HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE March 19, 1996 8:05 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jeannette James, Chair Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair Representative Joe Green Representative Ivan Ivan Representative Brian Porter Representative Caren Robinson Representative Ed Willis MEMBERS ABSENT All members present. COMMITTEE CALENDAR Confirmation of Greg Roczicka to the Board of Game. - CONFIRMATION ADVANCED Confirmation of Anne K. Ruggles to the Board of Game. - CONFIRMATION ADVANCED Confirmation of Victor Van Ballenberghe to the Board of Game. - CONFIRMATION ADVANCED HOUSE BILL NO. 383 "An Act relating to reimbursement by the state to municipalities and certain established villages for services provided to individuals incapacitated by alcohol; and providing for an effective date." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD HOUSE BILL NO. 371 "An Act relating to the rights of terminally ill persons." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION No Previous Action. WITNESS REGISTER GREG ROCZICKA, Appointee Board of Game P.O. Box 513 Bethel, Alaska 99559 Telephone: (907) 543-2903 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding the confirmation. ANNE K. RUGGLES, Appointee Board of Game P.O. Box 82950 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 474-3755 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding the confirmation. VICTOR VAN BALLENBERGHE, Appointee Board of Game 8941 Winchester Street Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Telephone: (907) 344-1613 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding the confirmation. LEO KEELER 3810 Crosson Circle Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone: (907) 561-8796 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of Mr. Ballenberghe, Mr. Roczicka, and Ms. Ruggles. ROBERT NANCE 3005 Carroll Lane Anchorage, Alaska 99517 Telephone: (907) 248-4619 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of Mr. Ballenberghe. JAY MASSEY P.O. Box 429 Girdwood, Alaska 99587 Telephone: (907) 783-2129 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of Mr. Ballenberghe. WARREN OLSON 5961 Orth Circle Anchorage, Alaska 99516 Telephone: (907) 346-1811 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to Mr. Ballenberghe and Ms. Ruggles. MARVIN PARK, Legislative Vice President Alaska Bow Hunters HC67 Box 1222 Anchor Point, Alaska 99556 Telephone: (907) 235-8125 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to Mr. Ballenberghe and Ms. Ruggles. DAN HASKINS P.O. Box 157 Anchor Point, Alaska 99556 Telephone: (907) 235-2502 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to Mr. Ballenberghe. TRISH WURTZ P.O. Box 82864 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 479-5688 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of Mr. Ballenberghe. KATHERINE RICHARDSON P.O. box 80766 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 479-2362 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of Ms. Ruggles. JAMES DAVIS 2285 Truly Faire Lane Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Telephone: (907) 455-6780 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of Mr. Ballenberghe. NAT GOOD, Member Delta Junction Fish and Game Advisory Committee P.O. Box 867 Delta Junction, Alaska 99737 Telephone: (907) 895-6282 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to Mr. Ballenberghe. JOHN ZABIELSKI P.O. Box 453 Tok, Alaska 99780 Telephone: (907) 883-5506 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of Mr. Ballenberghe. ROBERT BROWN P.O. Box 3448 Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-2227 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to Ms. Ruggles. ROY BURKHART P.O. Box 204 Willow, Alaska 99688 Telephone: (907) 495-6337 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to Ms. Ruggles and Mr. Ballenberghe. ELIZABETH BURKHART P.O. Box 204 Willow, Alaska 99688 Telephone: (907) 495-6337 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to Ms. Ruggles and Mr. Ballenberghe. DAVID GRINDE P.O. Box 3236 Palmer, Alaska 99645 Telephone: (907) 376-3275 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to Mr. Ballenberghe and Ms. Ruggles. WAYNE WOODS P.O. Box 3037 Palmer, Alaska 99645 Telephone: (907) 376-3892 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to Mr. Ballenberghe and Ms. Ruggles. GARY PAHL P.O. Box 878549 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 Telephone: (907) 376-7610 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to Ms. Ruggles and Mr. Ballenberghe. KEN RIVARD P.O. Box 871842 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 Telephone: (907) 376-2140 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to Ms. Ruggles and Mr. Ballenberghe. LEONARD HAIRE P.O. Box 1043 Palmer, Alaska 99645 Telephone: Not available. POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to Ms. Ruggles. EDDIE GRASSER, Member Alaska Outdoor Council 4506 Robbie Road Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 463-3830 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to Ms. Ruggles and Mr. Ballenberghe and support of Mr. Roczicka. CARL ROSIER, Vice President Territorial Sportsman Inc. P.O. Box 20761 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 463-3830 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to Ms. Ruggles and Mr. Ballenberghe and support of Mr. Roczicka. JOEL BENNETT Address not available. Telephone: (907) 586-1255 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of Ms. Ruggles and Mr. Ballenberghe. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 96-36, SIDE A Number 0015 The House State Affairs Committee was called to order by Chair Jeannette James at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Willis, Ogan, Green, Ivan, Porter, Robinson and James. No members were absent. The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs Committee was the confirmation hearing of Greg Roczicka to the Board of Game. CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES explained the three applicants were on-line via teleconference. She asked for a brief statement from each before opening up the floor to questions from the committee members. Number 0165 GREG ROCZICKA said he had lived in Bethel almost his entire life. He had always wanted to be a game warden since a small child, and had always been interested in resource issues. He turned his interests into a career about 10 years ago, and started practicing what he preached as part of the Association of Village Council Presidents, Inc. During the last 10 years he had been a part of many contentious issues in Bethel. He said when the seat became open he submitted his name because there were not any representatives on the board from his area. CHAIR JAMES thanked Mr. Roczicka for his comments. She asked the committee members if they had any questions. Number 0291 REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked Mr. Roczicka if he had ever been hunting, and what was his general philosophy towards hunting? Number 0320 MR. ROCZICKA replied he had been hunting and fishing ever since he was old enough to carry a rifle. He viewed hunting as a way to obtain food. Number 0379 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN explained the Board of Game was controversial and a "heck of a lot of hard work." He further explained a "hide thicker than a grizzly bear's" was needed to deal with the pressure of the various interest groups. He asked Mr. Roczicka why he would want to subject himself to that pressure? Number 0425 MR. ROCZICKA replied he had been dealing with political controversy for the past eight years. He did not view it as any different than what he had already been doing, except at a higher and broader level. He cited he worked on the United States - Canada Salmon Treaty negotiations which was not an easy task. Furthermore, over the past five years he had been a liaison between state and federal managers on subsistence issues. He said he had callouses all over his body now. Number 0504 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Mr. Roczicka if he had a strong position on preferential hunting or hunting preferential for individuals? He said he was skirting a very controversial issue. He wondered, if he had a strong position on that issue, or was he open to other positions. Number 0544 MR. ROCZICKA replied the bottom line was to look at the harvest and surplus of a population. However, a lot of that information was not available. Furthermore, if there was enough to provide for everybody and for all the desired uses, he did not have a problem. However, if a person wanted to kill something, he believed it needed to be put to use. Number 0599 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Roczicka his basic philosophy of the relationship between animals and humans? Number 0618 MR. ROCZICKA replied as a result of growing up in the country side, he had developed a deep respect for nature. He was thankful every time he went out because he did not know if he would catch something or not. He reiterated it was a relationship of deep respect. He called it a religious experience or feeling, and it was very difficult for him to explain in words. Number 0658 CHAIR JAMES commented there was a growing population of people and a natural declining population of animals. Some believed the animals should be left alone, and some believed the animals should be managed to prevent a further declining population. She asked Mr. Roczicka, of the two approaches, which one did he prefer? Number 0700 MR. ROCZICKA replied there must be a balance. He did not agree with extreme views. A lot of it had to do with the lack of understanding of either sides. He would suggest to someone to live in the bush for any length of time to further understand both sides of the issue. Number 0782 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked Mr. Roczicka what special qualifications would he bring to the Board of Game, above what was already there? Number 0802 MR. ROCZICKA replied he would bring a cooperative approach. He cited due to his cooperative approach with the state, federal and tribal entities, a dialogue existed now that was not there before. He reiterated he would hope to bring that approach to the Board of Game. Number 0916 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN said "hello" to Mr. Roczicka. It had been a while since he had talked to him. He commended him on his survival through the controversial issues, and for his work in Western Alaska. Number 0938 CHAIR JAMES explained she had not heard anything negative about Mr. Roczicka, only support. She appreciated his answers to the various questions as well. She gave him a 100 percent rating. Number 1125 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if today's public testimony was a new policy. She was not aware of public testimony as part of a confirmation hearing. CHAIR JAMES replied that was her policy. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON replied she did not think it was wrong. It had not been done in the past, however. The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Committee was the confirmation hearing of Anne K. Ruggles to the Board of Game. Number 1168 ANNE K. RUGGLES said her primary interest in the Board of Game peaked during her tenure on the Alaska Wolf Management Planning Team. Prior to that she had only been an observer of the process. She explained she was first appointed by Governor Hickel to the board in 1993. She called her service a very challenging and rewarding three years. She felt she knew the process well enough to be an effective board member now. Furthermore, as a scientist she also found it extremely rewarding. She explained scientists sometimes tended to think they had all the answers and her service on the board was a "wake up call." She explained there was a large component of sociology, anthropology, values and cultural experiences that needed to be added to the scientific process. She reiterated she had to grow as a scientist as a result of her service on the board. Number 1274 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented her background was impressive and her research was very commendable. He asked her, if she saw any light at the end of the tunnel, regarding the management of wildlife between federal requirements and the Alaska State Constitution? Number 1308 MS. RUGGLES replied she leaned towards the answer of "yes." She believed there were people who wanted to make it work. The state needed to talk more amongst itself, however. There were definitions that needed to be agreed upon and cited there were probably over 600,000 definitions of the word "subsistence" in the state. She reiterated Alaska needed to continue to talk amongst itself and to work at it. Number 1372 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented, Ms. Ruggles voted against the expansion of hunting opportunities for the Mulchatna caribou herd, despite the fact that data indicated it was growing beyond its range and the appropriate way to manage that herd would be to liberalize some land and expand hunting opportunities. He asked Ms. Ruggles to explain her vote. Number 1402 MS. RUGGLES replied her vote did not have anything to do with the expansion of hunting opportunities. She agreed there was plenty of room to hunt the Mulchatna caribou herd. Her vote was a comment on the negative hunting effect. She reiterated she did not have a problem hunting the herd, she disagreed with the method, however. Number 1445 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated it was essentially a meat hunt for the locals. Furthermore, he asked her to confirm rumors that she was seen promoting people to sign the wolf initiative petition. Number 1476 MS. RUGGLES replied she could not comment on rumors because she did not know the genesis of them. She stated she had nothing to do with a wolf initiative petition. She explained she was asked by a number of people about the petition, however. She was asked what it contained and what it meant. In response she always suggested to obtain a copy of the petition, study it, then decide if a signature was appropriate. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Ms. Ruggles if she supported the petition? MS. RUGGLES replied she did not like the petition process. It was not a legitimate way to manage wildlife. She said it was a process that people employed when they were frustrated with the system. Number 1511 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Ms. Ruggles if she supported same day aerial hunting of wolves? Number 1516 MS. RUGGLES replied she did not support it as a mechanism for recreational or sport hunting. She said it was not an ethical method of hunting. Many others, including hunters, believed it was not ethical as well. Number 1542 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Ms. Ruggles if she supported same day aerial hunting of wolves as a tool for tests of management mandated by Alaska State Statute? Number 1555 MS. RUGGLES replied, if it was a decision of the state to implement a predator control program, she believed it was the most efficient and effective way to kill the wolves. Number 1570 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded that was a very carefully worded answer. He asked her again if she supported it? Number 1574 MS. RUGGLES replied, if it was used as a legitimate tool for a given circumstance, she support it. The evidence indicated the board was supporting that method. Number 1587 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented Ms. Ruggles voted to close the hunting opportunities at the Paint River bear hunt despite there were other areas closed to bear hunting. He asked Ms. Ruggles why she felt it was necessary to continue to restrict access and to close areas to hunting? Number 1605 MS. RUGGLES replied that was a special instance. The McNeil bear area refuge was an area that many people, hunters, non-hunters, and guides, felt was a high viewing area. Therefore, it was necessary to protect the bear population and even individual bears. She did not believe it should be done everywhere, however. She could not recall another area that had such a high value for viewing as the McNeil area. At the same time the board closed that area to bear hunting, it also increased brown bear hunting for residents in other areas. Number 1660 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated there was not a biological reason to close the McNeil area to bear hunting. There had been hunting for 20 years in that area without causing a detrimental impact on the bear population. He asked Ms. Ruggles if her reasons were scientific or emotional? Number 1675 MS. RUGGLES replied the basis for her reasons were more complex than that. She said she definitely had a philosophy when it came to decision making on the board, and that philosophy derived from her experiences as a human being and as a scientist. She explained scientific information should not make the decision. Science could only predict a particular action, and with some degree of certainty, the reaction. Science was not designed to tell which action to take, however. Her decision making process also included legal, political and sociological considerations. She reiterated science was a part of it, but it could not say which was the right action to take. The other points needed to be considered as well. Number 1762 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented Ms. Ruggles voted against black bear bait hunting because it was unethical, according to a quote in the Anchorage Daily News. He asked Ms. Ruggles to explain what she meant by that comment. Number 1793 MS. RUGGLES replied the decision to vote against black bear bait hunting included all the components mentioned earlier. She cited a work published by the Department of Fish and Game in February of 1994, found it was not an ethical way to hunt. The process favored humans rather than a true hunt between humans and wildlife. Number 1844 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented on Ms. Ruggles' statement regarding the action and reaction of science. He wondered if she was questioning science, or the position of her votes based on scientific values. Number 1875 MS. RUGGLES replied science could not say which action was the right one to take. Furthermore, it could only predict with a degree of certainty, the reaction. Therefore, there were any number of actions that could be taken resulting in any number of reactions. She reiterated, science could not tell which action to take, it was a decision of society. Number 1900 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if she was questioning that science was not the final answer. MS. RUGGLES replied, "right." It was not the final answer. Number 1905 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked how many years did Ms. Ruggles serve on the Board of Game? MS. RUGGLES replied, "three years." REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON further asked Ms. Ruggles for examples of her actions that supported hunting. Number 1921 MS. RUGGLES replied she had supported hunting many times. She cited, as examples, increased goat hunting opportunities, increased variety of weapons available for use on hunts, and increased caribou hunting opportunities. She also worked on creating the wild hunt on Round Island. She further cited increased dealer bag limits in a number of places, wolf trapping seasons, and martin seasons as examples where access and weapon creativity were looked at. Number 1984 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Ruggles if she was a hunter herself? Number 1989 MS. RUGGLES replied she and her husband did not hunt for themselves because they did not eat enough meat to warrant the hunt. However, they did go hunting with friends and shared a portion of the meat with them. Number 2007 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked Ms. Ruggles to respond to the letter from Senator Bert Sharp dated March 13, 1996. Number 2028 MS. RUGGLES replied she had not seen the letter so she could not respond to it. CHAIR JAMES announced it would be faxed to her. Number 2052 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS read the following letter into the record. "Date: March 13, 1996 "To: Representative Jeanette James "From: Senator Bert Sharp "RE: Ann Ruggles re-appointment to the Board of Game "Ann Ruggles record as a Board of Game member is clear. She has consistently been a dissenting vote against hunting activities and proposals to increase depressed moose and caribou herd size by active management. "She has supported the elimination of hunting via closing areas, eliminating or reducing open seasons, restricting methods and means of taking and promoting bio-diversity which is keyed to removing human harvest from the equation of beneficial uses of the game resources. "Her philosophy is clearly illustrated by her own words on her resume. `My goal is to devise ways in which humans can exist in the natural world with minimal impact on the natural systems.' "She is not qualified to serve as an objective policymaker in the management of game resources as required by the Constitution and laws of Alaska. "I strongly urge Ms. Ruggles NOT be confirmed by the Legislature." REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked Ms. Ruggles to respond to the letter. Number 2152 MS. RUGGLES said according to her voting record, she voted in favor of all instances that increased opportunities without harming the wildlife in question. She could not respond to the specific concerns of Senator Sharp because she could not recall any specific long conversations with him. It appeared, however, he was concerned about a hand full of votes that apparently colored her entire voting record. Furthermore, the requirements of the Board of Game were to reflect the diversity of values and experiences held by Alaskans. There were many Alaskans that believed human beings existed in the natural world. She called the statement in her resume a general global statement. Her goal was to manage the system so that in 100 years there was a continued need to have a Board of Game, and the systems were still largely intact. That was the best answer she could give without knowing what exactly were his specific concerns. Number 2396 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Ms. Ruggles which hunting method she found offensive regarding the Mulchatna caribou herd? Number 2306 MS. RUGGLES replied the method she found offense was same day airborne hunting. She described the method as someone flying in, shooting the caribou, then leaving right away. She explained it had been abused in the past, and was viewed as unsportsmanlike by many. The decision came down to an ethical decision on the part of the board. Number 2333 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN cited a scenario where a four-legged predator preyed predominately on the young and the week, and a two-legged predator preyed predominately on the upper-end of the species. He wondered which of the predators would she curtail in a period of reduced game? Number 2365 MS. RUGGLES stated a four-legged predator was probably more apt to take whatever was most easily available which could be the young, the old, or the stupid, for example. She said everybody had to take the heat in a declining population. A four-legged predator would, however, step back somewhat in the long run as food became less available. She further stated an increase in a hunting and trapping season was also fine. Number 2395 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if she meant an increase in hunting and trapping for the four-legged predators? MS. RUGGLES replied, "right." Number 2400 CHAIR JAMES commented she was part of the House Resources Committee when Ms. Ruggles was first appointed to the Board of Game. At that time the wolf control issue was even more controversial than today. At the confirmation hearing, Ms. Ruggles said, if there was a need to reduce the population of wolves, the aerial method was the best way to take out the whole pack. She asked Ms. Ruggles to comment. Number 2438 MS. RUGGLES replied aerial hunting was probably the most efficient, effective and humane way to remove an animal. Number 2457 CHAIR JAMES wondered, however, if it was the best public policy because it was an emotional issue. TAPE 96-36, SIDE B Number 0000 CHAIR JAMES stated the reason why people opposed wolf control was because of the method of aerial hunting. Yet, Ms. Ruggles said it was the most efficient, effective and human way to remove an animal. She wondered if that was the attitude of the general public. Number 0026 MS. RUGGLES replied that was one component of the opposition. She explained there were many that viewed aerial hunting as an unethical method which was the reason why there was a federal airborne hunting act. There was a distinction between hunting and controlling, however. Many people viewed the control of a population as unethical at the expense of another species, such as, recreational activities of human beings. Many people also feared Alaska would make the same mistakes that were made in the Lower Forty-Eight regarding game management. The technology was more advanced today, however, to help prevent that from happening. Furthermore, she felt that outside influences were trying to inhibit the state from participating in a predator control activity. Alaskans were a diverse group of people compared to anywhere else in the United States, therefore, we needed to start talking amongst ourselves. She called for constructive dialogue within the state. It had been done in a small way before. It started with the wolf management planning team and continued with the forty mile caribou planning team. She called it a long, slow and tedious process, the benefit of a democratic society. Number 0151 CHAIR JAMES explained legislation had been passed to mandate intensive game management decision making for the future of the state. Intensive game management did not mean, however, cutting off the ability to recreate. The word "recreate" had two meanings according to Chair James - to recreate for fun and to recreate for food. She commented Ms. Ruggles was a deep thinker and weighed all of the considerations. However, it appeared that her personal choice was with those that did not want to kill animals and cited her choice to hunt with her friends. Number 0227 MS. RUGGLES replied she lived as a farmer and rancher for most of her life in Texas. Therefore, as a farmer and rancher she killed and butchered most of what she ate. She said she had no problem killing animals. Moreover, she worked as a biochemical geneticist where she killed hundreds of animals in a laboratory setting for research. She reiterated her family did not hunt because they did not eat enough meat so it would be a waste to take a moose, for example. She was sorry if Chair James felt that was wrong. The hunting relationship between her family and her friends was very amicable. Number 0259 CHAIR JAMES replied she did not say it was wrong. It just indicated that Ms. Ruggles was on one side of the fence as opposed to the other side, and not in the middle. Number 0276 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented Article VIII of the Alaska State Constitution said the state should manage its resources on a sustained yield basis. The legislature passed a statute to further that philosophy to intensively manage the resources. He asked Ms. Ruggles, if she would be willing to take the oath seriously, to defend the Alaska State Constitution? He further asked Ms. Ruggles if she would be willing to recognize that the legislature was the policy setter and vote in favor to intensively manage game, even if it included issues that were a problem for her personally, such as aerial wolf hunting, if it was the most efficient? Number 0311 MS. RUGGLES replied when presented with a proposal, she would consider the law, the data, and the public input to make a decision. Number 0335 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said it was a "yes" or "no" answer. MS. RUGGLES replied if everything else fell into line and it was a good proposal with sufficient support, then she would vote "yes." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied, "that's what I thought you'd say." CHAIR JAMES announced the House State Affairs Committee would not be hearing HB 383 and HB 371 today due to time constraints. The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Committee was the confirmation hearing of Victor Van Ballenberghe for the Board of Game. Number 0449 VICTOR VAN BALLENBERGHE thanked the committee members for their interest in the process. He explained if it were not for hunting he would not be here before the committee members today. He grew up on a farm with guns, traps and fishing poles. He had not missed a single year of hunting or fishing either in Alaska or outside. He called himself an avid hunter with a personal interest. Moreover, he explained he was a wildlife biologist with 30 years of experience. He had graduate degrees from the University of Minnesota in Wildlife Management. He was also a certified wildlife biologist. He explained he came to Alaska in 1974 to work for the Department of Fish and Game as a research biologist. He lived in Fairbanks from 1977-1987 and worked for the Department of Fish and Game as a statewide fur bear biologist. He lived in Anchorage from 1980 to the present as a researcher for the USDA Forest Service. In 1985 Governor Sheffield appointed him to the Board of Game of which he served one term. At the time the board was dealing with many of the same contentious issues today such as, subsistence, wolf management, rural and non-rural community uses, and land and shot hunting. Furthermore, there were rich wildlife resources in Alaska and many people had a stake in the wildlife either as a hunter or as a tourist. He said he was looking forward to participating as a board member to balance the various uses. He announced he would provide written material on several of the volatile issues that had faced the board recently. He wanted to put his position in writing so that there was no doubt where he stood. Number 0705 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Ballenberghe to comment on his publication on wolf predation of the Nelchina caribou herd. Number 0735 MR. BALLENBERGHE stated there was also a more recent article published in 1985. He explained the two articles were an attempt to summarize the data on predation of the Nelchina caribou herd from the 1950's to the 1980's. He called it a technical article. The article concluded wolf predation played a minor role during the periods of ups and downs of the herd. Furthermore, from the 1980's to the present, the article concluded, wolf predation played an even lesser role. He cited there were about 50,000 caribou in the herd now and around 20,000 moose in the area and approximately 300 wolves. The number of wolves was insufficient to impact the caribou herd. Number 0795 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained he had a copy of a letter by defenders of wildlife action dated December 10, 1987 calling for support to help Mr. Ballenberghe's confirmation. He was not confirmed, however. Representative Ogan asked if Mr. Ballenberghe was aware of any organizations now acting on his behalf? Number 0848 MR. BALLENBERGHE replied clearly he did not sympathize with animal rights. He hunted, ate meat, wore leather and fur, and did not believe in liberating laboratory animals. He reiterated he did not share in their agenda. He did recognize, however, that the people who did acknowledge their agenda supported him because his views were the closest to theirs. Most members on the board did not have views that were towards the middle ground. He explained he had not solicited support from animal rights groups, and if they choose to support him, he suggested looking at the proper context. Number 0908 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked Mr. Ballenberghe if he saw any conflicts or potential ethical problems with his service because he was a federal employee? The question was based on a concern of a constituent. He further asked if his responsibilities were centered around research activities or policies? Number 0940 MR. BALLENBERGHE replied his effort was entirely in research. There was a division between research and management. He did not work for or under the management branch of the USDA Forest Service. He did not feel there would be a conflict and would mitigate any appearance of a conflict. He cited he would abstain from specific issues such as the Tongass National Forest to prevent the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. Number 0987 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked Mr. Ballenberghe if there was a connection between his employment with the USDA Forest Service and the Federal Subsistence Board? Number 1001 MR. BALLENBERGHE replied, "none whatever." There was no relationship or connection. There was a member on the Federal Subsistence Board who worked for the management branch of the USDA Forest Service, however. He reiterated the management branch was separate from the research branch. Number 1028 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Ballenberghe under what biological circumstances would he vote to support wolf control? Number 1038 MR. BALLENBERGHE said it was an issue that he had grappled with in the past. In the past he voted for wolf control measures, and over the years he had maintained the same standards. There must be firm biological data to support the method, however. Furthermore, the cost-to-benefit ratio needed to be favorable along with broad public support. He cited the tourism industry indicated there was a potential for an $85 million loss to the state if it went ahead with an aerial wolf control program a few years ago. He reiterated public support needed to be considered. Finally, the methods needed to be sufficient and humane. Considering all those factors, he would vote in favor of it. Number 1142 CHAIR JAMES commented it appeared Mr. Ballenberghe succumbed to the threats from outsiders rather than to the Alaskan way. She was referring to the potential tourist boycott he mentioned. Number 1193 MR. BALLENBERGHE said he did not claim to be a politician. He agreed with the general idea that the locals should have the predominant voice in resource management. However, when the Governor received 20,000 letters opposing aerial wolf control in 1990, something had to give. To believe that the international protest did not have an affect on the board, was to ignore reality. Number 1259 CHAIR JAMES replied the reason board members were confirmed was to protect the state of Alaska. The Alaskan public needed to be satisfied as well as outside interests. Number 1291 MR. BALLENBERGHE responded he was prepared as a biologist to evaluate the programs and defend the decisions as a board member. Number 1316 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated there had not been cost effective programs in the past. He cited flying around in a helicopter was expensive. The most efficient methods were to include the private sector to liberalize hunting seasons, and to liberalize methods and means, at the direction of the board, to intensively manage wolves. There was broad public support for the most part in the state of Alaska. The last program failed because the board gave into the public outcry. He called a tourism boycott a smoke screen. He said, "if someone doesn't want to come to our state because we control wolves, I'd just assume they stay home." Furthermore, the battle cry of the Alaskan hunter was, "save the baby moose and caribou." Number 1399 CHAIR JAMES stated there was a problem in Alaska with the competing forces between the timber operators, fishing operators, mining operators, and agriculture operators to maintain a livelihood, as opposed to relying on federal and oil revenue. She wondered what considerations Mr. Ballenberghe would give to those issues and to their importance. Number 1463 MR. BALLENBERGHE replied he agreed with Chair James. They were important issues. He realized during his last tenure on the board, that many of the decisions significantly affected people's lives and livelihood. He said subsistence was the cash economy of rural areas. He learned that lesson the last time he was on the board and was willing to consider those issues as part of the decisions again. Number 1525 CHAIR JAMES agreed that subsistence was just another industry. It was the way many people served their basic needs of food, clothing and shelter. It was as much of an industry as timer, mining, fishing and agriculture that create a cash crop. Number 1556 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented as a member of the Board of Game it took a lot of time and energy. She asked Mr. Ballenberghe if he had the time and energy to expend? She also asked what special qualifications did he bring to the board? Number 1582 MR. BALLENBERGHE replied he had the time, interest and energy to be a member of the Board of Game. Furthermore, he had a thick hide to handle the controversial issues as well. He felt his record as a wildlife biologist would be the special qualification he would bring to the board. Moreover, many of the issues were volatile and controversial so a balanced board was needed. He was prepared to help contribute to the balance. Number 1672 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Mr. Ballenberghe, if faced with a situation where there was a conflict between the law, biological theory, and his personal preference which one would he error in favor of? Number 1691 MR. BALLENBERGHE replied clearly the Board of Game must follow the law. It was easy to lose sight that the board had a narrow opportunity to address issues. The legislature, the courts, and the federal government set the broad policy guidelines and the job of the board was to try to operate within those guidelines. He said he was inclined to say the law must be followed first. CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in Anchorage, Leo Keeler. Number 1806 LEO KEELER called himself an avid hunter. He supported the confirmation of Mr. Ballenberghe. He said Mr. Ballenberghe had helped many hunters and cited his participation in the Sportsman Show in Anchorage. Furthermore, his scientific background would lend credibility to the board as well as his past experience on the board. He asked Mr. Ballenberghe his position on archery hunting surrounding black bear baiting? He further asked his position on boycotting other industries as well as hunters? Number 1887 MR. BALLENBERGHE replied black bear baiting was a controversial issue that had been before the board in the past. He explained he was contacted by one of the proponents to repeal the bear banning regulations. He declined to support it, however. Ten years ago the board began its efforts to reform the practice of bear baiting. Consequently, the hunters had to register their bait stations and limit the number of stations. The current situation was a comprise as a result of many years of efforts. The board addressed the issue again recently, and he would have voted to maintain the current regulations, had he been a member. Moreover, he said he did not understand the boycott question asked by Mr. Keeler. Blackmail was not a good way to conduct business. Generally, it was ineffective. MR. KEELER further stated his support for Mr. Roczicka and Ms. Ruggles. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Anchorage, Robert Nance. Number 2032 ROBERT NANCE said he had been a resident of Alaska since 1962. He came to Alaska because of the hunting cooperative laws. He was also interested in wildlife management. He expressed his support for Mr. Ballenberghe because of his strong interest in hunting and other hunters. He would be a valuable addition to the Board of Game as both a biologist and a hunter, and he would look at the issues from both sides. He asked Mr. Ballenberghe his position on the land and shot wolf hunting issue? Number 2086 MR. BALLENBERGHE replied the board had addressed this issue previously. He explained there was now a provision that called for the hunter to move a certain distance from the airplane before shooting the animal. The present regulation was a compromise as a result of a lot of effort and time. He said he supported the current regulations and did not have any intention to oppose them. Number 2149 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated land and shot for deer had been and continued to be an accepted practice in many areas of the state. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Anchorage, Jay Massey. Number 2184 JAY MASSEY said he had been a resident of Alaska for the past 28 years. He was a former employee of the Department of Fish and Game, a registered guide outfitter, an author of four books on archery and bow hunting, and had served for one term on the Board of Game. He expressed his support for Mr. Ballenberghe both as a wildlife professional researcher and as a man of charter and integrity. He had known him for 20 year. He further said he had the perfect temperament to serve on the board - fair, open and willing to listen. He did not understand the opposition to his appointment. The narrow issue of predator control seemed to cause conflict. He explained Mr. Ballenberghe was not against predator control when presented with a good reason. He reiterated his support for Mr. Ballenberghe. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Anchorage, Warren Olson. Number 2370 WARREN OLSON said Mr. Ballenberghe had an excellent background, experience and interest to serve on the Board of Game. However, there was a serious problem within Alaska regarding the relationship between a state agency and a federal agency. Therefore, Mr. Ballenberghe presented a conflict of interest. He cited the issues of adjacent lands, public lands and parks. He expressed he did not support either Mr. Ballenberghe or Ms. Ruggles. CHAIR JAMES announced HB 383 would not be heard today due to time constraints. She explained it would be scheduled for the next House State Affairs Committee meeting date. TAPE 96-37, SIDE A Number 0000 CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Homer, Marvin Park. Number 0038 MARVIN PARK, Legislative Vice President, Alaska Bow Hunters, echoed Mr. Olson's concerns regarding Mr. Ballenberghe. He was not against him personally, but in today's climate of the federal government trying to take over, he questioned the appropriateness of his appointment. He also explained the voting record of Ms. Ruggles favored restricting hunting and trapping. He cited the board voted in support of personal values regarding ethics and fair chase. However, Ms. Ruggles did not vote in support of personal values. He called it a huge vote. She voted in favor of her personal values and not the values of the people she was suppose to be representing. He reiterated the Alaska Bow Hunters did not support either Ms. Ruggles or Mr. Ballenberghe. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Homer, Dan Haskins. Number 0170 DAN HASKINS said he supported the testimony of Mr. Park. He stated there was a conflict of interest between a federal agency and a state appointed position to the board. CHAIR JAMES announced she had received 18 Public Opinion Messages regarding the appointments. She explained all but one were opposed to the appointment of Ms. Ruggles and Mr. Ballenberghe. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Fairbanks, Trish Wurtz. Number 0262 TRISH WURTZ stated she supported the appointment of Mr. Ballenberghe to the Board of Game. She knew him personally when he lived in Fairbanks. He would support the views of hunters well. In addition, his resume indicated he was a very accomplished scientist. The people of Alaska should recognize his willingness to serve on the board and support his confirmation. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Fairbanks, Katherine Richardson. Number 0347 KATHERINE RICHARDSON expressed her strong support for the reappointment of Ms. Ruggles. Ms. Ruggles attended the meetings regularly, participated actively, and gave thoughtful consideration of the issues. She also kept in touch with people and attended meetings between boards. Furthermore, she was able to combine science and policy. She had great scientific knowledge and was also able to work with people. She did not represent any agency or organization, therefore, she did not have a political agenda. She also believed Ms. Ruggles spoke for many Alaskans. She reiterated her support for her. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Fairbanks, James Davis. Number 0446 JAMES DAVIS expressed his support for Mr. Ballenberghe. He explained his entire life was oriented around wildlife as a retired wildlife biologist himself. He knew Mr. Ballenberghe personally and professionally, and respected him as a fellow wildlife biologist. It would serve Alaska well to have a wildlife biologist on the board for his special views and contributions. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Delta Junction, Nat Good. Number 0573 NAT GOOD, Member, Delta Junction Fish and Game Advisory Committee, read the following position statement into the record. "The Delta Junction Fish and Game Advisory Committee opposes the confirmation of Vic Van Ballenberghe to the State of Alaska Game Board. With the removal of Sue Entsminger of Tok from the Game Board, Governor Knowles has left the Eastern Interior and rural Alaska with diminished representation. Sue Entsminger was the only State Game Board member to actually send questionnaires Statewide to poll committees about State game issues. Sue recognized the importance of local knowledge and experience! "It appears to us that Governor Knowles wishes to appoint a `global' urban biologist who is more interested in being politically correct than biologically sound. We doubt that he recognizes the importance of understanding that we have ecosystems within each of our game management area, and that each must be dealt with individually. Intensive Management actually is the maintaining of all species, predator and prey alike, and of their environments, in each given area to provide an optimum growth rate, which should automatically provide for optimum harvest, as well as optimum viewing for Alaska residents. "We believe that local game advisory committees know and understand the game and predator populations of their local area better than State Game Board members and biologists who are unfamiliar with local areas. The Alaska Board of Game needs representation from all areas of the state, including our area, and members who are sensitive to what advisory committees have to say. "Please do not disenfranchise us!" CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Tok, John Zabielski. Number 0675 JOHN ZABIELSKI said he had lived in Tok for 20 years. He was a full-time trapper and guide outfitter. His lifestyle was directly related to the quantity and quality of the state's resources. Therefore, he was deeply concerned about its management. He strongly supported the appointment of Mr. Ballenberghe. His qualifications, experience, and knowledge of the state's resources were well documented as well as his integrity. He said the "country" of Alaska would be well served by his appointment. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Kenai, Robert E. Brown. Number 0739 ROBERT E. BROWN read the following position statement into the record. "I adamantly object to the appointment of Anne Ruggles to the State Game Board. Her anti-hunting position will continually harm the current make-up of the board. I personally do not see where a balance can be agreed upon in the rules and regulations with anti- hunting opinions so prominent on the board. "I came to Alaska twenty years ago with the concept of having freedom to enjoy the wondrous outdoors this state has to offer. Conservation, hunting and fishing are parts of this freedom that go hand in hand with accountability to future generations. Now that I have children, I have been able to pass along the same fondness and rights to them. I have taught them the importance and have given them an understanding about the balance of nature and the role man has in harvesting game as a healthy and proper management tool. "This balance will be greatly disrupted with the addition of Ms. Ruggles to the Board. I also feel strongly that her anti-hunting cynicism will and has had a drastic effect on the rules and regulations responsible hunters and conservationists abide by. "It scares me to think what the future of hunting in this great state will have in store with the inclusion of Ms. Ruggles to the board. I see my rights as a hunter and the freedom to provide for my family being taken away little by little. The right of passage to my children of a tradition I hold dear will be uprooted if I remain quiet. With this in mind, I must sound out loudly in protest and hope that you as lawmakers hear me and my children." CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Mat- Su, Roy Burkhart. Number 0851 ROY BURKHART said he had been a resident of Alaska for 36 years. He opposed the appointment of Ms. Ruggles to the Board of Game. He cited a hearing in Anchorage where he drove 75 miles to attend the hearing to testify. At the completion of the testimony, the board voted 6 to 1 in favor of continuing bear baiting. Ms. Ruggles voted against it and the reasons stated were that she believed it was unethical. He noted during her testimony today she used the words "ethical" and "unethical" at least a dozen times. He wanted to know why her opinion on ethics was any better than his? Furthermore, he opposed the appointment of Mr. Ballenberghe also. He said two biologists were not needed on the board. The purpose of the board was to sit and listen to input from other sources and the public. He wondered if he would cave in on issues related to the federal government because he caved in on the issue of wolf control when faced with a potential tourist boycott. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Mat- Su, Elizabeth Burkhart. Number 0971 ELIZABETH BURKHART said Ms. Ruggles was the only one to vote against bear baiting even after numerous people testified in favor of the issue because it was unethical and went against her personal conviction. She voted for her personal convictions rather than listening to the testimony. The key words were "listening" and "hearing." Ms. Ruggles had demonstrated that she did not do either one very well. Please do not approve her nomination. Appoint someone who will listen and vote accordingly. Furthermore, she did not support the appointment of Mr. Ballenberghe. She echoed the previous testifiers regarding the conflict of interest issue. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Mat- Su, David Grinde. Number 1042 DAVID GRINDE said he supported the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Burkhart. He did not support the appointment of Ms. Ruggles or Mr. Ballenberghe. He commended their dedication and thoughtfulness, but neither could function objectively in the framework of intensive management. They carried too much personal bias towards issues like sportsmanship, and ethics in wolf control, for example. He said ethics should not be in the equation under a management program. Sportsmanship was not an issue in intensive management to get the job done either. He reiterated they both emphasized sportsmanship and ethics too much. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Mat- Su, Wayne Woods. Number 1109 WAYNE WOODS said there were huge areas of Alaska that were currently closed to hunting by the federal government and left to natural cycles. This left a much reduced area for Alaskans to hunt and recreate in. The Board of Game was mandated to manage federal wildlife resources for a sustained yield for the people of Alaska. He said the consumptive users of wildlife provided the funding for its management. He felt that Ms. Ruggles and Mr. Ballenberghe represented a hard turn away from human consumptive use priorities. Their appointment represented a danger to the heritage that he wanted to pass on to his children. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Mat- Su, Gary Pahl. Number 1165 GARY PAHL said he was a 25 year resident of Alaska. He strongly opposed the appointment of Ms. Ruggles and Mr. Ballenberghe. He said Ms. Ruggles' past record spoke for itself including her anti- hunting record. He further said Mr. Ballenberghe presented a conflict of interest between the federal and state government. He said a state biologist or law enforcement officer could not hold a board position. Therefore, he wondered why a federal biologist could hold a position on a state board. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Mat- Su, Ken Rivard. Number 1224 KEN RIVARD said he opposed the appointments of Ms. Ruggles and Mr. Ballenberghe. He supported previous testimony regarding the conflict of interest for Mr. Ballenberghe and the track record of anti-hunting sentiments of Ms. Ruggles. Furthermore, current game provisions allowed a caribou to be hunted while swimming across a river in game management units 23 and 26. He wondered why that had not been addressed. Furthermore, in units 13 and 14 a permit system existed for wolf control. The wolves were hunted at no cost to the state. He said the system should be investigated further and re-instituted. The Canadians did not let ethics and morality of the public interfere with their wolf control. He cited "The Come Back Trail" film as a good example of predator control management. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Mat- Su, Leonard Haire. Number 1309 LEONARD HAIRE said he was a 25 year resident of Alaska. He did not support the confirmation of Ms. Ruggles. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Eddie Grasser. Number 1339 EDDIE GRASSER, Member, Alaska Outdoor Council, said the Council was the largest pro-trapping and hunting conservation group in the state. The present membership was 12,000. The Council opposed the confirmation of Ms. Ruggles and Mr. Ballenberghe, and supported the confirmation of Mr. Roczicka. The Council did not have any problems with the credential of Ms. Ruggles and Mr. Ballenberghe, however, the members of the Council did not support the philosophical bent of the two appointees. The Council believed that wildlife management should include practices that were beneficial to the human uses of the wildlife and not necessarily restricting its use to viewing, for example. He said there were no areas in the state that were closed to viewing, however, there were large areas closed to hunting. A balance was needed, and Ms. Ruggles failed to recognize that based on her past voting record on the board. The portion of the public that continued to cry for closure was philosophically opposed to hunting. Moreover, the Council viewed that personal ethics should not play a role in the decision making process of wildlife management. The Council believed it was constitutionally inappropriate. The right to hunt was an inherent right. Number 1507 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Grasser if the Council supported Ms. Ruggles the first time around? MR. GRASSER replied, "yes, we did." CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness in Juneau, Carl Rosier. Number 1523 CARL ROSIER, Vice President, Territorial Sportsman Inc., said the Sportsman represented around 2,000 hunters and fishermen. He said the means by which the state managed wildlife was really at stake with the appointments. The Sportsman stated it supported Mr. Roczicka as an expert in the area of subsistence. He would be a first class addition to the board. The Sportsman further stated it did not support the confirmation of Ms. Ruggles. He said he pushed for her confirmation during Governor Hickel's tenure. The push was based on the objectivity she showed during the wolf planning process. However, the Sportsman organization had seen her objectivity slip in the last year into the non-intensive crowd. Furthermore, the Sportsman organization opposed the confirmation of Mr. Ballenberghe, not as an individual or because of his credential, but because of the potential conflict of interest as a federal employee. He found it hard to believe that a federal employee could find the time and priority to do the necessary job. It was hard to believe that the state would put forth a federal employee as a nominee when the state was trying to prevent the federal government from taking over the wildlife management of the state. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Joel Bennett. Number 1697 JOEL BENNETT commented on the philosophical hunting issue of each candidate. He served on the Board of Game for 13 years of which time was spent with Mr. Ballenberghe and Ms. Ruggles during their appointments. He knew them both personally and both were committed to protecting the rights of the hunters in the state. They both supported responsible hunting in every way. He said they did not have a bias towards hunting. Number 1800 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Ballenberghe if he was working for the federal government before when he was a member of the Board of Game and were there any problems? Number 1819 MR. BALLENBERGHE replied he was in the exact same position then as he was now. He served on the board for three years and the issue never came up. He reiterated in-order-to avoid the appearance of a conflict he abstained from certain discussions on the Tongass National Forest, for example. He said he did not even know what the federal agenda was and if he did he would not be interested in pushing it. He firmly believed that the state was the proper managing authority. Number 1870 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated the federal agenda was to take over the management of fish and wildlife in the state of Alaska. CHAIR JAMES stated that people could change their ideas as thing progressed. Compared to 10 years ago, there was a public dissention towards the federal government. Furthermore, the wolf issue 10 years ago was also a different issue than today. The board needed to include members that could tune-in to the issues of today. CHAIR JAMES thanked the three appointees for their time today. She reiterated the bills that were not heard today, HB 383 and HB 371, would be scheduled for the next state affairs meeting on Thursday, March 21, 1996. The record further reflected that the House State Affairs Committee received numerous opinion positions regarding the confirmation of Greg Roczicka, Anne K. Ruggles, and Victor Van Ballenberghe. Forty were sent in opposition to the confirmation of Ms. Ruggles, Forty- one were sent in opposition to Mr. Ballenberghe, and six were sent in opposition to Mr. Roczicka. Three were sent in support of Mr. Ballenberghe. Opinion positions were also sent from the President of the Alaska Trappers Association, the Executive Director of the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association, the President of the Alaska Wildland Adventures, and La Bau Forest Resource Consultant Company. A statement sent by Mr. Ballenberghe was also recognized. Please refer to the Legislative Reference Library after adjournment of the second session of the Alaska State Legislature for further information. ADJOURNMENT Number 1950 CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Committee meeting at 10:13 a.m.