JOINT MEETING HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE February 23, 2000 2:40 p.m. HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chair Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair Representative John Harris Representative Reggie Joule Representative Mary Kapsner Representative Carl Morgan HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Jim Whitaker Representative Ramona Barnes OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Scott Ogan SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Rick Halford, Chairman Senator Robin Taylor, Vice Chairman Senator Pete Kelly Senator Lyda Green Senator Georgianna Lincoln Senator Jerry Mackie SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Sean Parnell OTHER SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Lyman Hoffman Senator Jerry Ward COMMITTEE CALENDAR BRIEFING: MCGRATH WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PREVIOUS ACTION No previous action to record. WITNESS REGISTER WAYNE REGELIN, Director Division of Wildlife Conservation Department of Fish & Game P.O. Box 25526 Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526 MIKE FLEAGLE, Chief McGrath Tribal Council (No address provided.) McGrath, Alaska GREG ROCZICKA, Vice Chair State Board of Game Box 513 Bethel, Alaska 99559 DONNE FLEAGLE, Board Chairman Rural Alaska Community Action Program (RurAL CAP) (No address provided.) McGrath, Alaska DICK NEWTON (No address provided.) Takotna, Alaska FRED JOHN, JR., Chairman Ahtna, Incorporated (No address provided.) Mentasta, Alaska STANLEY NED, Wildlife & Parks Researcher Tanana Chiefs Conference (No address provided.) Allakaket, Alaska MYRA OLSEN Bristol Bay Native Association (No address provided.) Egegik, Alaska JOE CLARK Bristol Bay Native Association (No address provided.) TED ANGASAN Abundant Wildlife Coalition (No address provided.) DICK BISHOP, Vice President Alaska Outdoor Council (No address provided.) GABE SAM Coalition for Alaskan Way of Life; Tanana Chiefs Conference (No address provided.) Huslia, Alaska JOE MATTIE, Fairbanks Fur Dealer (No address provided.) Ester, Alaska DARREL VENT, Resident of Huslia (No address provided.) Huslia, Alaska JONOTHON SOLOMAN, Chairman Gwich'in Steering Committee (No address provided.) Fort Yukon, Alaska CARL JACK, Tribal Member Kipnuk (No address provided.) Kipnuk, Alaska LYNN LEVENGOOD Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association (No address provided.) Fairbanks, Alaska ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 00-13, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the joint meeting of the House/Senate Resources Standing Committees to order at 2:40 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Hudson, Masek, Cowdery, Harris, Kapsner and Morgan, and Senators Halford, Taylor, Kelly, Green and Lincoln. Representatives Joule and Senator Mackie arrived as the meeting was in progress. CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced that the briefing was over the Statewide Rural Summit on Intensive/Active Game Management, which was held in McGrath on February 1 and 2, 2000. He asked Wayne Regelin from the Department of Fish & Game to come forward. WAYNE REGELIN, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), stated that [the department] believes there is a very low moose population in McGrath. Figures show that the moose population has declined quite significantly since the early 1990s. Mr. Regelin informed everyone that the department did a moose census in 1996 out in [Unit] 19(D)-East and that census estimated that to be about 1,900 moose. He explained that the estimate was based on an actual count of 764 moose in an 1,819 square mile area. [That actual count] was extrapolated to the 100 square mile area where wolf control is authorized. The estimate was repeated in 1999 and resulted in an estimated moose population of 1,400. He noted that the actual count of moose was 563 in a slightly larger area of 2,072 square miles. [The department] believes that in the last three years the wolf population has decreased the moose population from about 1,900- 2,000 to 1,300-1,400. CHAIRMAN HALFORD surmised that would mean about a 25 percent reduction in three years. MR. REGELIN replied yes. Information from area biologists that worked in McGrath for many years shows that the area had significantly more moose, possibly in the range of 4,000 moose. He acknowledged that the moose population could have been more or less, however, it probably was significantly higher than the 1996 estimate of 2,000 moose. CHAIRMAN HALFORD wondered if the real difference is something like 4,000 moose in prior years down to 1,300 currently. MR. REGELIN responded that that is their best estimate. He said if the desire is to discuss the hard science then that would be the censuses the department did in 1996 and 1999. He pointed out that when trying to manage wildlife populations, [the department] always takes into account [the fact] that the local people are out there everyday and know a lot about the wildlife. [The locals] know that the [moose] population has declined significantly. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the department does a sex and age composition, for example, cows to calves to bulls. MR. REGELIN indicated that the department does that. CHAIRMAN HALFORD inquired as to the ratio of [cows to calves to bulls] in the last three years. MR. REGELIN said that he did not bring the estimates with him, but there is a low survival ratio of calves in the [McGrath] area. The last time the department performed such, the ratio was 22 calves per 100 cows. Although that ratio is not down at rock bottom, he indicated that the department does not expect a population increase. He noted that the department also has estimates of the wolf population in the area. The department did a wolf population estimate in 1995 which estimated 160 wolves [in the McGrath area]. With a 90 percent confidence interval around [the wolf estimate], it was plus or minus 30 percent. He stated that although counting wolves is not a precise method, [the department] feels confident in saying that there were about 160 wolves [in the McGrath area] in 1995. In 1997, in the same area, they repeated the survey and only estimated 56 wolves. However, the local people feel that the wolf population is significantly higher than 56. Last year there were caribou in the area, which is very rare and probably gave the wolf population a shot in the arm. In the last 50 years the Mulchatna caribou herd has probably moved in [the McGrath area] twice. Mr. Regelin indicated that the department moved its efforts into adjacent game management areas rather than repeating the counts in [Unit] 19(D)[-East] and there are no estimates on the wolves [in the McGrath area] since 1997, although the department knows there is a serious problem with predation. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked Mr. Regelin if he would describe the process that the department uses to count wolves and estimate total populations. Number 145 MR. REGELIN explained that there are two different ways [to count and estimate populations]. The method used in both 1995 and 1997, in the McGrath area, is a new transect method where they fly a straight line that transects from one point to another - the [points] are randomly chosen - and they observe the wolf tracks and measure the distance back to where the wolf track was sited. This method has been tested extensively in areas where the department thought it knew how many wolves were there due to intensive research projects in which all the wolves were collared. Therefore, the department feels that [this method] provides them with a good estimate. Mr. Regelin noted that [such counts and estimates] can be obtained by, after a fresh snow, going out and finding the tracks. CHAIRMAN HALFORD wondered how many hours of flying was involved in the 1997 count. MR. REGELIN indicated that there were four airplanes used for a period of four days, but he was unsure of the exact number of hours the [planes] were in the air. He noted that the departments tries to do it in the shortest period of time by using lots of airplanes in order to minimize the movement of the wolves. SENATOR PETE KELLY asked what a healthy wolf to moose ratio would be for that area. He also asked what the current ratio is. MR. REGELIN replied that in 1996 the department estimated there to be 13 moose per wolf. However, it is probably not quite that bad now because there are fewer wolves. Still, he indicated that it is a moose to wolf ratio that is going to continue to drive the [moose] population to a lower level. SENATOR PETE KELLY wondered what the ratio was at the time of the historic high of 4,000 moose. MR. REGELIN responded that in those days there were no scientific estimates of the number of wolves. However, the area biologists thought that there were approximately 150 wolves in the [McGrath] area. SENATOR PETE KELLY wondered if the fact that this winter was a horrible winter will create a jump in the moose decline. MR. REGELIN answered that is a possibility. He said that the current snowpack in McGrath is about 33 inches and the area has had a total of 75 inches of snow. However, the area did not have snow until late December. Mr. Regelin said that most of the time a moose can handle about 28 inches of snow, but a heavy crust makes a big difference. SENATOR PETE KELLY asked what kind of predator control has been done in the last five years in the McGrath area. MR. REGELIN stated that there has been no wolf control in the area. Although there have been extensive efforts made by the local residents to increase trapping efforts, it is very difficult country to trap in. The area is rugged and heavily timbered. SENATOR PETE KELLY wondered if biologists have recommended wolf control in the McGrath area. MR. REGELIN indicated that the [Alaska] Board of Game authorized a wolf control program in McGrath in 1996, which is why the department did all the estimates and censuses on the wolves. He explained that the department provides information to the [Alaska] Board of Game, who has population goals, harvest goals and determines whether those goals can be reached with the predation rate. It is up to the Board of Game whether to authorize a wolf control program or not and it did. The board reauthorized that program for another five year period in January of this year. SENATOR PETE KELLY wondered if there are any plans for ADF&G to carry out wolf control in McGrath. MR. REGELIN pointed out that currently there are discussions going on within ADF&G regarding the potential of taking action this year. However, he was unsure if anything was going to be done this year or next year. SENATOR PETE KELLY asked, "And would that be shooting wolves?" MR. REGELIN indicated that a wolf control program would need to include shooting wolves from airplanes or helicopters. 247 SENATOR TAYLOR wondered what numbers were available prior to 1994. MR. REGELIN answered that prior to 1994 there was not a moose census, although they have trend counts and calf-cow surveys. The moose population started to decline in about 1988 after a series of bad winters, which often starts the decline because the wolves have an advantage. The population has continued to decline until today. He said that the [McGrath area] is probably already close to the low equilibrium for the predator-prey ratio, which will drop down to probably 1,200 moose and 50 wolves. He predicted that the low equilibrium will remain for a very long time and at that population level only 40 to 50 moose will be harvested out of that population each year. SENATOR TAYLOR inquired as to what actions were taken to decrease the predator population between 1988, when the decline started, and 1996. MR. REGELIN indicated that ADF&G did not take any control actions, although the department taught trapping clinics at two of the villages in order to encourage local trapping. SENATOR TAYLOR said, "You have actually done some control efforts on wolf populations in other areas of the state, though, since 1996, haven't you?" MR. REGELIN replied that since 1996 the department is attempting to perform wolf control in the 40-mile caribou area. SENATOR TAYLOR stated, "In fact, you went out and you tranquilized a bunch of those wolves and moved them down to the Kenai where no one had ever asked you to bring them a wolf, but you took wolves down there and gave them to the people of Kenai, didn't you?" MR. REGELIN explained that the program was for sterilization of the alpha male and female in a total of 15 packs and the subdominate wolves were moved; some of them went to the Kenai. SENATOR TAYLOR inquired as to how many wolves were moved out or sterilized in the 40-mile area. MR. REGELIN answered that he thinks that about 80 wolves were moved and 30 or 32 were sterilized. SENATOR TAYLOR requested clarification regarding the 112 wolves that have either been sterilized or moved out of the 40-mile area. MR. REGELIN clarified that the department is trying to stop the reproduction of wolves and they [dealt with] five packs a year. The theory is, based on work done in the Yukon Territory, that if the wolves can be reduced to only two per pack rather than 10 or 12 [per pack] then the predation rate is going to be significantly lower. The theory was that if the alpha male and female were kept, they would hold the pack territories and not reproduce. In fact that has happened in 14 out of the 15 packs and the caribou population has increased from about 22,000 to just over 40,000. Number 311 SENATOR TAYLOR pointed out that ADF&G's efforts were preceded by two years of individual efforts in which people contributed their own money in that area to go in and reduce that [wolf] population; they reduced it by an even greater number. Although he appreciated the fact that their efforts were succeeding, he has a hard time understanding why the department focused on the 40-mile when the department knew in 1988 that the McGrath area had a crashing moose population. He questioned why the department was not in the McGrath area sterilizing and moving wolves why is absolutely nothing being done in McGrath. MR. REGELIN explained that the 40-mile program was conducted following an intensive two-year effort with local people and advisory committees from both Alaska and Canada. The recommendation from that two-year effort was to try the sterilization program rather than a lethal wolf control program. The [local people and advisory committees] as well as ADF&G were looking for ways of managing and reducing predation rates in areas that were not so controversial that they would be stopped by the public. Mr. Regelin believes that they have succeeded [in the 40- mile area] because there has been little controversy except for that by the most extreme animal rights groups. Mr. Regelin gave full credit to the trappers who started there before the department, who focused its effort on the 15 packs in the area where the caribou calve. This kind of a program works in very few places; such a program would not work at all in the McGrath area because the game population of concern in McGrath is moose instead of caribou. He explained that such a program works in the 40-mile area because all of the caribou calve in a concentrated area, and furthermore there were only about 15 wolf packs. In the McGrath area no action was taken because they did not know what kind of action to take without actually shooting wolves from airplanes or helicopters. He said that over the last several years in Alaska several of the tools used by wildlife managers and the [Alaska] Board of Game to regulate wolf numbers have been taken away. Many years ago aerial shooting was available, however, that was stopped in 1971. Then the practice of land and shoot became very common in keeping the wolf populations in balance with their prey. However, in 1996 that tool was removed by ballot initiative. Therefore, there is currently no effective tool to regulate wolf populations in most of Alaska, especially in those locations where the terrain and the vegetation are not conducive to trapping. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if Mr. Regelin would consider the situation in McGrath in regard to the ratio of wolf to moose to be an unhealthy situation. MR. REGELIN replied yes. SENATOR LINCOLN inquired as to what the department is currently doing to address that situation. MR. REGELIN clarified that the [McGrath] situation is unhealthy in so far as the department can achieve the goals that it has for the moose population in that area as well as the ability for the local residents to harvest the amount of moose they need. He pointed out that most of Interior Alaska has historically had low levels of moose with periodic irruptions. He said, "This low level equilibrium is probably -- it's hard to say it's unhealthy because it's probably a natural way that ... over ... many, many centuries its gone that way." However, since miners came into the country the wolf populations were effectively regulated with poisoning and aerial shooting in the 1950s and early 1960s. At statehood poisoning was stopped while aerial wolf control continued through 1971. Due to those efforts, many parts of Alaska experience high moose populations. He explained that when poison was used for wolves it also kept the bear populations down and bears take a long time to recover from low levels. Although people are currently accustomed to high populations [of moose], the tools to regulate the wolves are no longer available and thus many who have become accustomed and dependent on moose can no longer get them. Therefore, it is necessary to find a tool or technique, that is accepted by the public, to help regulate the wolf population. He noted the controversy that surrounds aerial wolf shooting and remarked that the department has more often than not been unsuccessful in wolf control because the department is stopped before it can finish the job. Therefore, Mr. Regelin said that he is open to suggestions regarding how to accomplish [wolf control] in a manner that is acceptable to the public to the extent that the department is not stopped. He said, "I'm not sure that the department shooting them out of helicopters is the long-term solution." SENATOR LINCOLN requested that Mr. Regelin return later to provide an answer in regard to what the department thinks that tool should be and what legislators can do to help achieve that. She turned to Mr. Regelin's reference to the tool being accepted by the general public and inquired as to who the general public is. Number 436 MIKE FLEAGLE, Chief, McGrath Tribal Council, testified via teleconference. Mr. Fleagle remarked that McGrath's situation begs for some program to [remedy the problem]. [The local population] is not sure how to [remedy the problem] and is exhausting all of its efforts to work within the government system. He informed the committee that the council has petitioned the Board of Game twice for relief. However, the Board of Game has found in favor of past programs that have administratively not been carried out. Mr. Fleagle clarified that although he sits on the Board of Game, his testimony today does not reflect the board's position nor is he speaking on behalf of the board. He returned to his testimony and stated that the main snag [with wolf control] has been with the Governor and his three criteria that were derived from his National Academy of Sciences' report that studied wolf and bear predation and past control efforts. The three criteria are sound science, cost effectiveness and broad-based public support. In regard to meeting those objectives, Mr. Fleagle said, "We have done our part." He also believes that the Board of Game has realistically attempted to meet those criteria as well. Mr. Fleagle believes that the biology is apparent and even Mr. Regelin noted that [McGrath's] situation is unhealthy. Furthermore, the department's modeling has illustrated that reducing wolf numbers will reverse the [moose] decline and result in a sharp increase in the moose population. He also noted that "we" have prime repairing habitat and it's not a limiting factor in the moose population, as some are claiming. He stated, "This habitat can easily carry at least one moose per square mile and in similar habitat around the state, the current population density levels are up to two to three moose per square mile in similar habitat. The last estimate is down about a quarter of a moose per square mile." The latest estimate is very low in regard to what the McGrath habitat can carry. MR. FLEAGLE turned to the cost effectiveness criteria. He pointed out that a state-administered plan would be an expensive plan because aircraft and shooters would have to be hired or in the case of a ground effort, the trapper's time would have to be paid for. Mr. Fleagle remarked that SB 74, which was passed last year, returned some of the tools [for wolf control] to the department. For example, [SB 74 allows] for the issuance of permits to private citizens for shooting from the air or land and shoot. He believes that the most efficient way to control the wolf population is to turn it over to the public and have the agency regulate it. Therefore, [the department] would remove itself from the negative publicity which it has received when such programs were done by the department in the past. Furthermore, he believes [such a program] would result in little cost to the state. MR. FLEAGLE continued with the third criteria of broad-based public support, which he believes to be the most difficult to define. He believes [the council] has as much broad-based public support as it can possibly generate. Furthermore, he pointed out that when polled, people in Alaska support some form of predator control in locations where the game stock is in danger. After the board reauthorized the McGrath plan, Channel 2 News performed an online survey, which surprisingly resulted in support of reducing predation by predator control. Mr. Fleagle interpreted the Governor's reference to broad-based public support to mean unanimous public support, which he believes to be unachievable. He remarked that "we" need to get past attempting to appease a small segment of the population for the good of the whole. MR. FLEAGLE said that although he applauds the legislature's efforts to help [McGrath] with this issue, he emphasized that drastic measures need to be taken. Furthermore, [a solution] is not happening through the existing channels. He reminded everyone that in 1996 a public meeting was held in McGrath with the Governor. At that meeting there was indication that "we" were on the correct path at that time. However, three-and-a-half years later and "we" aren't any closer [to a solution]. Therefore, some different avenues have been taken, which has seemed to threaten some. He reiterated that [McGrath] is desperate. He noted that the McGrath Tribal Council along with other local councils have instituted a wolf harvest incentive program in order to encourage the legal harvest of an available surplus of a resource. However, he wasn't sure that is the answer either because harvest without the use of airplanes will be difficult in McGrath. In conclusion, Mr. Fleagle stated that these programs are necessary and he related his belief that the board and the department, in its rank and file, are behind [these programs]. He remarked, "I think you'll find that the buck stops at the commissioner, his chief of staff and the Governor's office and I think that's been the problem." Although he believes in the checks and balances of the government, he doesn't when it holds up sound science and [actions] that are good for the entire country. Number 541 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER noted that there has been criticism of the high hunter success rates in McGrath. She requested that Mr. Fleagle discuss what happens if there are not high hunter success rates and she inquired as to what the alternative food sources would be. MR. FLEAGLE acknowledged that ADF&G's data shows hunter success rates in McGrath to be around 50 percent, which is considered good. However, McGrath has many restrictions regarding who can hunt in the area. For example, McGrath is not open to nonresidents and there is controlled use up river from McGrath and thus aircraft hunters aren't able to come in. Therefore, the area is basically a locally hunted area. He indicated that the data is not quite adequate because people don't report when they don't kill; they probably throw their card away. Furthermore, people are working harder and going "a lot farther" to harvest moose and the harvest is down. MR. FLEAGLE answered, in further response to Representative Kapsner, that caribou are not a regular resident species, although otherwise has been touted by a well-known independent state biologist. The only alternative game species in the area would be fish. He said that there is not much in the way of options as moose is the primary source of wild meat. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER noted that the Kuskokwim area had another fish disaster, the third consecutive disaster. Furthermore, it was the fourth in seven years and the worst fish disaster ever. She pointed out that upriver, the catch for effort was very low and thus people spent more money on gasoline and time to catch what little fish were available. MR. FLEAGLE agreed with Representative Kapsner in that people in McGrath are spending more money for gas and traveling hundreds of miles and hunting the entire season. He returned to the issue of McGrath's hunter success rates and turned to the years of 1994-1997 in which on average 45-50 moose were harvested while in 1998 the reported moose harvested were 26. He predicted that the hunter success rate would show another drop in 1999. Although the hunter success rate may look good, the harvest overall is low. Number 584 SENATOR PETE KELLY recalled that when he was in McGrath a few weeks ago, Mr. Fleagle had said it would take about ten years to bring this [moose] population back. He inquired as to the source of that data. MR. FLEAGLE answered that is a projection by the department. He noted that the department gave a review at the Board of Game meeting in January, in Anchorage, when the department addressed the board's petition. According to the department's computer models, it would take ten years to halt the moose population decline and to bring the population back up it would require a long-term effort. SENATOR PETE KELLY asked, "Was that to the 4,000 number that Mr. Regelin had spoken of or was that to a number somewhat lower than that?" MR. FLEAGLE replied that it was to a number somewhat lower than the 4,000. He mentioned that different models were presented. TAPE 00-13, SIDE B MR. FLEAGLE explained that one model, in which the weather was not taken into consideration, [projected] a fairly good increase in the moose population [over ten years]. Another model factored in weather variables and thus illustrated less of an increase in the moose population. He recalled that the best model illustrated an increase in the moose population, after ten years, to around 3,000. SENATOR PETE KELLY surmised then that even after ten years, the moose population would not rise to historical levels. MR. FLEAGLE replied no. Furthermore, he believes that 4,000 figure [the historical level] is merely a ballpark figure because data from lifetime residents and (indisc.) concur that, at its peak, the actual moose population was 6,000. SENATOR TAYLOR thanked Mr. Fleagle for his work on this issue. He noted his long-time advocacy for regional boards in order to allow local people to make decisions as opposed to a statewide board. He asked if Mr. Fleagle believes that a regional board would have waited 12 years before discussing wolf control. MR. FLEAGLE replied no. He agreed with Senator Taylor that if there had been regional boards, noise or action would have occurred sooner. However, in defense of the current [statewide] board, the board did act when the issue was raised by local people. However, the board didn't look at the problem areas in an attempt to head them off, which may be a fault of having a statewide board. Still, Mr. Fleagle said that he could not fault the board as it has been behind the program as long as he knows. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE inquired as to the bear population in the McGrath area; is the bear population a contributing factor? MR. FLEAGLE said, as a resident of the McGrath area, he could not attest to the numbers of bears that the department believes there are. He remarked that there are black bears in the area and they do eat moose calves. The department estimates that approximately 55 percent of the calf mortality in this area is attributed to black bears. The black bear population is based on work done at the Lower Koyukuk and the Nowinta drainage, those density estimates have been used to calculate [the black bear density] in McGrath. Mr. Fleagle reiterated his disagreement [with the estimates for McGrath]. However, even if there were as many black bear in the region as the [department] estimates, that has been factored into the model which has shown that even with that level of black bear predation, reducing the wolf numbers will impact the turnaround of the moose decline. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE inquired as to the population of brown bears [in the McGrath area]. MR. FLEAGLE answered that brown bears are few in the unit. Furthermore, a few years ago the Board of Game lifted the restrictions of one [brown bear] per four [years] and the tag fees and thus a resident hunter can kill one bear per year without buying a tag. The lifting of those restrictions caused the brown bear harvest to increase from an average of two bears to four bears. He indicated that the environment in the area is not that preferred by the brown bears. Number 537 GREG ROCZICKA, Vice Chair, Alaska Board of Game, remarked that Mr. Regelin and Mr. Fleagle have done a good job in regard to explaining the situation in the McGrath area. He echoed earlier comments that the [criteria] for the biology and the cost effective programs exist. However, the problem surrounds the [criteria] for the broad-based public support. He commented that with any type of volatile issue such as this, one would expect 10-15 percent of the people on each end of the spectrum to base their decision on emotion rather than intellect. He indicated that an intensive education effort is about the only way to attack this problematic criteria. Mr. Roczicka noted the position paper that the Alaska Board of Game has written in order to reach the 70-80 percent of the uneducated public regarding the wolf situation in the state. He read the following position paper: A central question underlying the wolf control debate is whether it is best to actively manage an ecosystem containing wolves. A good case can be made that in places where we harvest moose and caribou for human use, leaving predators out of the management equation may not be desirable for people, for the predators, or for the ecosystem at large. A common perception about wolves is that because they have faired badly worldwide, they must be near extinction in Interior Alaska as well, and that any intentional mortality by people will push them over the brink. Actually, the opposite is true. Given the large areas of ideal habitat along with wolf mobility and fecundity, it has proved difficult to reduce wolf numbers for any length of time. The normal state of affairs in Interior Alaska is a low density of large mammals, with occasional irruptions to higher numbers. Here is the essence of how predator-prey dynamics appear to work, using moose and wolves as the best-understood example. Occasionally, conditions are favorable and moose increase until they reach a habitat limit and begin to run out of food, or bad winters place them under stress. In either case, they become more available to wolves. In response, the wolf population increases and creates an imbalance between the predators and their prey. Once moose numbers are driven down, wolves then decline through starvation and social strife such as cannibalism. Under extreme, but not particularly unusual circumstances, very low densities of predators and prey can be reached and persist for decades, as corroborated by the National Academy of Sciences' report to Governor Knowles on predator management. This is the current situation that we now have in Unit 19(D)- East. When that happens, the basal metabolism of the ecosystem shifts into low gear. It is a time of privation for scavengers, predators, and people. Such a landscape is not only short of meat, it is short of viewing opportunities and other key components of wilderness. As an Athabascan elder from the Yukon testified to us, "when the moose and caribou are gone, the country dies". It is a biologically defensible to manage for minimizing the depth and duration of extreme population lows, when habitat is not the primary limiting factor and predation almost certainly is. Typically, predation has three components: people, bears and wolves. It is standard State Board of Game policy to reduce human harvest when a prey population is declining. But total cessation of hunting by itself, is almost never enough to arrest a decline. Substantially reducing brown bear populations is not desirable due to their low reproductive potential and the problems with estimating their numbers accurately. Ecosystem modeling and reproductive biology show that it is most effective and safest to manipulate wolf numbers because of their resilience. Wolves will come back quickly, even if over harvested, bears won't. Once a low predator-prey equilibrium has been reached, wolf control is likely to succeed only if wolf populations can be greatly reduced for periods of up to a decade. Responding proactively to a predicted major decline minimizes the necessary length of the reduction period, which would be the current situation we now have in Unit 13. Weather and other ecosystem factors can confound predictions in random ways, and in short, outcomes can never be predicted precisely. The long-term prognosis for Alaskan wolves depends on our public policy towards habitat. So long as "habitat" is defined for all practical purposes as "that land we haven't gotten around to developing yet", wolves and all wildlife will decline. But in places where large areas of ecologically intact country remain, wolf control done with careful consideration and attention to science can result in a more abundant life for moose, wolves and people. Number 485 SENATOR TAYLOR asked if Mr. Roczicka has received any assurances from the department that it will carry out the policy established by the board. MR. ROCZICKA remarked that the department has great concern regarding the durability of any program that is put in place and that is the department's primary goal and concern. SENATOR TAYLOR noted his assumption that the board works fairly close with the department. He then asked if the department considers doing nothing as an action or a decision as that is as much of a decision as doing something. Senator Taylor stated that to know since 1988 that there was a continued decline and to not do anything is an action. In fact, in the law a negative action is called malfeasance, while sitting ideally by is referred to as misfeasance. Therefore, Senator Taylor felt that over the past six years, there has been the decision to do nothing. MR. ROCZICKA said that he didn't believe it is a fair statement to say that the department let it slide for 12 years. He pointed out that when the initial plan was put into effect, the board did find an emergency in 1995. The subsequent board in 1996 reviewed the issue and moved the effective date forward. The following winter the ballot initiative went into effect and [the department] was preempted from acting over the next couple of years. Furthermore, Governor Knowles inherited the problem from Governor Hickel, who had backed down when faced with boycott threats. Mr. Roczicka related his belief that if that faction was stood up to, there would have been an economic impact for a season or two; however, he believes it would have blown over. In regard to the current situation, that tool [aerial hunting] has again become available. SENATOR TAYLOR again asked if the board has any assurances from the department that it will do anything in the next two years. MR. ROCZICKA stated that [the board] is sure that the department is doing everything it can to try to do it again. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if Mr. Roczicka knew of any effective method, other than aerial hunting, of wolf control in the McGrath area. MR. ROCZICKA replied no, not initially. There have been some suggestions [for use of] denning, which was a traditional practice in the past. Although that may be an option, it does not get one to the point at which the moose are most vulnerable, in the winter. Number 441 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE recalled that Mr. Roczicka mentioned that the department has the ability to initiate something due to a questionable durability to continue. He asked if Mr. Roczicka is relating that to dollar resources in regard to initiating something and continuing it over time for ten years. He wondered if Mr. Roczicka was referring to whether there would be the resources to continue something. MR. ROCZICKA said that was not what he intended to say at all. As Mr. Regelin stated earlier, it has been since the early 1970s that any lethal wolf control program has been allowed to proceed due to public interference through lawsuits or economic boycott threats. He noted that to be one of the major criticisms cited in the National Academy of Sciences' report. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if land and shoot would help. He specified that fly the same day and land and shoot is not the same as aerial hunting, although the animal rights groups led the public to believe that was what they were voting on. He asked if the land-and-shoot method would be effective in that area. MR. ROCZICKA indicated agreement and noted that he had viewed [aerial hunting] as an all-inclusive statement in that it uses an airplane to hunt. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN related his belief that care should be taken when saying that because the public perception of aerial hunting is that you are flying around shooting wolves from airplanes. MR ROCZICKA related his understanding that [aerial hunting] was an effective means to keep some of the wolf populations in check and maintain some of the high levels of [riparian environments] in various areas of the state. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER referred to the wolf harvest incentive program that was executed in McGrath and asked if that was legal, what would prohibit the board from implementing that on a statewide level. MR. ROCZICKA responded that the subject has never come up and thus he wouldn't know what legal ramifications would exist. He said that all incentive programs that have been put in place have been done by private organizations or individual contributions. Furthermore, he didn't know if it would be a possibility under existing law as it would be equated to reinstating bounties. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if it would require a law or an appropriation. MR. ROCZICKA said that he couldn't answer that. Number 395 DONNE FLEAGLE, Board Chairman, Rural Alaska Community Action Program (RurAL CAP), informed the committee that she was representing RurAL CAP and the community of McGrath. She read the following statement: In village Alaska, where heavy dependence on renewable resources exist, there is the recognition of strong linkages between subsistence needs not being met and predation. When the Tribal Council of McGrath hosted the Statewide Rural Summit on Intensive/Active Management, otherwise known as the Wolf Summit, February 1st and 2nd, the issue resonated within village Alaska with 160 representatives from Southcentral, Yukon Kuskokwim Delta, the Interior, the Northwest and Bristol Bay. RurAL CAP participated in this village effort by providing staff support and resources. This summit was held in a village where the issues are occurring. The goal of this meeting was to bring rural Alaskans together in rural Alaska to discuss and arrive at strategies and remedies to use in addressing the declining moose and caribou populations and its primary predator, the wolf, that threatens our villagers' ability to eat our traditionally annual meat. A wolf is a year-round hunter. A bear is a part-time hunter. We choose to address the year-round hunter at this rural summit. At this meeting we shared information about wildlife populations, research regulations were exchanged [and] public testimony was taken from village people about the impacts of wildlife management on our way of life. And work sessions were used to arrive at solutions that were practical and attainable to all involved. Some of the questions we addressed were how can village people deal with our moose and our caribou herds, which once thrived [but are] now on the decline in many areas. What happens after Tier II and subsistence when there are no caribou or moose left to bring us through our long winters? How, then, can we show our children how to appreciate wildlife in its natural habitat? How will we be able to teach our children how to subsist off the land and be grateful for all it gives us? In the end, the participants approved a strategy and plan of action on six different levels: legislative, litigation, [Alaska] Board of Game, public support, tribal strategies and local design. I am pleased to report that individuals in each of these working groups took the developed and written report and have begun, in their own respective fields, to see these suggestions become reality. McGrath is unique; it's located in Game Management Unit 19(D)-East, where the only wolf predation control program passed by the State Board of Game is in effect under 5AAC .92.125(1) and has been there since 1995. And yet uniquely, no intensive/active management has yet to occur despite the area having followed due process allowing sound science to be used, strict criteria for a biological emergency to be met twice and having gone out to public review. The Upper Kuskokwim people have exhausted due process and find that the buck stops with the Governor and the Commissioner of Fish & Game, who have refused to date to implement a lethal wolf control program to protect the moose herd, soon to be on the verge of extinction. When predator-prey ratios reach such an imbalance as to threaten one species, concerns become fierce. Many people in rural Alaska can tell you what its like to go through a winter without a moose or caribou and how it felt to hunt and hunt and hunt and still return home without the traditional food needed for the winter months. Many can also tell, without a degree in biology, what sign they saw in the sandbars and what is happening in their environment. Many can ... give a year by year account. We know in Game Management Unit 19(D)-East that the Governor has consistently blocked any effort that will effectively manage wolf predation on moose in rural Alaska. Let it be said that we have coexisted with nature for thousands of years and we celebrate our way of life and rich heritage that has been passed down from generation to generation by teaching our children time- tested ways to live off the country and our land. We rejoice in seeing wildlife in its natural habitat and what we harvest, we use in countless ways. We believe that managing ecosystems that contain wolves, which are in abundance in Alaska, is necessary for all of the animals and for all of the people. Some areas are on the verge of an ecological disaster and my area is the first one out. Moose and caribou headed for crashes are near extinction [and] only spell doom for the wolves that will then starve after wiping out the beaver. Managing wolves is not eliminating wolves nor does anyone want to see all the wolves gone. On the contrary, we wish to see both big game and other species thrive in an environment, which is not the case in many areas of village Alaska. While our moose and caribou herds are continuing to decline at alarming rates, wolf packs are growing in number, size and daring. Mothers are seeing wolves in their yards and are alarmed for the safety of their children who walk back and forth to school and play outdoors. Wolf tracks on the edge of villages or within villages is commonplace now. Moose reproduction rates are much lower than wolves; village Alaskans know that and so do scientists. Aggressive wolf control will not threaten their survival. There is no question that the vast majority of villagers want active reduction of wolf numbers by the state and it would cost the state nothing to allow locals to shoot wolves using aircraft. There would be much to gain by all of us, if the Governor would support a healthy subsistence resource and support the Alaska Department of Fish & Game biologists. It appears to us that his devotion to those who would brook no killing of wolves despite the fact that in some areas, wolves have now started to eat themselves. If the wolves are not short on prey, why are they turning to cannibalism. What is crueler? We are not ashamed of being hunters, fishers, subsistence users, trappers and gatherers nor are we ashamed of being wildlife managers or knowing our country. Sometimes it is wise to correct the imbalances for all living things. We seem to be caught ... in a political dialogue of wanting to eat and wanting to feed our families versus killing wolves. MS. FLEAGLE concluded: In concluding today, I want to bring Niles Cesar, the BIA Regional Director's words to mind. In a letter written to the Governor, Niles Cesar states: "Certainly, you must agree that subsistence food is more important than the retention of moose populations merely to feed roving wolf packs. When we care more about animals than about our human residents, we indeed fail to serve the people we are appointed to protect and represent." And I bring to you a growing economic and subsistence disaster that we're experiencing in Western Alaska. Thank you. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if Ms. Fleagle believes that broad-based public support is an appropriate criteria upon to base decisions regarding wildlife management. MS. FLEAGLE echoed Senator Lincoln's remarks regarding what exactly is broad-based public support. She asked whether [broad-based public support] is the local support in Unit 19(D)-East or is it [support] in Anchorage, Fairbanks or Juneau. She noted that [the definition of broad-based public support] is not in Alaska statute. She informed everyone that the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) passed a resolution in support of this wolf control program. Furthermore, the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, Village Alaska, RurAL CAP, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Senator and Representative from [the McGrath district] all support [this wolf control program]. SENATOR TAYLOR related his belief that [broad-based public support] does not have any basis in wildlife management. The decision whether to manage or save a herd should be based solely upon biological evidence and the most expeditious way to handle and sustain it. Therefore, Senator Taylor didn't believe [broad-based public support] to be an appropriate criteria and thus should be removed. As noted, this criteria cannot be objectively defined. Senator Taylor informed Ms. Fleagle that District A supports her efforts. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted his support of Ms. Fleagle's efforts. Number 268 REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN inquired as to how many moose one wolf consumes in a year. MS. FLEAGLE said that "we" have been told by the department that "a good rule of thumb" is that one wolf consumes 12 moose [per year]. If you take the 1997 estimates, which would not allow for any wolf reproduction, there would have been 660 moose eaten from the 1,200 to 1,400 [moose]. Ms. Fleagle noted that "we" dispute [those moose estimates]. She informed everyone that she recently took an airplane ride to Stony River, which is about 125 miles from McGrath. She and the pilot counted the moose, which are out on the sandbars eating willows this time of year. They only counted 200 moose. Therefore, Ms. Fleagle believes the moose estimates are too high and certainly there is enough visual evidence that the wolf estimates are too low. REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN remarked that with the aforementioned wolf consumption of moose alone, not taking into account bear predation or death by natural causes, the five villages in the Upper Kuskokwim will have no moose in the very near future. MS. FLEAGLE interjected that such will be the case in less than two years. CHAIRMAN HALFORD requested that Ms. Fleagle inform everyone of [the situation] with her two dogs, which he believes is illustrative as to why people in villages worry. MS. FLEAGLE informed everyone that on November 24th she and her husband traveled to Anchorage to meet their two sons. On Thanksgiving day, they received a call that their dogs were missing/loose. One of the dogs is an 11-year old Airedale and the other is a five-and-a-half year old miniature American Eskimo. The hope was that the dogs had not been killed by the wolves, although that has been a fear since her father's dog fell to such a fate in 1997. Shortly after Thanksgiving, the house sitters called to tell the Fleagles that the kill sites had been found on opposite sides of their yard. Apparently, a pack of eight or nine wolves came in and separated the two dogs, which were subsequently killed. MS. FLEAGLE informed everyone that she grew up on her property, well before there was a road, before McGrath's population swelled and then decreased. She said, "Wolves in our yards were not something that we ever worried about." She noted that she used to walk five miles through the woods into town to school and [wolves] were never of concern. The killing of her dogs resulted in her husband setting snares in the yard because wolves return to their kill site. Ms. Fleagle remarked that at 40 years of age, this is the first time she has seen such; it is also the first time that she doesn't venture far from the house since she doesn't carry a weapon. She said that she doesn't feel safe any more. Ms. Fleagle felt that with the Wolf Predation Control Implementation Plan of 1995, the wolves would be eating better and "we" wouldn't be present today expressing health and safety concerns as well as lamenting a moose herd on the verge of extinction. This would not have been brought to a political arena [if the Wolf Predation Control Implementation Plan of 1995 had been implemented] as it really is a biological issue and has been proven as such twice. Number 178 DICK NEWTON, Takotna resident, remarked that he had learned something from the [ADF&G representative]. He indicated that the [people in the] villages of Takotna, McGrath and Nikolai have sterilized more wolves permanently than the [department] did and it didn't cost the people of the state anything. Furthermore, this sterilization is final and the wolves don't reproduce. He informed everyone that a couple of months ago there were wolf tracks in the village, [which led] to parental concerns regarding the children going to school. Although Mr. Newton had never heard of a wolf actually attacking a human, he has never seen the conditions that currently exist. The prey population is decreasing while the predator population is very high. He informed everyone that "we" have sterilized seven wolves within a mile of the village. MR. NEWTON noted that directly and indirectly the Governor and the Commissioner of ADF&G have said that it is up to the locals to handle this wolf predator [problem]. Although Mr. Newton partially agreed with that, he pointed out that the locals didn't cause this problem. This problem began when the Administration stopped the land-and-shoot [program]. Due to the current conditions, immediate relief is necessary. He informed everyone "the rule of thumb" in that one moose equals $3,000 [in the villages]. He related a situation in which a family with three children took on three other children. One moose will not support a family with six children. He also informed everyone that out of 23 families in the village [of Takotna], nine moose were harvested. Normally, around 20 moose are harvested as was the case in 1998. Mr. Newton remarked that he is not "a real fan" of ADF&G and he also has a problem with the department's wolf counts. He announced that "we" have sterilized 34 wolves; however, an air taxi driver flew from McGrath down the Kuskokwim [River] and up the Swift River to Lime Village and he counted 38 wolves total. Therefore, Mr. Newton questioned how the department arrived at a wolf count of 56. He emphasized that it is not a wolf count but rather an estimation. Furthermore, he noted how confusing the system is with which the biologists count the wolves, which led him to believe a more likely wolf count to be between three to five times the current count of 56. He remarked that once something is written it becomes the truth and when the department does such it can't be changed. SENATOR LINCOLN stated that she was astonished as well when the department announced a wolf count of 56 because two years ago when she flew between Holy Cross and Aniak there was a moose that was down and surrounded by a wolf pack consisting of 29 wolves. She asked Mr. Newton if the biologists talk with the locals regarding what locals see day in and day out. She also asked if he thought the [biologists] utilize the historical information "that you all have." MR. NEWTON replied no. Furthermore, he didn't believe that anyone knew his trapping area better than he did as he has been trapping in that area for 25 years. He stressed that he also hunts in that area and thus knows the game of that area. He informed everyone that currently, the moose that are left are in little pockets together in order to protect themselves from the wolves. SENATOR LINCOLN recalled that the Governor stated that many of the moose are being killed by people from Bethel. MR. NEWTON interjected that the Governor was right. As the Governor said, if they [Bethel residents] take 70 percent of the moose, that doesn't leave much for [the locals]. SENATOR TAYLOR turned to Mr. Newton's comment that he had never heard of a wolf attacking a human. He informed everyone that he was watching the Discovery channel the other night, which reported that two years ago in India 76 children were attacked by wolf packs - the same type of wolves that are in Alaska - and 46 of those children were killed. India did some lethal predator control in order to keep their children from being killed. TAPE 00-14, SIDE A MR. NEWTON reiterated the concern of the parents in the area, who have been walking their children to school. Number 021 FRED JOHN, JR., Chairman, Ahtna, Incorporated, informed everyone that the Ahtna Board of Director(s) passed a resolution supporting the Intensive/Active Predator Management Plan for McGrath. He said that he lives in Unit 13 where there is now grave concern for the caribou and moose herds. The caribou herd, the Nelchina, is [on the verge of] crashing. There are about 500 wolves in the game unit and with each wolf eating about 12 moose per year that would amount to about 6,000 moose being lost per year to wolves. He noted that about 15,000 caribou are killed by the wolves, when one figures that a wolf takes about 30 caribou per year. Furthermore, moose and caribou are lost to natural causes and causes brought on by deep snow and stress. Although bears are also predators, they are only part-time hunters while wolves hunt year round. MR. JOHN, JR. stated: Our eight villages are heavily dependent upon the moose and caribou. We are subsistence users and we know our environment needs active wildlife management in order to save our caribou and moose. You just can't manage people by shortening seasons or going into Tier II. We have yet to see any area that has gone into Tier II ever come out of it and we are right behind the Upper Kuskokwim area. We need a wolf control plan and we hope that the State Board of Game passes one in March. We don't want to wipe out all the wolves ... but we believe that we can all live together in good systems: the wolf, the bear, the beaver, the moose, the caribou and us, the people. We hope the Governor [will] start managing for the village people and not to wait. We can't manage for the outside interests because our lives depend on it. MR. JOHN, JR., concluded by expressing his hope that the legislature will support the Unit 13 wolf control plan and support the Unit 19(D)-East plan. Number 073 STANLEY NED, Wildlife & Parks Researcher, Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), informed everyone that recently his home town of Allakaket has experienced problems similar to those in Unit 19(D)-East in that the wolves came into the village and took many dogs. He noted that the children [now] play a game, "Who's going to get caught by the wolves?", in which they run alone to school. The problem with the wolves is not only in McGrath but throughout the region. Mr. Ned said that [the Tanana Chiefs Conference] is in favor of the McGrath movement and TCC recently passed a resolution to that effect. SENATOR LINCOLN recognized that Mr. Ned is a representative for 43 other villages. She, then, asked if any of the other villages have indicated that there has been a decline in moose or caribou populations and the reasons behind that if it is the case. MR. NED stated that "we" always talk to ADF&G personnel who come into the region and tell them that the moose population is declining at the same time that the wolf population is increasing. However, he indicated that some [listen] and some don't. Mr. Ned believes that the department should use the local knowledge when making regulations. Number 126 MYRA OLSEN, Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA), informed the committee that she is present due to her concern for and support of the McGrath region that has a problem with [their moose population]. She said she would like to see something done before McGrath is forced into Tier II for moose. She emphasized that no Tier II regime in Alaska has ever [been lifted once imposed]. She noted that she lives in Egegik, in the Bristol Bay area, where Tier II has just been instituted for caribou. She explained that there is a documented subsistence need for 1,200 caribou, but there are only 600 available to take. She said, "So, that's what we've agreed to settle for so that the caribou would come back." She noted that [her area] has experienced an increase in wolves and bears. She too has lost a dog to the wolves. Furthermore, [the community of Egegik] has had wolves on its air fields and in a community farther south, parents are escorting their children to and from school because they can see the wolves. Ms. Olsen commented that the wolves are loosing their fear of man, which she believes means the wolves are in trouble. This is an issue of food for humans as well as the wolves. However, it is also a safety issue that should be addressed. Ms. Olsen noted her support of the efforts of McGrath since it already has management tools in place; however, tying the hands of the [Alaska] Board of Game by refusing to sign the "go ahead" is not giving the managers the necessary tools to do something. She expressed frustration in regard to those who don't know the entire situation, such as tourists, but who can dictate what "our people" can and cannot put on the dinner table. She expressed further frustration that the Administration would side with outside special interests against the needs of the people who placed him in office. Ms. Olsen said, "I hope that this management tool of wolf control could be implemented and possibly even expanded into other regions as is needed or wanted." In conclusion, Ms. Olsen pointed out, "We aren't advocating the eradication of wolves, just the control over them." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that he has spent a lot of time in Ms. Olsen's region, which he believes is one of the most blessed areas of the world. He informed everyone that when the wolf initiative was going on, he approached a booth with a paid signature gatherer. Representative Ogan informed that signature gatherer that he was starving rural Alaskans to which the signature gatherer hung his head. He remarked that land and shoot is the most effective way to [control wolves]. MS. OLSEN said that she too has seen some of those petition gatherers, whose livelihood it is to gather signatures. She felt that it is too bad that one livelihood has to weigh against another. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if Ms. Olsen believes there is any other method of predator control other than the land and shoot. MS. OLSEN informed everyone that there are trees everywhere in McGrath and thus she noted the difficulty in getting around. Therefore, she agreed that the aerial method is probably the most effective and efficient way to [control wolves] in that area. However, the Egegik area has flat, rolling terrain and thus the [control] method may be different in the Egegik region. Number 223 JOE CLARK, Bristol Bay Native Association, indicated that the [legislators] are the tools to make this wolf problem go away. He informed everyone that in the late 1930s he witnessed the decimation of thousands of reindeers by wolves. He didn't know where those wolves came from because one hardly saw any wolves in the [Bethel] area. He recalled that those wolves did not kill for food, as normal packs would do. Mr. Clark feared that history may be repeating itself. Therefore, he believes the only method to reduce the numbers of wolves and save the [moose] population is by aerial [hunting]. He related an unverified rumor that there is a pack of wolves 146 strong. Such large packs create risks to humans. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if Mr. Clark agreed with the statement that wolves merely cull the sick and the weak. He inquired as to Mr. Clark's experience in regard to what types of animals they kill. MR. CLARK informed everyone that his father had 10,000 head of reindeer. He and his father watched those reindeer day and night. In the day the reindeer would not be attacked, while at night there would be a commotion resulting in four to ten dead adult reindeer, but nothing would have eaten them. Number 294 TED ANGASAN, Abundant Wildlife Coalition, provided the following testimony: Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of a newly formed coalition put together for the sole purpose of initiating active/intensive management of renewable resources in the state. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game would do well to return to the business of managing wildlife instead of just solely concentrating on managing people. We have witnessed biologically sound aggressive scientific management erode and the implementation of a noninterventionist philosophy of resource management, which literally allows ecosystems to reach ecological disaster for people as well as animals. This "natural cycle" mentality is harming our people and animals in rural Alaska. We believe that managing predators is essential to good biology. In village Alaska where heavy dependence on renewable resources exists, there is the recognition of strong linkages between subsistence needs not being met and predation. The state is responsible, by our state constitution, as keepers and managers of our natural resources and they have not done their jobs (sic). If they had used proven historical methods, I'd be in rural Alaska today going about my day to day activities. Predator control is needed where the resource is largely used as a subsistence source of food. The National Academy of Science study states this. Our group supports the Wolf Predation Control Implementation Plan for Unit 19(D)-East found under 5 AAC.92.123(1). Many people in rural Alaska can tell you about what it is like to go through a winter without a moose or caribou. Many can tell you about wolves now seen in villages and how that is affecting village lives, and many can tell you that Tier II does not return herds to healthy sustainable populations so that is not the solution. Active/intensive management is the solution. Not only managing prey populations but predator populations as well. MR. ANGASAN concluded by informing everyone that endorsements for intensive/active management and the State Board of Games's Wolf Implementation Plan for Unit 19(D)-East have been secured from the following: Alaska Federation of Natives, RurAL CAP, Ahtna, Inc., Tanana Chiefs Conference, Alaska Inter-Tribal Council (AITC), BIA- Juneau Area Director, Alaska Trappers Association, Interior Alaska Airboaters Association, Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee, Tanana Valley Sportsmen's Association, Alaska Outdoor Council, Caribou Calf Protection Program and the residents of Grayling, McGrath, Takotna, Nikolai and Telida. He predicted that more organizations will sign onto the platform as time progresses. Mr. Anagasan said, "We call on the Governor today to implement the wolf control program authorized by the State Board of Game in 1995 and again in 2000 and we ask the Governor to trust the judgement of village Alaska[ns] and to trust his own biologists." SENATOR TAYLOR emphasized that Mr. Angasan was the first witness to clearly state that it's the state's responsibility, as trustee over these resources, [to do something]. Senator Taylor said that he was embarrassed to admit that "we" have failed Mr. Angasan and the resources. He agreed with Mr. Angasan that it is "our" job. Senator Taylor recalled that he and Senator Bert Sharp had an initiative to give $800,000 to ADF&G in order to perform intensive game management. However, half of that money was transferred to the Academy of Sciences in order to study the problem and $80,000 went towards surveys of the people of McGrath. Senator Taylor apologized and agreed that "we" haven't done enough. Number 368 DICK BISHOP, Vice President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), informed everyone that he is a retired ADF&G game biologist and was a first area biologist in McGrath from 1969-1971 and later supervised research and management in that area. He noted that in retirement he hunts and traps just east of Unit 19(D)-East. Therefore, Mr. Bishop is familiar with the area and its circumstances over a period of many years. The AOC supports the management of wolves in Unit 19(D)-East in order to restore moose populations and harvest opportunity. He stated that the low moose population is not a new situation in that area as historical documents illustrate that in the 1840s and early 1850s there were practically no moose on the Kuskokwim River. Years ago a long-time resident from Sleetmute, informed Mr. Bishop that there were no moose in the Sleetmute area until about 1913. Furthermore, early explorers of these areas saw little moose. Mr. Bishop said that it is fairly clear that the big game in these areas were "naturally regulated." In the 1980s and early 1990s departmental studies revealed that "naturally regulated" meant controlled by predation within the limits of habitat and winter conditions. It also become clear that 85 percent or so of the annual mortality of big game prey was the result of predation and not hunters. He pointed out that in those earlier days of such scarce moose people moved to find food and if they didn't find it, they starved; sometimes people fought for possession of hunting and other resource gathering areas. However, today the situation is different in that there is a government structure devoted to learning about wildlife and to managing wildlife on the sustained yield principle in order to have these resources available for human use for food and materials in perpetuity. Furthermore, the people are no longer able to pursue the game and move from place to place as they once did because people are largely tied to fixed communities due to various commitments. That statement would be fairly true of urban or rural areas. Since the entire system has changed, management of fish and wildlife is supposed to provide for more consistent resource availability across the state. The present situation in Unit 19(D)-East calls for intensive management. He said that the data gathered by ADF&G clearly indicates that moose are once again "naturally regulated" by predation in Unit 19(D)-East. He informed everyone that in [Unit 19(D)-East] other management measures have been taken in order to help improve moose populations; those measures include wildfires to create new habitat, restricting aircraft access by hunters, prohibiting nonresident hunting and subsistence priority. However, none of those measures have allowed the moose populations to recover. MR. BISHOP pointed out that during his years working in the McGrath area, the moose were not "naturally regulated." During his stint in McGrath a combination of mild winters, good habitats and periodic wolf kills by aerial shooting and land and shoot allowed substantial increases in moose. Also at that time, the [department] was able to recommend a two moose bag limit, which was adopted by the board. That limit included one [moose] of either sex and winter seasons in order to accommodate traditional uses. Although [the department] was not able to make quantitative estimates of moose populations at that time, he said the numbers were extraordinary. Mr. Bishop said, "There's no question that if people are to benefit form Alaska's wildlife population consistent with sustained yield, there needs to be intensive management in places like [Unit] 19(D)-East." However, he noted that there are very few places in Alaska where intensive management can be done due to legal constraints in regard to federal land management policies, closures of areas for various reasons and the areas of unsuitable habitat. He remarked that he has estimated that no more than 10-15 percent of the main body of Alaska is actually available for management whether for predator control or habitat management. Therefore, that creates pressure for intensive management where it can be done and will benefit people. Mr. Bishop stated that the welfare of the wolves is not of concern as they have survived extensive poisoning programs, an intensive predator control situation by the federal government and routine aerial and same day shooting in the past. Therefore, Mr. Bishop said, "Site specific intensive management such as in [Unit] 19(D)-East, including wolf control in no way threatens the long-term welfare of Alaska's wolves." Although he didn't believe that moose will reach such scarce levels and retreat to the Alaska Range as in the 1840s and 1850s, he felt it certain there will be little or no harvestable surplus for people in areas such as [Unit] 19(D)-East for many years unless intensive management is undertaken. Therefore, AOC strongly supports undertaking intensive management in [Unit] 19(D)- East and other places where such management is beneficial. In conclusion, Mr. Bishop informed everyone that an abundance in game in an area is not only beneficial to the people of the area but to the entire ecosystem as the trickle down effect takes place. SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Bishop if he saw any other way to manage the predator control in the McGrath area other than a form of aerial hunting. MR. BISHOP acknowledged that there are other ways, but he believes those to be less efficient, less cost-effective and perhaps less humane in some cases. However, a combination of several [methods] could be used and perhaps achieve a similar result [as the aerial method], although it would probably be more labor intensive and take more time. He noted the options of denning, poisoning and intensive trapping such as was used with the caribou calf protection program. Any one of those options alone would probably not achieve [the goal]; however, a combination could conceivably [manage the predator control program]. Still, it is difficult to find anything more efficient and cost-effective than lethal shooting from aircraft. Number 482 GABE SAM, Coalition for the Alaskan Way of Life (CAWL), testified via teleconference. He stated that TCC supports the [Alaska] Board of Game implementing their predator control program as soon as possible. This is no longer an issue regarding putting food on the table because now that wolves are entering town because they are hungry. The issue now is the welfare and safety of the children. Mr. Sam commended the [Alaska] Board of Game members for standing their ground and recommending an aggressive predator control program. Although ADF&G has been given its orders to carry out the [Alaska] Board of Game's decision, the Governor has decided against it. Mr. Sam believes that [the Governor's] decision was not based on science but rather outside political pressure. Mr. Sam recalled that one of the issues for the board was in regard to the terrain of Unit 19(D)-East. The terrain of the area is such that the only effective and humane way to manage the predator control is by aerial wolf hunting and land and shoot. MR. SAM turned to the Coalition for the Alaskan Way of Life, which is made up of a diverse group of people who agreed to leave political differences, specifically those related to subsistence, behind. In 1996, the loss of aerial hunting for predator management was such a landslide, the need for help was realized. At that time it was also realized that other organizations could ban together to help. Moreover, it was realized that they were fighting well-funded special interest groups. Mr. Sam emphasized that outside special interest groups should not dictate how "our" wildlife resources should be managed. He noted the following comment of one special interest group: "As soon as the Native culture is extinct, the better off they would be." He didn't believe that the legislature shares that point of view. In conclusion, Mr. Sam reiterated that TCC supports ADF&G to begin the predator control program. CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that Mr. Pete Buist, Alaska Trappers Association, was the next person on the list to testify. However, Chairman Halford didn't believe he was available. Chairman Halford read the first sentence from the Alaska Trappers Association's communication. That first sentence read as follows: "The Alaska Trappers Association fully supports the people of the Upper Kuskokwim in their poignant plea for responsible, active/intensive game management." Number 525 JOE MATTIE, Fairbanks fur dealer, testifying from Fairbanks, informed everyone that he is involved in the Caribou Calf Protection Program, the Coalition for the Alaskan Way of Life and the Alaska Trappers Association. In October 1995, he learned at a public meeting that ADF&G was proposing to sterilize wolves as a method of predator control, which was shocking. He expressed disbelief that wildlife management had fallen to that level. Further disbelief was expressed in regard to how protecting sterilized wolves would prevent them from killing big game. After that meeting a group of people decided to begin a privately-funded wolf control program. He said, "As trappers, we knew we could reduce the wolf population sufficiently to allow the 40-mile Caribou herd to recover. We also knew a larger caribou herd meant more wolves, in the future, for us to trap." Therefore, only enough financial incentive was necessary to make it worth the trappers' efforts. The group was able to convince the hunters and others interested in seeing the 40-mile herd recover to provide a $400 per wolf incentive. He explained that the trapper received the $400 for each wolf harvested in the 40-mile region and the hunter received the wolf pelt for his $400 pledge. Mr. Mattie stated that this effort removed 60 percent of the wolf population as 128 wolves were harvested out of the 225 present in the boundaried area at the beginning of the 1995/96 season. In the 1996/97 season, 80 wolves were harvested, again 60 percent of the remaining wolf population. He noted that the caribou herd grew 4 percent in 1996 and 11 percent in 1997, which was the first growth in 15 years. In the winter of 1997, the sterilization program began and the trappers were told to discontinue wolf trapping in that area. Mr. Mattie said, "We were pleased and proud of our contribution and successful program and we believe that it is the reason the caribou herd is recovering. We are also pleased that it was a private incentive program not costing the state anything. But most importantly, we are pleased that the program brought people together ... towards a goal of abundant wildlife." CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if any of the wolves that Mr. Mattie eliminated were not effectively sterilized. MR. MATTIE remarked that this program used the same sterilization program as Mr. Newton. SENATOR TAYLOR remarked that many at the hearing are discovering the great diversity of people who find a common interest and goal in regard to protecting and preserving Alaska's lifestyle and its wild game resources. He expressed his pleasure in knowing that people all over Alaska are working toward the common goal of trusteeship and stewardship, which everyone should work towards. He thanked Mr. Mattie and his family for their efforts. MR. MATTIE thanked Senator Taylor for the Caribou Calf Protection Program. Number 569 BILL HAGAR, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association, testifying from Fairbanks, remarked that this is a historical milestone in that he believes "we" are embarking on a rural-urban alliance for a common goal that will benefit the entire state. He noted that [at the McGrath meeting] a resolution was unanimously accepted. He stated, "We are here on bended knee requesting you, as leaders, join us collectively and politically solving this problem before we have a resource that's beyond recovery." DARREL VENT, resident of Huslia, which is in the Doyon and TCC region, provided the following testimony: Over half of our villages attended the summit in McGrath on intensive/active management, which was hosted by the McGrath Tribal Council February 1st and 2nd and all of our villages supported the [Unit] 19(D)-East Wolf Implementation Plan and we request the Governor to take formal action now, before the moose are entirely wiped out in the Upper Kuskokwim. In our region, many villages are reporting large packs of wolves near villages, health and safety concerns and subsistence users who did not get their moose or caribou to carry them through the long winter. Already the village of Takotna has declared a health and safety emergency. They have children and elders and a blind person who walk the road. They are afraid for their people's safety. As our respected Elder Sidney Huntington said in his written testimony for the McGrath meeting, "It is not going to get better until you are able to take some wolves. It has been ..." TAPE 00-14, SIDE B MR. VENT continued: "... proven many times in the past that control methods work. To name just a few, the Koyukuk River in the early days, aerial hunting for wolves brought back our moose twice. The Minto Alaska wolf control [program] brought back the moose from almost complete elimination. To stand by and do nothing is crazy. How could our government officials tie our hands so we are not able to restore our wildlife and maintain sustainable populations. Who is supposed to be taking care of our subsistence wildlife food resources? Or is that just a joke? Who makes all the promises politically to their advantage?" Sidney lives in Galena and served on the Board of Game for over 19 years and he has seen shortages. Sidney said, "I wish I could help you. Some people should just use some common sense and care for our wildlife and us." I say on behalf of TCC villages, our people's health and welfare need proper food on the table such as moose and caribou meat. We do not want to see what happened on the Great Plains when all the buffalo were wiped out. We will not stand for that. Not in a modern day society. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if Mr. Vent has heard from other villages that have experienced a decline in moose and caribou populations and an increase in wolf populations. She asked if there is concern regarding this outside of the McGrath area. MR. VENT stated that this is of great concern all over. For instance, in the (indisc.) area he recalled that there was over one moose per square mile and now it is down to about .36 [moose per square mile] and now it's getting worse. He suggested that a five/ten year management plan limiting [outside] hunting and predation could result in a sustainable method. SENATOR LINCOLN acknowledged that Mr. Vent lives a traditional lifestyle and thus she asked him to explain to those present the importance of the moose population to the villages. MR. VENT stated that in the villages the stores are probably three times higher than in [urban areas] and very few people have jobs. Society has changed and now people go outside the village for jobs while those left in the villages can't afford to leave or don't have the education to go out and get these jobs. He said those [left in the villages] are the ones of concern. Number 551 JONOTHON SOLOMAN, Chairman, Gwich'in Steering Committee, noted that he is from Fort Yukon. He testified in support of the resolution passed in McGrath and noted that the majority of the Yukon Flat people are trappers. Mr. Solomon expressed the desire to have management of all natural renewable resources for all of Alaska. However, Mr. Solomon said, "But we don't want aerial hunting to be open for all of the state of Alaska at this point, until all Alaska becomes under the game management of its people and local people are involved." Mr. Solomon informed everyone that he is an Athabascan Gwich'in of Northeast Alaska belonging to the wolf clan. He remarked that when people talk about his clan it sometimes hurts him. In regard to managing the natural resources, Mr. Solomon stressed the need to also manage the natural resource known as human being. He indicated that instead of blaming the wolf, "we" must all take the responsibility equally. Mr. Solomon said, "The only reason we're noticing wolf today is because the human animal has taken away a lot of these natural resources, away from what you call wolf." He explained that the wolves are coming down the mountain because there is nothing up there due to humans taking [the food]. He noted that he comes from an area with lots of wolves due to the 180,000 Porcupine caribou, which he said have survived because of how his culture manages. He expressed the need to harvest even the wolf in order for it to be healthy for the Native people of Alaska. Therefore, Mr. Solomon supported the McGrath resolution but reiterated the need to control everyone. Number 494 CARL JACK, Tribal Member, Kipnuk, testified in support of intensive game management for [[Unit] 19(D)-East. He noted that he has observed, in the last few months, the attempts to address the problem in [[Unit] 19(D)-East. He remarked that those who have worked on this issue have capitalized on bringing people together, which is refreshing to see. This approach is consistent with the basic approach of his people. He turned to the filing of the emergency regulation to perform predator control, which was adopted by the [Alaska] Board of Game. While the emergency regulation is permissive in nature, it expresses to the Governor that [the regulation] is based on sound science and should be adopted. However, that regulation is only good for 90 days, which only left about three months before summer arrived. MR. JACK saw the Administration's inability to initiate predator control as a de facto violation of the constitution that calls for sustained yield principles. He asked if that would be ignored. If nothing is done between now and summer, he questioned what would happen next year. He believes that the policy makers for the state should put something in place that will make something happen such as SB 267. If nothing is done, he feared that the division between the urban and rural areas would be exacerbated. Furthermore, if nothing is done, he predicted a loss of faith in the state process, the management system. That would result in a violation of the fiduciary trust for proper management of fish and game. In conclusion, Mr. Jack supported doing something in the Upper Kuskokwim as soon as possible and as an individual, he requested that the Governor get back on track to a sound management system based on science. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted his pleasure in seeing things that join people together. Representative Ogan pointed out that he is on the Fish & Game Finance subcommittee. He said that he has put the commissioner's office on notice and will do all he can to advocate for severe cuts to the commissioner's office unless [ADF&G] comes around in regard to the problem in McGrath. Therefore, he has prepared some amendments to the budget. SENATOR TAYLOR noted his appreciation to Mr. Jack for bringing up the constitution and the sustained yield provisions within. He reiterated his earlier apology in regard to the fact that [managing wildlife] is the responsibility of the legislature; there has not been enough pressure brought on the Administration. Furthermore, Senator Taylor expressed concern with Mr. Jack's statement regarding the lack of trust that would result from the failure to manage fish and game. SENATOR PETE KELLY disagreed with Senator Taylor in that he didn't blame the legislature but rather the Governor. He pointed out that [the legislature] has proposed every bill possible, overridden [the Governor's] vetoes, threatened and begged. Still, the Governor will not manage wolves because when he was elected he announced that there would be no wolf control while he is in office. SENATOR TAYLOR related his belief that it is a collective responsibility. He agreed that the legislature has done everything reasonable that it could, but we have not yet cut off the commissioner of ADF&G's salary or utilized some other Draconian approaches. Perhaps, "we" are at the point at which "we take the gloves off." Senator Taylor commented on the importance of bringing people, Alaskans, together to solve these problems. MR. JACK noted that "our" efforts to work within the process will continue and "we" also look forward to participating in the March meeting of the [Alaska] Board of Game. He believes, at that meeting, the board will reauthorize what is already in the books for the next five years. Number 391 CHAIRMAN HALFORD pointed out that the department began by saying that the moose to wolf ratio is such that the moose population will continue to decline unless something is done. "Obviously, we have a job in front of us." Therefore, the legislature will attempt to do everything possible to work on this matter. Chairman Halford thanked everyone who organized the McGrath summit and this meeting, in particular Donne Fleagle. He remarked that there is no reason for anyone in the process of state government to not understand what the problem is and what is being requested. He thanked everyone. SENATOR LINCOLN thanked Chairman Halford for holding this hearing, the department representative who responded to questions and everyone on the teleconference. Senator Lincoln said that it seems to be a unified message that something must be done. She said that she hopes that the dialogue will continue in order to reach a resolution. CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted his commitment to continue to work on this issue. MS. FLEAGLE thanked the legislators for the invitation to present [and discuss this matter]. Number 341 LYNN LEVENGOOD, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association (AWCA), said that the association is proud to stand united with the trappers, TCC, RurAL CAP, AOC and all the other organizations in order to have a return of the abundance of the wildlife in Alaska. In regard to Senator Taylor's question regarding whether wildlife should be managed by broad popular support, the Alaska Constitution requires that Alaska's game be managed for sustained yield for human consumptive uses. He pointed out that AWCA believes that some statutory changes are necessary in Title 16 in order to require Alaska's wildlife to be managed for abundance and return Alaska's wildlife to an abundant state. If the department chooses to monitor the wildlife rather than manage it, then the elected officials should not appropriate any money [to ADF&G], which he believes constitutes malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance. He stated, "Alaskans will no longer stand for the negligent management of Alaska's wildlife resources." CHAIRMAN HALFORD requested that Mr. Levengood wrap up his testimony as people were beginning to leave. MR. LEVENGOOD said that Alaskan families sustain themselves on Alaska's wildlife by consumptive use and the legislature must require ADF&G to manage for abundance. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Joint meeting of the House and Senate Resources Standing committees was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.