B Number 0006 MS. QUAKENBUSH said she had specifically requested information about types of questions that might be asked, the format, and what questions had been asked in the past. "I was not told how to answer," she added. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she would feel it would be improper for the legislature or the Governor's office to apply pressure to influence her actions as a board member on specific issues. MS. QUAKENBUSH replied, "Yes, I do. I think that the game board is set up to be independent of those two entities, and hopefully to serve the public. And I do think that it would be inappropriate." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she had any knowledge of that happening from the Governor's office. MS. QUAKENBUSH said no. Number 0035 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether she would be willing to commit to letting Co-Chairman Ogan know if she was being influenced inappropriately by either the Governor's office or the legislature. MS. QUAKENBUSH said, "Yes, I would, and I guess I would have to let you know that I have already -- feel like I've been approached from a legislator's office in that regard." Number 0052 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said he believed it was appropriate for legislators to talk to her prior to confirmation. He said, "The way we influence you the most is by the statute, and ... I think if, in the legislature's opinion, the game board is not following the statutes or the constitution, I would take the liberty to publicly raise that question through the committee process. But ... after you're confirmed, I think if you're contacted by legislators or the Governor's office on a specific issue, you know, you should have a fair amount of autonomy, but ...." Co-Chairman Ogan called upon Representative Barnes. Number 0082 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES noted that Ms. Quakenbush had said she had already been contacted by legislators. She asked, "And does that mean that they contacted her about this confirmation process, or questions that might be raised, or game-related issues as it relates to actions on the board?" MS. QUAKENBUSH responded, "Yes, it was specifically related to a proposal that would be coming before the board." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked Ms. Quakenbush and called upon Michael Fleagle. CONFIRMATION HEARING: MICHAEL R. FLEAGLE, BOARD OF GAME Number 0150 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that because only 15 minutes of the meeting remained, he reserved the possibility of Mr. Fleagle returning for questioning at a later date. MICHAEL R. FLEAGLE, Appointee, Board of Game, testified via teleconference, saying he was a lifetime rural Alaskan resident with a long history of traditional, cultural use of resources. MR. FLEAGLE stated, "I understand the importance of maintaining a healthy population of fish and game resources for all Alaskans' use, particularly those that reside in remote areas that rely on the resource as a primary food source. I believe in responsible predator management to maintain the proper balance in our predator- prey ratios. Our state resource managers have been able to accomplish this for over 35 years, with the private citizens being among some of the best of these managers, until the recent move to restrict harvest methods of predators." MR. FLEAGLE continued, "I strongly believe in the public process system currently in place to achieve these goals, namely, the state Board of Game and the state Department of Fish and Game. I would like to see the state resume responsibility for all fish and game management on all lands in Alaska, as I feel the dual management system we currently have to be inefficient and cumbersome. I am opposed to game management by referendum or public opinion, especially from outside of Alaska, and feel that all efforts should be made to return the management duties to this state. We need to rely more on the experience, oral tradition and sound advice of people that live in areas that may be affected by regulations." MR. FLEAGLE advised that he wrote his position statement in October, when first being considered for appointment, and still maintained these positions. Number 0307 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "Mr. Fleagle, you indicated in your statement that you would not be one of those who might yield to pressure. I'm wondering how you would handle a situation, since you will be, in effect, in a position of allocating game take to areas of rather intense hunting, like Tyonek or Ninilchik or something like that, where there are a lot of urban hunters who want to go into those areas, because as Alaskans, ... certainly the majority of us enjoy game meat. How do you feel that you would handle areas like that, where you have such intense pressure on certain herds?" MR. FLEAGLE replied, "We're limited in how we can allocate these uses. And I guess I would have to come down in favor of the game resource itself. But personally, I do strongly believe that people that reside in the area don't have the same economic ability as somebody coming from outside the area to harvest that game." He said in McGrath, a moose was worth a lot to locals for the amount of meat it provided, as opposed to having to buy it from the grocer at $5 to $8 per pound. "So I don't see that this would be a decision that the game board would be able to make, though, in the current mandate," he stated. Number 0307 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, "Mr. Fleagle, since we can't buy game as such in the urban areas, we do buy salmon. And salmon will sell anywhere from $9 to $10 a pound. And so there are certainly significant numbers of people in urban areas whose economic status is pretty low. It's a marginal existence. And if they had an opportunity to hunt in these other areas, where the people who live there also are of a low economic standard and rely heavily upon game meat, would you still maintain your attitude that there should be a preference locally?" MR. FLEAGLE replied, "Well, yes, I think I would, sir. Having come from the bush, knowing the economics of the people out there -- and I'm talking rural areas. I'm not talking -- I don't know the road system. You might have a whole different case of scenarios there. But we don't have the ability to go to the supermarket and buy our meat for one to -- you know, the cheap meat, at any rate. I think I would maintain that position." Number 0358 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "Will you, as a board member, protect the public's right to access common property resources, or will you support imposing the views of one group on all other Alaskans?" MR. FLEAGLE replied, "I am opposed to any special interest group trying to get any special access privileges or any of this sort. And I would definitely be in favor of remaining open to access to all Alaskans, as far as the resource can handle that access." Number 0384 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to HB 168 and briefly described it. She asked his opinion and whether he supported it. MR. FLEAGLE replied, "Obviously, we are mandated to regulate fish and game resources -- or, excuse me, game resources, by biological concerns and not access or special interest pressures. And so therefore, I wouldn't ... recommend closing an area to access unless there was a real biological reason." Number 0429 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "What's your opinion on the co-management of the resources, i.e., the federal takeover of fish and wildlife management on federal lands, and the statehood compact, the constitutional questions we've discussed previously, and -- but specifically, the co-management?" MR. FLEAGLE replied, "As I stated in my position statement, I am opposed to the dual management system. I call it dual management. I don't see a co-management. We're working apart from each other. And I think it's wrong. I think that the state needs to maintain control of the resources. I believe in the statehood compact, and I believe that they had in the best interests of the residents of this state and -- when they agreed to that compact -- and I think that we should return to that." Number 0470 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, if there was an issue involving no biological justification for closing an area to hunting in favor of wildlife viewing, whether he would lean towards the hunter or the wildlife viewer. MR. FLEAGLE replied, "I'm on record at the Board of Game meeting in Sitka as stating that I would be opposed to any closing of areas to hunters. The proposal that that statement was made with was dealing with reopening an area that had previously been closed for a long period of time. I saw no justification to reopen that area. But I would be opposed to closing any new areas." Number 0508 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked him to reflect on questions to other appointees relating to the state constitution. She asked whether he supported amending it and how he viewed Sections 3 and 4 of Article VIII. MR. FLEAGLE replied, "I don't feel that we need to amend our constitution to arrive at the place that we need to be as far as game management. I think that if we are allowed to manage our game resources, we will not have a situation to where we have to fight over allocation issues. I believe that those game resources are available for all, and that -- I don't agree with the constitutional amendment (indisc.). I think that we already have measures in place that allow for harvests to be allocated in certain ways." REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said that was the first answer she had received all day that was not wishy-washy and that she believed he had read and understood the constitution. Number 0581 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that three minutes remained. He thanked the public for listening and encouraged people to return when public testimony was scheduled. He also encouraged the public to fax or send written comments to the committee. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether Mr. Fleagle had been advised by or had discussions with the Governor's office. MR. FLEAGLE said no. He had been invited to attend a briefing the previous night, but had declined. CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked whether he felt it would be proper for the legislature or the Governor's office to influence his decisions on the Board of Game once he was confirmed. MR. FLEAGLE said, "No, sir, I feel that any of that type of pressure would be inappropriate, except that in the case that legislation may be passed that we would be obligated to follow, that would be the only time that I think it would be appropriate." Number 0661 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked, "And if you hear inappropriate influence, would you be happy to contact me about that?" MR. FLEAGLE replied, "Certainly." CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN thanked Mr. Fleagle. ADJOURNMENT Number 0679 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee meeting at 11:59 a.m.