|
Hello and thank you for tuning in. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you with a message from Juneau. Today I will speak about Resource Issues.
Plans to Relocate Moose
The news continually recounts horrific details of humans harmed by moose attacks, moose being shot in areas with high concentrations of humans, and damages incurred in motor vehicle accidents involving moose. From 1996-2000 there was an average of 661 moose and motor vehicle collisions in Alaska. With south central recording record snowfalls this year, the number of motor vehicle/moose collisions in our area is anticipated to increase significantly this year. While wild animals are part of the lure of Alaska, we must be realistic about the potential consequences of wild animal populations in our city centers. I believe the government has a responsibility to provide for the public safety of its citizens and to conduct sensible wildlife management practices.
This week the Senate Resources Committee will be taking up Senate Bill 329. SB 329 compels the commissioner to avoid destruction of moose located in an area of concentrated human population that pose a significant risk to the health, safety, or economic well-being of persons in the area, if a practical alternative exists for the relocation of the moose to suitable habitat. This bill allows the commissioner to authorize one or more private individuals or groups to relocate nuisance moose to suitable habitat if, upon review and evaluation of a written application and proposal, the commissioner finds that the individual or group is qualified to relocate nuisance moose without danger to the public, themselves, or the moose.
Currently, the Department of Fish & Game estimates that there are 2400 moose in the Anchorage Bowl and that number is growing. Conversely, failure to manage for the sustained yield of moose in remote Alaska has led to acute moose shortages in and around many Alaskan villages. SB 329 provides the commissioner an opportunity to contract with private organizations to address the decline in moose where they are needed for sustenance by transporting healthy moose to those locations. At the same time, this plan offers protection for citizens and moose alike by safely moving moose from city centers.
Ironically, Defenders of Wildlife does not support this bill because, as they testified, they would rather shoot moose and ship them out to rural locations frozen then work with Department of Fish of Game, the legislature and the Alaska Moose Federation to re-establish healthy moose populations across the state.
Plans to Develop Mineral Resources
Another issue also discussed this week in Senate Resources is addressing concerns regarding Coal Bed Methane development. Despite hearings in the valley and the Department of Natural Resources working hard on draft new regulations prior to a moratorium on leases being lifted, this week an organization brought the legislature a document they call the Alaska Property Owners' Bill of Rights. I am concerned about the statements in their document and the lack of credible information they are propagating.
A balanced conversation about land use planning and responsible resource development must include discussion of the very real constraints that exist under the Alaska Statehood Act and the Alaska Constitution while at the same time acknowledging property owner rights and redresses that already exist.
The Alaska Statehood Act Section 6(i) explains that the grants of lands to the State of Alaska by the Federal Government included mineral deposits. Those grants were made upon the express condition that all sales, grants, deeds, or patents for any of the mineral lands shall be subject to and contain reservation to the State of all of the minerals in the lands together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove those minerals. Minerals deposits in such lands shall be subject to lease by the State. Any lands or minerals disposed of contrary to the provisions of this section shall be forfeited to the United States.
Accordingly, any action by the legislature, local government or agency that purports to thwart Alaska's right and duty to lease for prospecting, mining, and removing of minerals in lands given to the State of Alaska through the Alaska Statehood Act would not hold up in court and would result in forfeiture of the land and rights to the federal government.
Article VIII Section 8 of the Alaska Constitution states that, "the Legislature may provide for the leasing of, and the issuance of permits for exploration of any part of the public domain or interest therein, subject to reasonable concurrent uses. Leases and permits shall provide, among other conditions, for payment by the party at fault for damages or injury arising from noncompliance with terms governing concurrent use, and for forfeiture in the event of breach of conditions."
Article VIII Section 9 of the Alaska Constitution states that, "Subject to the provisions of this section, the legislature may provide for the sale or grant of state lands, or interests therein, and establish sales procedures. All sales or grants shall contain such reservation to the State of all resources as may be required by Congress or the State and shall provide for access to these resources. Reservation of access shall not unnecessarily impair the owner's use, prevent the control of trespass, or preclude compensation for damages."
The Alaska Statehood Act, the Alaska Constitution and the Alaska Statutes present the reality of the resource development conversation. The federal government has the ability and responsibility to take back Alaska's land if the state fails to lease for and remove minerals. Surface property owners have the ability to enforce their property rights including preventing trespass and seeking damages for harm. The state has the job of balancing its responsibility to its citizens with its contractual obligations to the federal government and those entities it enters into contracts with for the purpose of removing minerals. The state, through the Department of Natural Resources and through the legislative process is fulfilling its responsibility. New regulations are being promulgated and new legislation is being considered in response to public comments dating back to last summer and concerns raised at town meetings.
Currently there is a moratorium on leases in order to give DNR time to promulgate additional regulations. Now is not the time to be protesting on the capitol steps or speaking out of turn in committee meetings causing the need for the Sergeant at Arms to be called. The resource development discussion is not about temper tantrums and sound bites. The resource discussion is about finding realistic solutions and promoting responsible development.
I would love to hear from you on any of these topics or anything else we are working on in the capitol.
For information on legislation I am working on, to read district updates, or to send me an email, please find my office on the internet at
You can also call the office directly, 907-465-6600 or toll free in state 1-877-465-6601. Please let me know if you would like to be included on my email distribution list for updates from the office.
# # # |
