SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE April 17, 1998 4:17 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Rick Halford, Chairman Senator Lyda Green, Vice Chairman Senator Loren Leman Senator Bert Sharp Senator Robin Taylor Senator John Torgerson Senator Georgianna Lincoln MEMBERS ABSENT All Members Present COMMITTEE CALENDAR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 392(L&C) am "An Act relating to access by the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Department of Fish and Game to confidential records for fisheries businesses and resources prepared or kept by the Department of Revenue under AS 43.75.015; relating to certain salmon products reports; and providing for an effective date." - PASSED SCSHB 392(RES) FROM COMMITTEE CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 168(RLS)(efd fld) "An Act relating to use of traditional means of access to assist in taking game or fish and to traditional means of access for traditional outdoor activities on land and water set aside for fish and game purposes." - PASSED CSHB 168(RLS)(efd fld) FROM COMMITTEE PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION HB 392 - See Resource Committee minutes dated 4/6/98. HB 168 - No previous action to record. WITNESS REGISTER Representative Beverly Masek State Capitol Bldg. Juneau, AK 99811-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 168. Mr. Ed Grasser, Staff Representative Beverly Masek State Capitol Bldg. Juneau, AK 99811-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 168. Mr. Wayne Regelin, Director Division of Wildlife Conservation P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, AK 99802-5526 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168. Ms. Maureen Moore P.O. Box 223 Gustavus, AK 99826 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 168. Mr. Dick Bishop, Vice President Alaska Outdoor Council P.O. Box 73902 Fairbanks, AK 99826 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 168. Mr. Anthony Crupi Alaska Wildlife Alliance P.O. Box 11006 Haines, Ak 99827 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168. Mr. Cliff Eames Alaska Center for the Environment 519 W 8th, #201 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168. Mr. John Schoen, Director Alaska Audubon Society 308 G St., #217 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168. Ms. Sarah Callahan Northern Alaskan Environmental Center 218 Driveway St. Fairbanks, AK 99701 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168. Mr. Andy Reynolds P.O. Box 191 Ester, AK 99725 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168. Mr. Richard Chapell 5801 Haystack Rd. Fairbanks, AK 99712 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168. Ms. Celia Hunter 1819 Musk Ox Trail Fairbanks, AK 99709 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168. Mr. Douglas Yates P.O. Box 221 Ester, AK 99725 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168. Mr. Michael Eastham P.O. Box 475 Homer, AK 99603 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 168. Mr. Herman Morgan Aniak, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 168. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-29, SIDE A Number 001 HB 392 - REPORTS: FISH TAX & SALMON PRODUCTS CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to order at 4:17 p.m. and announced HB 392 to be up for consideration. SENATOR TORGERSON moved to adopt amendment number one. He explained that he had a problem with the part of the bill that requires the release of confidential information to the Department of Environmental Conservation. He would delete the language saying copies of documents filed under AS 47.15 and copies of revenue determinations and work papers and insert, "All names and addresses of business that are required to file confidential reports under AS 75.015 and the Department of Environmental Conservation and Department of Fish and Game shall maintain the confidentiality that the Department of Revenue is required to extend to maintain the addresses furnished under this subsection." There were no objections and the amendment was adopted. SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SCSHB 392(RES) from Committee with individual recommendations and it was so ordered. HB 168 - TRADITIONAL ACCESS FOR TRADITIONAL ACTIVITIES CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced HB 168 to be up for consideration. REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK testified that HB 168 was introduced as a companion measure to the access bills previously passed last year, HB 23 and SB 35. Public access to the resources they own has been one of her primary areas of concern and this bill completes the effort she began three years ago. Since the passage of ANILCA in 1980, the land tied up in conservation units in Alaska, both on federal and State land, makes up a large percentage of all the public lands in Alaska. Many of these lands are either restricted by law or by geological features. Furthermore, there are millions of acres of private land where access has been restricted and if they were going to consider further restrictions, they should take into account the amount of land that is already set aside for restricted use and whether the restriction is for truly necessary reasons or at the request of a special interest group. Previous hearings on this bill brought up concerns that appear to be generated by misconceptions and she wanted to clear them up. HB 168 grandfathers in all the existing controlled use areas and establishments of refuges or critical habitat areas which have always been by legislative action. Secondly, HB 168 specifically allows the Board to act without legislative intervention if the biological concern is evident. Last, and most importantly, HB 168 does not prevent the Boards from creating controlled use areas with access restrictions unless it lasts for more than two and a half months out of the year or is larger than 640 acres. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said one of the issues that was brought up was Unit 13 and motorized access. If the prohibition doesn't apply to eight months in three years, essentially the motorized access could apply for the entire fall caribou and moose season continuously in Unit 13 without this bill having any effect. MR. ED GRASSER, Staff to Representative Masek, said that was correct. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said by the correspondence he was getting, this is a very violent bill, but it doesn't seem to do that with the amendments that were adopted in the final version. SENATOR TAYLOR asked why they limited it to one square mile. MR. GRASSER said the actual exceptions were derived from similar language that was crafted in previous years for HB 23 and HB 447. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they made their restricted area in one mile and an eighth on one side, their law doesn't apply. MR. GRASSER answered if it was greater than a mile and an eighth on each side, they would have to come to the legislature for approval to restrict access in that area. Part of the experience on this bill came from when he was a Board of Game member. They wanted to allow the Board flexibility in managing access in cases where a certain level of use arose, so they wouldn't have to come to the legislature for approval. Number 181 MR. WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, said this bill would limit the ability of the Board to a certain degree to establish control use areas that restrict the means of transportation that hunters use to access lands. Control use areas are a tool that the Board of Game has long used to provide a diverse hunting experience to protect wildlife habitat or to reduce hunter conflicts. Some control use areas are used to segregate hunters by time periods so that hunters walking into an area don't have to compete with hunters who go in using off-road vehicles or so that hunters using off-road vehicles don't have to compete with hunters using aircraft for access. There are currently 26 control use areas in Alaska. The first was established in 1971 and over half of them were established prior to 1979. Nine have been established since 1990. Eight were established to provide for walk- in trophy hunting at the request of hunters. He realizes that this bill is not going to affect the existing control use areas, but he wanted to explain how the controlled use areas had been used by the Board of Game in the past. They have been an effective method to maximize hunting opportunity and provide for a variety of hunter experiences while reducing hunter conflicts. The Board of Game is responsible for allocation of the public wildlife resources amongst beneficial uses. They are charged by the legislature for making many difficult allocation decisions and these control use areas are one tool that allows them to do their job in a good way. The Board of Game has a very open process for making decisions and the public has many opportunities to influence these decisions both through the form of advisory committees and at the Board of Game meeting, itself, through public comment periods. The Board of Game makes good decisions that are supported by the majority of hunters and other outdoor users. If they make decisions that are unpopular or that don't work as intended, the Board can change them or the legislature can overrule that individual decision. MR. REGELIN said he thought the system they had in place was working and it's not necessary to have a further restriction. SENATOR LINCOLN asked what's so horrendous about the bill passing, since his concerns over the existing control use areas have been addressed in the amended version. MR. REGELIN said the bill is much improved with grandfathering in areas and giving the Board some flexibility, but the concern is that it's just not necessary and is trying to fix a problem that doesn't really exist. Number 225 SENATOR LINCOLN asked him what people are concerned about, if he didn't think there was a problem. MR. REGELIN answered that two control use areas have been passed in the last four years that have been controversial. One of them was restrictions on air boats in the Fairbanks area which the Board of Game addressed at their last meeting and made some modifications to that control use area to allow expanded use of them within the control use area along the main channels of the river. He thought a lot of letters were generated from the air boat users who felt they didn't have a place to go anymore. The other one was the Noatak control use area which is a five-mile corridor on each side of the river that's closed to landing of aircraft. That's controversial, because there are a lot of animals, the Western Arctic caribou herd, in that area. The Board did that primarily to reduce the conflicts between local hunters who are hunting right on the river and the aircraft hunters who are flying in. The Board felt they could fly up the side channels and still have a lot of access to caribou. Those are the two that have been very controversial. The Noatak control use area has not been changed, although it was reviewed at the Fall Board meeting. SENATOR TAYLOR said he was glad that they took it up, but it's an attempt to make an allocation between groups of people. It doesn't have anything to do with management of the resource. He asked who put them in charge of social engineering. MR. REGELIN said it isn't his place to do that and he doesn't. The Department doesn't have anything to do with establishing controlled use areas. That is done by the Board of Game under authority that the legislature has delegated to them. The purpose of the Board of Game is to make allocation decisions among the different beneficial uses. SENATOR TAYLOR asked why he was against this legislation that is the legislature's attempt to establish policy. MR. REGELIN said he didn't think it was necessary, but it was their prerogative. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he would carry it out, if they do pass it. MR. REGELIN replied that they were setting a policy for the Board of Game, not the Department. Number 290 CHAIRMAN HALFORD said they still have all the authority to designate areas for shotgun, rifle, primitive weapon, etc. This bill just deals with method of access. Number 326 MR. REGELIN said that control use areas are primarily access. They use management areas for bow-only areas. That's why they are called special management areas. SENATOR SHARP said he thought if they laid years end to end on a temporary nature, they could effectively shut down caribou season forever. CHAIRMAN HALFORD added unless there is so much harvestable game that the season can be longer than two and a half months within the confines of this bill which substantially limits any negative effect this bill may have. MS. MAUREEN MOORE, Gustavus resident, said that local control and local input into decisions about local resources, regardless of whether or not they belong to the whole State, comes from people who are more knowledgeable about what happens in that area. She asked them to be sure that they leave lots of room for local input in those issues. She asked them to not take away the opportunity for people to voice their opinions to the Board of Game by way of any amendments or bills. She said this past year in Gustavus, they went through a lengthy process of meetings and communications about this exact issue in the Sand Hill crane critical habitat area during moose hunting season and the use of ATVs. That use of ATVs would happen just during moose hunting season, but its effect was more long lasting than just the time that those people would be out there on the machines. She questioned "traditional use" being defined as a "popular pattern" feeling it was a bit broad. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said they could use customary and traditional which are familiar words. MS. MOORE responded that those words had been argued over, too. SENATOR LINCOLN noted on page 3, line 29 the bill talked about the types of transportation for the popular pattern. She asked if there was a definition on the books now for "popular pattern." SENATOR TAYLOR asked what was the resolution of their debate. MS. MOORE answered that they decided for two years there wouldn't be any use of off road vehicles to harvest game from that area. SENATOR TAYLOR asked how that was arrived at. MS. MOORE replied that Board of Game members came over, after the community, itself, had been through 10 meetings to discuss the issue, for a public meeting and took input and made their decision. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if anyone voted on it. MS. MOORE answered that there was a vote at the meeting of the Board of Game. She said the Board needed to have the flexibility to be at the local level and make the decisions on a case by case basis. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the change had anything to do with biology. MS. MOORE answered, "Yes." She explained that it was basically on wetlands and when an ATV runs over a wetland surface, especially when it does it repeatedly, it depresses the land which fills with water and starts running when it's raining. They essentially create a small web of surface streams which disrupt the natural processes of the wetland. It was also in conflict with the timing of the moose hunt and the migration of the Sand Hill cranes and their being a touchy bird. The sound was also an issue. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they can be hunted. MS. MOORE said they could be. She noted that they could drive out there now when it's not moose season. CHAIRMAN HALFORD explained that the Board of Game has the authority to limit access with regard to harvest. If you want to limit access at other times, you have to go to DNR. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if this applies to the harvesting period to other areas or just this one patch of wetlands. MS. MOORE answered that it applied to the one patch of wetlands, but the scars from ATVs last a long time in Gustavus. Number 456 MR. DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council, said they strongly supported HB 168. They feel it is important as a matter of State policy to insure that areas for fishing and hunting and access to them are maintained which is the essence of this bill. He stated that 60 percent of the State is subject to land use restrictions over which the State has basically no control - the federal lands. Whether or not the feds may be managing fish and game, they still have the authority to manage land uses on those areas regardless of what the State regulations may be. This really raises the profile of the importance of access and opportunities for uses of fish and game and other resources on State and private lands. There are a number of restrictions that already exist on many of those federal areas. Recently, he found that ATVs were not allowed in a substantial part of the White Mountains recreation area. You could use snow machines for a certain period of the year, but not four-wheelers. This is even though one of the purposes of the White Mountain area is to provide access for recreational uses. So you can see the trend of what happens on the federal areas. He thought this emphasized the importance of maintaining appropriate access on State lands and waters. Interestingly too, is the contrast between the State and federal lands in that traditional access for subsistence uses is guaranteed in ANILCA on the federal lands. Yet, there's nothing for the traditional uses of hunting, fishing, and trapping so far that is protected or guaranteed in State statute. That makes this an important issue. The bill is good from the standpoint that although it does protect traditional access, and that's an appropriate term, it provides the Boards with the flexibility to deal with biological problems, with unforseen incidents that may create a situation where a temporary closure is necessary. An example is, if it's appropriate for some reason to restrict access during a critical period of the year if there's a concentration of animals due to an unusual phenomenon that might really be a problem, it can be dealt with and it's temporary in nature. It does provide that kind of latitude and it is important to sound management to not only manage the biological elements of a situation, but to be able to manage the activities of people. Local input is also important, but it is also important to have an overview. However, it's important to remember that one of the things that led to the dilemma called ANILCA is the Western Arctic caribou herd back in the 1970's crashed, and it was pretty apparent if you are trying to survey the numbers of caribou in the herd, that it had tumbled from a couple hundred thousand down to 75,000 or so. It was evident to people in ADF&G that that had occurred, but it was not evident to local people, because people in local areas were seeing just a piece of the puzzle and unless they could put the pieces of the puzzle together with an overview, they were not convinced there was a real problem. They did not become convinced until they became involved at the request of the ADF&G to go look at the big picture and accompany the Department on a wide scale survey. It's important to have both perspectives when you're faced with fish and game management and access issues. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if in some of the backup material it said that some actual biological harm would have to occur to a resource before, under this act, the Board would be able to act. MR. BISHOP responded that as this bill is written, he didn't see that as the case. If harm is anticipated, access could be restricted. SENATOR TAYLOR said it would have to be biologically based, not aesthetically based. MR. BISHOP said that was his understanding of the bill. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said, "biologically essential for the protection of fish or game resources or game habitat." He asked why it didn't say "fish habitat" also. He also asked if the piece of ground an ATV runs over and creates a trail not habitat? MR. BISHOP answered that it is certainly habitat. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the vehicle is going to destroy the habitat in exactly its tracks, is that not allowed to be protected. He said the habitat side is much harder to quantify than the game resource side. If all of the valley is moose habitat, and if the actual area of the trail is to be created, isn't that a microscopic habitat loss? He wanted to know if it is as tight as his opponents advocate. MR. BISHOP responded that if this bill were law, they couldn't make the argument on basis of its content that a track, or even a well used track of vehicles through a valley created a biological concern or significant biological detriment to the habitat in that area. He based that on past experience and observation that there are lots of areas with lots of trails that are still excellent habitat and their capacity to support wildlife is not significantly diminished. On the other hand, it's a relative thing. If the level of use eliminates the most important parts of that habitat, then it may be a serious concern for the well-being of the game population. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he agreed with his interpretation. He believed there could be an amazing elasticity with words. MR. ANTHONY CRUPI, Alaska Wildlife Alliance, said they have serious concerns with this bill and its effects on Alaska's wildlife and wilderness values and urged them not to move it out of committee. It would restrict the ability of our resource managers to successfully manage and regulate the lands that they would be responsible for maintaining. Regulating access to state lands has always been an important tool that managers have utilized to sustain the health of productive ecosystems. Allowing motorized access to certain regions and eliminating the ability to regulate access would severely impact Alaska's wildlife and wild habitat. HB 168 does allow motorized access to be regulated if it can be proven to be biologically harmful. However, biological impact to fish and game are not usually measured. It takes years of research and analysis to determine the status of wildlife populations. Even the effects of motorized access might not be realized for other species that have not been thoroughly studied. Motorized access to state lands would directly impact species by limiting the plant and prey upon which they depend. Effective management plans require the ability to regulate the access of motorized vehicles and he urged them to allow Alaska's resource managers this fundamental management tool. SENATOR TAYLOR said that it's essential to protect some species from motorized intrusion. He asked which species he was talking about. MR. CRUPI replied, if you look at biological data, bear habitat is substantially reduced within one mile of the road. TAPE 98-29, SIDE B SENATOR TAYLOR asked him what kind of bears he was talking about. MR. CRUPI said that impacts are studied year in and year out and we have no idea what the impacts are. One example is the Kenai Peninsula where there is an isolated brown bear population and an interagency report came out one year ago that described the effectiveness of the habitat and the effectiveness of the Kenai brown bear was 70 percent declined within one mile of the road. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thought he was probably correct and he thought it was probably the reverse for the black bear. MR. CRUPI said it's necessary to have the management tool to restrict an area to motorized access and the public needs to have input on what biological data is there. Number 516 MR. CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment, emphasized the fact that they are dealing with state owned lands and there may be different rules on federal lands. It is more important that state- owned lands provide something for everything because the state- owned lands are those that are likely to be accessible to our major population centers. That often is not as true of federal lands. These are the ones that people are going to use for an evening or an afternoon or a weekend. He thought there was enough of them that they could provide for everyone. They opposed HB 168 that restricts the ability of State land, fish and wildlife managers to manage for quiet recreationists and homeowners who are losing the quiet enjoyment of their properties. It effectively forces managers to manage only for motorized recreationists. DNR periodically does a survey of Alaska in conjunction with their statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. More than 50 percent have responded and say that motorized noise adversely affects their outdoor recreational experiences. More than 70 percent of those respondents said they believe the State should provide more motorized trails. HB 168 would not only exacerbate user conflicts, but it prevents managers from establishing a balance on our public lands. It also adversely affects fish and wildlife and their habitat and Alaskans certainly don't want that result. It's far too stringent a standard to allow our fish and wildlife managers to exercise their professional judgement to protect fish and wildlife and their habitat from unreasonable risk. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said it would apply to all land - to federal, state, or private land on which hunting is authorized. MR. EAMES said from their perspective that makes it even worse, but there is also a section in the bill that would restrict the ability of the Department of Fish and Game to regulate motorized access on refuges, critical habitat areas, and similarly protected areas. Number 492 SENATOR TAYLOR asked who was to pay for the development of quiet trails. MR. EAMES said we don't have to develop quiet trails and that there are a lot of them throughout the State. The survey respondents are asking for more of the trails to be managed for quiet recreation, so that there is a balance between trails that are available for motorized and nonmotorized recreation. SENATOR TAYLOR asked when he was talking about motorized access to, if he was only talking about from the trail head in. MR. EAMES said that's true and that's the way most Alaskans look at it. Once they get on to public lands, they want a balance and not just favor motorized recreationists. SENATOR TAYLOR said that right now there is 55 million acres of wilderness land where we can't use a motorized vehicle and he asked how much more he needed. MR. EAMES responded that that's not the way wilderness is managed in Alaska and those are federal lands. Our state owned lands are likely to be more accessible to most Alaskans. This isn't as true in Southeast, but it is true in Southcentral and the Interior. He said that in most of Alaska's wilderness, motorized vehicles are not necessarily prohibited. MR. DON SCHOEN, Director, Alaska Audubon Society, opposed HB 168. This bill will make it nearly impossible to regulate public access of off-road vehicles on State refuges, sanctuaries, and special areas, as well as controlled use areas within Alaska. This kind of statutory restriction will reduce the flexibility of the Board of Game and the Department of Fish and Game in managing and conserving wildlife for the benefit of all Alaskans. They believe the current system is working and doesn't need to be changed legislatively. They are especially concerned about the inability of the Board to manage and safeguard Alaska's special areas if this legislation is passed. These areas provide important benefits that all Alaskans enjoy including hunters, fishers, wildlife watchers, and many others. The restrictions imposed by this bill will in some instances make it very difficult to maintain the quality and habitat values of these areas. Alaska's wildlife areas and sanctuaries have management plans that were developed through a public process. In addition, the Board of Game provides a public process for addressing wildlife management issues in a timely manner, so that the agency and the Board aren't forced to resort to reactive management after a serious problem has developed. The ability to be proactive rather than reactive concerns them most. This is not an issue pitting sportsmen on one side against wildlife viewers on the other side. It is a common sense issue of balancing different uses and protecting wildlife and their habitats for everyone's use. Hunters do not support this legislation. SENATOR TAYLOR asked what they should do on behalf of the physically challenged individual who might want to bird or hunt or fish. MR. SCHOEN said they need to provide opportunities for them, but they need to be balanced. He thought the Board of Game could handle these issues on a case by case basis in a timely manner. MS. SARAH CALLAHAN, Northern Alaskan Environmental Center, opposed HB 168 because it discriminates against quiet recreationists by eliminating opportunities that Alaskans have for a nonmotorized experience. There are many Alaskans who enjoy the traditional means of hunting and fishing, whether it's by dog sled, skis, or whatever. Nonmotorized access should have the same rights as motorized. With over 100 million acres of land, the State has room for both. HB 168 restricts the Boards of Fisheries and Game from limited motorized access unless the limitation is biologically essential. The biologists who manage fish and game are the experts and should be trusted to set their own standards. MR. ANDY REYNOLDS, Fairbanks recreationist and sport hunter, opposed HB 168. He thought this was a reactionary piece of legislation that is in response to a perceived threat to one interest group. It is divisive and unnecessary. It is a power grab by the legislature and a form of micro management that is taking legitimate responsibility away from the Boards of Fisheries and Game and ADF&G. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he watched the fight over the air boat situation in Fairbanks. MR. REYNOLDS said he watched from the sidelines and that he might get cut by a propeller if he got too close. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he would have favored the restrictions placed by the Department on air boats. MR. REYNOLDS answered that he does favor that. SENATOR TAYLOR asked what he thought about the people who were too young or too old or be physically challenged and may not have the ability to paddle upstream. MR. REYNOLDS said he thought there were quite a few opportunities for those people. He was sitting across the table from one who a lot of people might think is too old to do some of the things he mentioned, and she gets around fine on her own two feet or in a canoe or kayak. Wilderness lands in Alaska are not managed the same way they are in much of the country. It is not restricted in most of the wilderness lands. Motorized use for hunting or recreational purposes is already allowed in just about every acre of Alaska. He didn't see how allowing the Board of Game and Fisheries and ADF&G a very limited ability to change that status was a threat to those who prefer their recreation hunting and fishing from motorized assisted vehicles. SENATOR TAYLOR said that motorized access is significantly restricted on huge acreages in Alaska by the federal government - McKinley and Katmai, for instance. MR. REYNOLDS said on 99 percent of our lands there are no restrictions on any of those people whether they are handicapped or not to use whatever means of transportation to get to and from those areas under current law. SENATOR TAYLOR said that he must not be aware of a lot of current law that restricts access to over 55 million acres of this State today. MR. RICHARD CHAPELL, hunter and fisherman, opposed HB 168. He asked them to please leave it to the Boards of Fisheries and Game to make decisions on how to manage our wildlife resources without removing any tools they have at their disposal. Our system already works in making decisions on hunting and fishing access. It already allows all the interested local parties to explain their concerns about how and when the taking of fish and game is allowed. MS. CELIA HUNTER said she is one of many people in Alaska who are prolonging their activities in the out of doors without needing to ride on a snowmachine, an ORV, or an air boat in order to get places. There are a whole lot of people who are getting out and enjoying it. A few people need assistance in getting on the top of mountains and so on, but he might, too. The system we have now does not need micro management by the legislature. The present regulations are flexible and are capable of making adjustments in specific areas wherever it's necessary. She said we have an excellent Board of Game and we have a lot of very capable managers in the ADF&G. MR. DOUGLAS YATES said he is a private citizen and a user of Alaska's wildlands. Vehicle access is always going to be a controversial issue among Alaskans. However, there is a growing recognition that care must be exercised in the management of Alaska's lands. When it comes to off road vehicles, their power and range, and the marketing emphasis of vehicle access, the growing number of these vehicle owners can easily overwhelm the carrying capacity of the wildlife habitat. He favors a greater balance in managing Alaska's resources and HB 168 does not provide that balance. The Board of Game ought to be able to make specific decisions based on actual circumstances on a year to year basis. SENATOR TAYLOR asked what he does when he is not a private citizen. MR. YATES answered that he was a photographer and a tour guide and he works for himself. MR. MICHAEL EASTHAM, Homer resident, said he supports HB 168. He said the legislature is not micro managing, but ADF&G is. He said if you take away ORV users, you are leaving access to those who are in excellent physical condition and like to hike. Right now the Board has absolute power over who gets to hunt and he thought that was like giving the fox the right to guard the chicken house. MR. HERMAN MORGAN, Chairman of the Aniak Advisory Committee, opposed HB 168 because the Board of Game restricts aircraft along the river corridors where local people hunt moose. You could have hunters from Sweden who just hunt for horns competing with the local people who hunt to feed their families for the winter. HB 168 would be circumventing the public process. He informed them that a number of people are going to meet and formulate a plan to secede from the State of Alaska, because they are tired of all this anti-subsistence and anti-rural legislation being passed. SENATOR LINCOLN asked what types of transportation he has seen in the Aniak area that have changed over the years and that have been detrimental for fishing and hunting. MR. MORGAN answered that there are a lot of airplanes traveling over the spawning grounds. SENATOR LINCOLN said she was in Aniak the last fall during the moose hunt and the concern people have in the area is that now there are airplanes going into the hills and hunters being dropped off and taking moose last year. The concern was that the moose were not able to go down to the river where the local people have traditionally hunted for moose. TAPE 98-30, SIDE A CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he thought that the bill didn't do as much harm as its opponents said it would and didn't help as much as the proponents thought it would. SENATOR LINCOLN said she still wanted a definition for "popular pattern" on page 3, line 29 and asked what the intent was. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK explained that in different areas of the State to go fishing people use boats, at the Nalchina herd area people use four-wheelers and if there are any places a plane can land, they fly in. It's a consistent use of pattern. SENATOR LINCOLN said she is stuck on that because wherever it says "traditional means of access," you have to read what traditional means and it's defined as a popular pattern. SENATOR LINCOLN moved to change "popular" to "historical." CHAIRMAN HALFORD said one of the things that's happened over the last 30 years is that the entire development of the three and four wheel vehicles has happened in the last 15 years and snow machines in the last 30. There has been significant debate and argument with park service people on the protection of traditional subsistence access in a lot of areas trying to say that new technology is not included. He was not sure they wanted to do that, based on the history of what's happened there. They have basically said because in some cases, personal land vehicles for summer use did not exist at the time they used for their window, they will never allow them. That wasn't the intent of the legislation. SENATOR LINCOLN said that here use of the term "historical" did not mean "generational" necessarily. She has a problem with the term "popular." REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she would object to the amendment. MR. GRASSER added that the term "popular pattern" is in DNR statute already dealing with access which is where the drafter took it from. SENATOR LINCOLN asked what it meant. MR. GRASSER answered that it didn't have a definition there, either. SENATOR TAYLOR said he didn't think popular is anything more than an adjective pattern and that it didn't add much to it. It may exclude those methods or means of transportation that are not a popular pattern either because of technological changes or because it hasn't developed yet as a popular pattern. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he agreed, but he didn't know if it was worth changing a bill that would require a concurrence in the House. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she would object to any changes. SENATOR LINCOLN reiterated her amendment again. There were objections and the amendment failed. SENATOR LINCOLN voted yes; SENATORS HALFORD, TORGERSON, SHARP, LEMAN, and GREEN voted no. SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass HB 168 with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. SENATOR LINCOLN objected, saying that it needed more work because of all the testimony. SENATORS HALFORD, LEMAN, TAYLOR, TORGERSON, and GREEN voted yes. The bill moved from Committee. CHAIRMAN HALFORD adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m.