Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
02/21/2020 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB203 | |
| HB137 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 203 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 137-LIMIT NONRESIDENT TAKING OF BIG GAME
1:06:18 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN announced the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 137,"An Act relating to the taking of big game by
nonresidents; and providing for an effective date."
1:06:41 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN reopened public testimony on HB 137.
1:06:58 PM
SCOTT JENKINS disclosed he is a member of Resident Hunters of
Alaska (RHAK). Mr. Jenkins said he is a lifelong Alaskan and
has hunted big game animals in Southeast and the Interior. He
expressed his support for HB 137, and tourism, and acknowledged
the contributions of nonresidents to the state. He opined there
is a misconception about the bill related to when it would be
enforced by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG); HB
137 would only be enforced when there is a shortage of animals
in certain areas, which is a plan that should be supported by
all Alaskans. He noted ADFG works very hard to manage fisheries
and wildlife; however, HB 137 would help protect big game in
Alaska. In Southeast, the moose herds in Gustavus and in the
[Berners Bay] area are nearly gone; in addition, there have been
many closures in [Region 1-Southeast Juneau Area Section 11-A]
for shrimp, king crab, salmon, and other species. Sometimes
reasons for shortages are unknown, and are not caused by
overhunting or overfishing, and it is important to implement a
mechanism such as HB 137 before it is too late to respond to a
population decline, as happened to the Central Arctic Caribou
herd. Mr. Jenkins described how as a general contractor his
business has been affected by changes in [building] codes,
zoning, and restrictions; by making adjustments, he has
successfully responded to changes, and other businesses can do
so. He directed attention to the 2019-2020 Alaska Hunting
Regulations on page 7, which read [in part][original punctuation
provided]:
Nonresidents are allowed to hunt when there is enough
game to allow everyone to participate. When there
isn't enough game, nonresident hunters are restricted
or eliminated first. If more restrictions are
necessary, seasons and bag limits may be reduced or
eliminated for some residents.
1:10:08 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR asked whether under intensive management (IM)
protocols some animals may not be harvested, which would not
benefit anyone.
MR. JENKINS recalled the Central Arctic Caribou herd declined
from 50,000 to 22,000, the [IM] target was 28,000, and the
projection was 60 percent [harvest] to residents and 40 percent
to nonresidents; however, the success rate was higher for
nonresidents. He said it is better to rebuild a depleted herd
by restricting hunting; for example, in Gustavus, ADFG
restricted moose hunting year to year.
1:13:41 PM
ADAM HARRIS said he has been an Alaska resident for over ten
years and expressed support for HB 137, which is a commonsense
solution to a shortage of big game resources. He said those who
are considered to own a resource should have a preference to
harvest those resources over those who do not. He disputed the
[fiscal note Identifier: HB137-DFG-DWC-2-14-20] estimate of a
25-75 percent reduction in nonresident licenses purchased,
because shortages do not commonly occur. Further, HB 137 could
increase revenue to ADFG because a license is purchased before
one applies for a draw permit, so if a hunter fails to obtain a
permit to hunt in an area of a shortage, he/she would use their
license to hunt in another area of Alaska.
1:17:34 PM
ADAM GRENDA disclosed he is a RHAK board member and expressed
his support for HB 137. He said the Board of Game (BOG), ADFG,
does not allocate game in accordance with the state constitution
and hunting regulations. In response to limited resources, it
is commonsense that nonresident hunting would be first to be
cut, put on a draw system, or put on a permanent registration
system with a quota. Mr. Grenda said BOG supports the
commercial hunting industry in Alaska by limiting tags or
shortening seasons on an equal basis; HB 137 would hold BOG
accountable when there is not enough game to meet the demands of
Alaskans. He questioned why BOG restricts residents and
nonresidents equally in times of shortages, which is contrary to
the state constitution and hunting regulations and is not
allowed in other states. Mr. Grenda said his five children
enjoy consuming game and he lives in Alaska to pursue hunting.
He cautioned hunting in Alaska is becoming a rich man's sport.
1:20:51 PM
ROBERT CASSELL, DDS, disclosed he is a member of the Alaska
Outdoor Council (AOC), vice-president of RHAK, and a member of
other hunting organizations. He said HB 137 is welcome
legislation because commercial hunters have influenced BOG
allocation decisions. For example, on Kodiak Island, BOG
allocates 40 percent of the brown bear permits to nonresident by
issuing permits to guides. A resident must apply for a random
permit with a 2 percent chance of receiving a permit and he has
not had success. However, a nonresident is virtually guaranteed
a permit, and some are granted more than one. Dr. Cassell
proposed a 90 percent allocation for residents to BOG, which was
denied. He opined BOG protects the commercial hunting industry
at the expense of Alaska resident hunters, thus at personal
expense, he has brought a [lawsuit, Robert Cassell v. State of
Alaska, Board of Game, filed 5/29/19 in Superior Court, Third
Judicial District at Anchorage] challenging the unconstitutional
allocation of Alaskas wildlife resources by BOG. A favorable
outcome of the lawsuit would increase his chances to obtain a
brown bear permit from 2 percent to 4 percent but would not
provide a guarantee. Dr. Cassell gave brief personal background
information as a wildlife technician and assistant guide. He
concluded, noting BOG plays politics with allocations. In
response to Co-Chair Lincoln, he said the lawsuit is pending.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for the plaintiff and jurisdiction
of the lawsuit.
DR. CASSELL said he is the named plaintiff for the case filed in
Anchorage Superior Court. In further response to Representative
Hannan, he said it is a civil suit against BOG.
1:25:57 PM
JOE KLUTSCH said he has lived in King Salmon for almost 50 years
and began working in the guiding industry in 1976. He said he
has served as a member of the ADFG advisory council in the
Bristol Bay region dealing with hunting, sport fishing, and
commercial fishing issues and has lengthy and extensive
experience with BOG, the Board of Fisheries, and federal
agencies in many capacities and at all levels. He described the
BOG process in detail, which he characterized as unlike any
process elsewhere. Mr. Klutsch said if proposals before BOG are
properly presented and have merit, generally, BOG will act
favorably; however, BOG does not allocate individual animals,
but instead allocates opportunity. He opined the issues raised
by RHAK have an underlying agenda, which is to eliminate
nonresident guided hunting wherever possible. He noted his
agreement with the previous testimony provided by AOC. Without
reference to the specifics of the Nelchina and the Fortymile
caribou herds, he questioned whether the issues raised are
accurate, complete, or truthful. Further, Mr. Klutsch claimed
the premise of the bill is flawed, and the language in the bill
is vague.
1:30:43 PM
PAUL CLAUS said he co-owns and operates Ultima Thule Outfitter,
which is a fly-in lodge located within Wrangell-St. Elias
National Park and Preserve (the park), where he lives year
around. He said he is a lifelong Alaskan, and the lodge
provides ecotourism, guided hunting, and an air taxi. He
expressed opposition to HB 137. Mr. Claus has three federal
concession hunting areas in Wrangell-St Elias, which have been
an integral source of income for four generations beginning in
the early 60s.
1:31:51 PM
DONNA CLAUS, co-owner, Ultima Thule Outfitter, said she has been
in Alaska for 44 years, and deals with governmental agencies
such as the National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the
Interior, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, ADFG, the Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development, the Internal Revenue Service, and others.
She said Mr. Claus and she have great respect and support for
ADFG and BOG, which makes decisions based on scientific methods;
the bill would take scientific management away from the
knowledgeable agency and give priority to one group of people,
based on human satisfaction. She said this is not a good way to
manage resources; furthermore, the change from may to shall
takes management away from the professionals at BOG and begins
mandating by legislation. The change has the potential to
damage part of their business: four guides and a lodge staff
depend on their business for their income. Good business
decisions must be made for capital improvements and wages, and
the uncertainty of a draw system does not work for business
decisions. Ms. Claus advised clients are booked years in
advance in order to provide excellent service for clients and
local Alaskan hunters. Hunt draws are announced once per year;
she said as a resident of the park she and Mr. Claus are
federally subsistence hunters and harvesters and they understand
all perspectives. In 2019, over 88,000 resident hunters bought
licenses and approximately 15,300 nonresident hunters bought
licenses; residents contributed $4.3 million to ADFG and
nonresidents contributed $9.8 million to ADFG. Ms. Claus urged
the committee not to pass HB 137.
1:36:23 PM
BRAD SPARKS, MD, president of RHAK, and speaking on his own
behalf, said his family decided to only consume wild game. He
moved to Alaska for its hunting opportunities and worked at the
Alaska Native Medical Center and is now in a private practice
that provides jobs for over 100 employees. Regarding the
economic impact of this issue, he pointed out 100,000 Alaska
residents buy hunting licenses, live and work in Alaska all
year, and spend 88 percent of their hunting dollars in Alaska,
which would total in the billions of dollars. On average,
100,000 Alaska residents buy hunting licenses each year and
there are approximately 1,700 guides, who are essentially
lobbyists for nonresidents. Thus, guides total less than 2
percent of Alaska resident hunters; however, they feel it is
fair for the state not to give preference to residents in times
of shortages. In addition, guides believe it is fair to issue
40 percent of Kodiak bear tags to guides, which can be sold to
nonresidents. In addition, [guides believe] resident next of
kin tags should come out of the resident allocation, there
should be restrictions on residents ability to rent equipment
in the field, and 50 percent of moose tags should go to
nonresidents at the expense of resident opportunity. Dr. Sparks
said no other state has a must-be-guided species restriction,
restricts job opportunities for youth or adults as packers, or
allocates 40-50 percent of tags to nonresidents. He questioned
why 100,000 Alaskans must justify their priority to Alaskas
resources, and stressed Alaska resident hunters provide 88
percent of hunting dollars. He stated his support for the bill.
1:40:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked Dr. Sparks for his profession.
DR. SPARKS said he is an orthopedic surgeon at Anchorage
Fracture and Orthopedic Clinic. In further response to
Representative Hannan, he said he has eaten a brown bear roast.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether the national standard of 10
percent restrictions to nonresidents is in times of game
shortages or in general.
DR. SPARKS said in other states residents have a strong priority
in times of restrictions; when game is abundant, some states
allow up to 10 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN pointed out in the majority of other
states much of the hunting occurs on private land; for example,
in Wyoming, one can hunt elk on private land regardless of
residency. She asked Dr. Sparks to clarify state nonresident
hunt percentages in order to compare the aspect of land
ownership.
DR. SPARKS explained the overall average in western states is up
to 10 percent; however, in Alaska, big game wild animals are
owned by the state and the state issues hunting tags.
1:43:17 PM
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR said he is a master guide who has lived in
Alaska for 49 years. He spoke of his lengthy experience serving
on the Board of Fisheries, the Pacific Salmon Commission, the
Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee, ADFG, and others,
and said he knows the BOG process extremely well. One action
BOG cannot regulate is harvest success, which he illustrated by
citing examples from his military experience. Mr. Umphenour
said Alaska has the best process for the promulgation of fishing
and hunting regulations; he represented Alaska at the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and he advised Alaska
is the only state with separate boards for fish and game. He
said RHAK provided false and misleading information about the
policies of other states and referred to a brochure sent to the
committee that demonstrated the false information [document not
provided]. Mr. Umphenour stated nonresident hunting licenses
and tags produced 76.36 percent of wildlife conservations
budget for calendar year 2019, and the nonresident fishing
licenses and king salmon tags produced 80.77 percent of the
budget for sport fishing.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for Mr. Umphenours perspective on
the game management of the Central Arctic Caribou herd.
MR. UMPHENOUR said the Central Arctic Caribou herd borders the
[James W. Dalton Highway] north of the Brooks Range. In 2018,
295 resident hunters harvested 116 caribou, which is a hunter
success rate of 39 percent; 195 nonresident hunters harvested 99
caribou, which is a harvest success rate of 50 percent. Within
five miles of the highway, hunters are only allowed to hunt with
bow and arrow; from the total harvest of [215] the bow harvest
was 70 caribou, 43 by resident hunters and 27 by nonresident
hunters. The game population estimate for the herd in 2019 was
30,000 and the population objective was 28,000-32,000; at a 3
percent harvest rate, the Central Arctic Caribou herd has a
harvestable surplus of 900, of which 215 were taken. Mr.
Umphenour said the Fortymile caribou herd is the best example of
intensive management and has a good population of caribou and
hunters can use all-terrain vehicles (ATVs); however, one must
walk five miles to hunt with a firearm in the Central Arctic
Caribou herd.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether hunters can fly in to hunt.
MR. UMPHENOUR said yes.
1:52:34 PM
JACOB FLETCHER expressed his opposition to HB 137. He is a
guide and a member of the Alaska Professional Hunters
Association (APHA). He worked in Kodiak Island and now guides
in Talkeetna. Mr. Fetcher said the bill is not about shortages
but whether a hunter will be satisfied. From his experience, he
said BOG takes time and effort to review proposals; the change
made by the bill would hamper BOG as it considers hunting
opportunities in Alaska. He restated his opposition to HB 137.
1:54:56 PM
TYLER LOKEN disclosed he is a member of RHAK and expressed
support for the bill; there is a regulation that mandates
nonresidents must use a guide, and guides do not want to limit
their opportunities. He opined the bill would not put guides
out of business; Alaska residents who live and hunt here and
support the legislature should not take a backseat to commercial
hunting. Mr. Loken recalled a board-generated proposal that
went straight directly after residents, and suggested BOG is
lobbied by business interests. He restated his support for HB
137.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN inquired as to the aforementioned proposal.
MR. LOKEN explained [Proposal 207: Restrictions on the Use of
Aircraft Associated with Sheep Hunting] limited residents use
of their plane and BOG does not ensure that the interests of
residents are before that of high dollar hunting from the
Outside.
1:58:30 PM
TOM KIRSTEIN, licensed master guide, disclosed he is a member of
APHA, the National Rifle Association, the Safari Club, and other
groups. He provided a brief history of his professional guiding
career, beginning in the 70s, and said he has learned to be
active in the game management decisions made by BOG that are
important to his future. The BOG process provides public access
to wildlife management decisions regarding big game renewable
resources for all user groups. A nonresident hunter is the last
to receive allocations and resident hunters receive priority due
to the subsistence law. Further, nonresident hunters pay most
of the cost of the conservation management of Alaskas big game
resources. Mr. Kirstein said Alaskans should be unified in the
management of game resources, and he urged the committee to take
no action on HB 137.
2:00:47 PM
ZACH DECKER, co-owner, Glacier Guides, provided testimony on
behalf of Alisha Rosenbruch-Decker. Ms. Rosenbruch-Decker is a
lifelong Alaskan and has spent her entire life working in
Alaskas original tourism industry - guiding. She has been a
licensed guide for over 21 years and is one of two female master
guides in Alaska. Glacier Guides is a second-generation
business, operating for almost 50 years. It is the first
special use outfitter in the Tongass National Forest and is an
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)
operation in Glacier Bay. Glacier Guides goal is to continue
its guiding business into the future for visitors who come to
Alaska. Mr. Decker said HB 137, and the threat of a drawing
hunt, would change and damage historic businesses that provide
revenue to the state and the Bush. The language of the bill is
subjective and would erase successful collaborative work by BOG,
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Department of Agriculture,
ADFG, the guiding industry, and the public, to ensure fair
access to public land for all users, and sustainable huntable
brown bear populations in Southeast. The bill would eliminate
BOGs collaborative process; for example, recently BOG issued a
memorandum of understating (MOU) between USFS, ADFG, the Big
Game Commercial Services Board (BGCSB), and hunting guides; a
drawing hunt would change the collaborative process and raise
hunting fees in Gustavus for deer, moose, and bear. He urged
the committee not to move the bill forward.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked for information regarding the MOU.
MR. DECKER explained the [Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Project]
was a five-year process to address issues related to outfitters,
guides, and tour operators, such as service days and uses of the
national forest, especially along the beach. The project sought
better collaboration between ranger districts and user groups,
and developed an MOU to address changes in ownership of
businesses and access to the forest, and to ensure USFS and ADFG
share biological reductions with outfitters, or other concerns
that would be referred to BGCSB to protect the public.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN surmised the MOU was specific to guide
operations.
MR. DECKER said yes.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN questioned whether there was participation by
Alaska residents not affiliated with guide operations.
MR. DECKER responded other participants were the [Alaska Outdoor
Council], Territorial Sportsmen, and a small ship tour operator
brought forward an issue regarding a black bear hunt, which
further involved local sporting groups.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked what other options could be used to
address [the issue of resident hunting preference].
MR. DECKER said in Southeast most of the land is owned by USFS,
and most of the problems occur on state land; however, in
Southeast there is an issue with transporters. He described in
detail a situation of overharvesting in Southeast ADFG Game
Management Unit (GMU) 3, which was resolved when BOG established
a draw for nonresident, nonguided permits, and the harvest
numbers were reduced, without affecting residents.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if there are ways, other than draw
permits, by which BOG can restrict harvest in areas of game
shortage.
2:11:10 PM
MR. DECKER recalled in the late 90s there was a concern in
Southeast ADFG GMU 4 about the brown bear harvest, due to a loss
of habitat. A brown bear management strategy group looked at
historical data and the number of hunts and worked with the land
managers to establish a management number of 4 percent; the
percentage was not based on the number of bears taken, but on
the number of hunts, thus guides are in business, there are
opportunities for resident hunters, and the harvest objective is
maintained. He said another option is land management by
agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if the hunts are limited by draw hunt
permit.
There followed a short discussion of the specific circumstances
of GMU 4.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK remarked:
So, it looks like theyre just limiting guides, they
werent just limiting, in the attempt to limit hunts,
it basically limits the amount of guides.
2:16:01 PM
MR. DECKER said guides and hunts were limited so as not to
affect resident hunters access to game; the service providers
were reduced.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN summarized as follows: the bear population is
managed at a 4 percent take; residents hunters are not
restricted; the number of guides was reduced through attrition;
a set number of hunts is distributed between guides; a draw
permit was established for nonresident, nonguided hunters using
transporters.
MR. DECKER said the nonresident, nonguided hunters relates to
black bear; the brown bear management strategy group established
a certain number of nonresident next of kin hunts that could
take place.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK surmised a draw permit hunt is one option.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN pointed out the use of concession programs
enables federal land managers a level of control and allocation
not available on state land.
MR. DECKER said correct. The land manager holds a key role; for
example, in Southeast, a transporter can provide housing on
saltwater, but does not go ashore and is not a permittee or
under control of USFS. Thus, is it important for a land manager
to have control.
2:20:06 PM
JAMES CAMPBELL said he is a member of RHAK. He said his wife
works in tourism and he understands the issue regarding
businesses that bring in tourism dollars; however, many resorts
and lodges are not affordable to residents and earn income from
sources in addition to hunting. Further, some tourism income
leaves the state, but money from residents stays in Alaska year
around. Mr. Campbell agreed the state cannot regulate harvest
but can regulate opportunity, and expressed his support for HB
137.
2:22:39 PM
KURT WHITEHEAD, licensed master guide, said he is a member of
APHA, and he and his wife are full-time Alaskans who have
operated a small hunting and fishing guide business in Klawock
since 2006. He expressed their opposition of HB 137. Since
1995, he has worked in Alaska paying sales taxes, mortgage,
utilities, fuel, and expenses. Like other guide outfitters,
meat is distributed to the local community because his business
supports Klawock. The bill seeks to mandate that draw hunts
would be implemented to satisfy reasonable resident hunting
opportunities, which would his damage business; in addition, HB
137 would require an overhaul of hunt structures by BOG. Draw
hunts are damaging to guide operations and most guides would be
put out of business. He said regulations are heavily mandated
by state and federal governments for three small guide use
areas, which is why guide outfitters are small business owners.
A lottery is a destabilizing management tool proposed by RHAK.
Nonresident clients choose guide outfitters to ensure their
safety and pay a large share of ADFGs budget; in return,
nonresident hunters enjoy a hunt in Alaska. He said his guide
business would not survive under a draw hunt structure; in fact,
draw hunts are necessary in hotly contested areas for certain
game species. Mr. Whitehead pointed out the ADFG fiscal note
which estimated a loss of revenue between $5 million-$25
million. Further, the guiding community would lose one-half of
its total output, amounting to $20 million-$30 million annually,
and lose 1,000 jobs. He concluded BOG can ensure resident
hunting opportunities are met by limiting nonresident seasons,
methods and means, selective closures, and controlled areas.
2:26:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out the bill applies only during
periods of restricted hunts for big game.
MR. WHITEHEAD said his point is the BOG process is the best way
because BOG has options to limit nonresident seasons, limit
methods and means, and to select closures and controlled use
areas. He reviewed the aforementioned successful strategy
utilized in Southeast by BOG. He said Alaska residents dont
pay for certain tags, have the lowest resident hunting license
fees in the U.S., and have the best hunting with few exceptions,
such as sheep and brown bear on Kodiak.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked Mr. Whitehead to restate the other
options available to BOG.
MR. WHITEHEAD said BOG can limit nonresident seasons, limit
methods and means, select closures of nonresident hunts, and
select controlled use areas as demonstrated in Southeast in
2011. He further described events limiting guiding businesses
in Southeast that did not affect resident hunters.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK questioned how the bill would be a
destabilizing management tool.
MR. WHITEHEAD explained if guides have a lottery drawing permit
system, they cannot plan ahead or accept nonresident clients on
short-term notice; the majority of his clients book hunts six
months or one year in advance.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN observed most testimony in opposition to the
bill is directed at the drawing permit system; he asked whether
another management system could be utilized instead.
MR. WHITEHEAD deferred to a member of BOG or the APHA lobbyist;
however, he said drawing permits deprive small guide operators
of flexibility. He restated guiding income stays in the state
and supports local economies; he gave an example of a moose
hunting guide in Unalakleet who distributes moose meat to the
community.
CO-CHAIR TARR inquired as to how meat is distributed.
2:36:35 PM
MR. WHITEHEAD said operators most often drop off meat to the
closest community instead of transporting it back to Anchorage;
the meat is well cared for and sought after. He related several
examples of how guides strive to be good and ethical
businessmen.
2:41:01 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN surmised Mr. Whitehead participates in a
federal concession program.
MR. WHITEHEAD said every guide in Southeast is regulated through
USFS and USFS requires guides to have permission from the upland
landowner to access state land; in Southeast, with few
exceptions, guides are heavily regulated through USFS, which
prevents conflicts in the field.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN clarified Mr. Whitehead operates under a
concession program that limits use areas.
MR. WHITEHEAD further explained the guide concession program is
overseen by BGCSB. All guides choose three small areas out of
approximately one-hundred twenty-five guide use areas within the
state, which is one limiting factor; [HB 137 would further]
shackle guides with drawing permits.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN expressed his understanding guides currently
operating within limited areas, under concession programs,
receive certain permit allocations, and asked for clarification.
MR. WHITEHEAD said there are mandates by USFS; for example, in
GMU 2, he can conduct 15 guided hunts per year on USFS property
based on his use in 2006-2007. There have been no new guides in
GMU 2 since 2007. There were many problems regarding brown
bear, and USFS has not allowed new brown bear guides since 1999.
He remarked:
So there were all capped, if we have a forest service
permit, were all capped to the specific number of
hunts that we can conduct and that is set by, well, in
my case, that was set in once they allocate those
hunts so the the only hunts that I could do on
Prince of Wales, that arent allocated for this
specific number, would be deer hunts .
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK returned attention to the fiscal notes
attached to HB 137, of which [Identifier: HB137-DFG-BBS-2-14-
20] was a zero fiscal note. The analysis of [Identifier: HB
137-DFG-DWC-2-14-20] read [original punctuation provided]:
This legislation is intended to limit nonresident taki
ng of big game. The Board of Game (board) will retain
their authority tomake allocative decisions, but this
bill requires the board to limit the harvest of big ga
me by nonresidents and nonresident aliens through a pe
rmit system. Since this legislation does not entirely
eliminate the board's authority to allocate game harve
sts among users, it is difficult to precisely predict
where, when and for which species the mandated limitat
ion on nonresidents would occur. For this reason, the
department is submitting an indeterminate fiscal note.
In any scenario, the decrease in revenue to the fish &
game fund would be significant, ranging from
$2.2M to $6.6M.
Currently, nonresidents and nonresident aliens must pu
rchase a tag to harvest big game; prices range from $3
,000 for a nonresident alien muskox bull tag to $300 f
or a nonresident deer tag. Nonresident license and tag
fees account for approximately 73
percent of the revenue generated by license and tag sa
les.
Resident licenses and tag sales in FY2019: $3.2M
Nonresident licenses and tag sales in FY2019: $8.8M
In addition, license and tag revenues deposited into t
he fish & game (F&G) fund are the principal match for
federal Pittman-Robertson (P-R) dollars. This reduction
in match dollars
would result in an overall revenue decrease to the dep
artment ranging from $8.8M to $26.4M
25percent reduction in nonresident license and tag sal
es deposited into the F&G Fund: $2.2M
Combined P-R/F&G Fund reduction: $8.8M
75percent reduction in nonresident license and tag sal
es: $6.6M Combined P-R/F&G Fund reduction: $26.4M
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said the analysis of the indeterminate
fiscal note indicates, during times of shortages, BOG would
retain its authority to make allocation decisions, and the bill
does not entirely eliminate BOG's authority to allocate game
harvest, thus it is difficult to predict "where, when, and for
which species the mandated limitations on nonresidents would
occur." He cautioned there are assumptions that millions of
dollars of revenue to the state would be lost; however, an
indeterminate fiscal note indicates the potential loss is
unknown at this time.
2:47:30 PM
MIKE MCCRARY expressed support for HB 137. He returned
attention to the GMU 26 caribou herd. Mr. McCrary pointed out
BOG, at its discretion, shortened the nonresident season,
reduced the nonresident bag limit, and established a
registration system; also, at its discretion, BOG applied all of
the limitations to residents and nonresidents alike. He opined
the bill requires BOG to limit nonresidents first, when a hunt
requires further restrictions than those already in place, and
BOG should review the nonresident components and decide whether
restrictions on nonresidents only would maintain the status of a
herd population. He questioned whether BOG has ever taken this
action but instead has generally applied limitations to
residents and nonresidents. The change made by HB 137 from "may
to shall" does not add to ADFG expenses related to conducting a
draw or a registration hunt, and he suggested BOG has had this
option for 45 years but has never done so. Mr. McCrary recalled
statistics show nonresident hunting has never been restricted,
and although the bill would not likely decrease the number of
nonresident participation in hunts in Alaska, it would require
BOG to first review how restrictions to nonresident hunting
would affect a particular hunt.
2:52:12 PM
LUCAS GAMBLE expressed his support for HB 137. He said
testimony in opposition to the bill reveals concern for hunting
opportunities for nonresidents; although he is sympathetic and
loves to share Alaska with Outside friends and family, providing
an opportunity or experience differs from providing an
opportunity to sustain a way of life for Alaska's residents. He
said his primary concern is for his children's ability to
participate in future hunting so they will value their way of
life. Mr. Gamble observed arguments in opposition also muddy
the principle of who should benefit from Alaska's resources; in
fact, although managing game allocation is challenging,
residents should have the best opportunity for the way of life
they choose to live. He restated his support for HB 137.
2:54:15 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN, after ascertaining no one further wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 137.
HB 137 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 137 Testimony as of 2.20.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Sponsor Statement 2.10.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 v. A.PDF |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Resident Hunters of Alaska White Paper.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Sectional Analysis v. A 2.10.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Work Draft CS v. M 2.12.20.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Fiscal Note - DFG-DWC 2.14.20.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Fiscal Note - DFG-BBS 2.14.20.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Testimony as of 2.18.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 203 Sponsor Statement 01.24.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 1.21.20.PDF |
HFSH 1/30/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Fiscal Note ADF&G 1.25.20.pdf |
HFSH 1/30/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 City of Unalaska Support Letter 1.25.20.pdf |
HFSH 1/30/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Fiscal Note DPS 1.24.20.pdf |
HFSH 1/30/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Lynden Suport Letter 1.29.20.pdf |
HFSH 1/30/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Ocean Beauty Support Letter 01.28.20.pdf |
HFSH 1/30/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 SEAFA Support Letter 1.29.20.pdf |
HFSH 1/30/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Sponsor Statement 01.25.20.pdf |
HFSH 1/30/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Testimony Recieved by 1.29.20.pdf |
HFSH 1/30/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 United Fishermen of Alaska Support Letter 1.14.20.pdf |
HFSH 1/30/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Edward Poulsen and Tom Enlow Letter of Support 1.23.20.pdf |
HFSH 1/30/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers Letter of Support 1.28.20.pdf |
HFSH 1/30/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 ASMI Letter of Support 1.30.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Amendment #1 2.2.20.pdf |
HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Response from DEC 02.02.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Amendment #1 Edgmon 01.31.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 CS(FSH) v. U 2.5.20.PDF |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Sponsor Statement 2.5.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 HFSH Testimony 2.6.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Fiscal Note 1 - DFG-DCF 2.5.2020.PDF |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Fiscal Note 2 - DPS-AWT 2.5.2020.PDF |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 DEC Note 2.5.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 HRES Testimony 2.19.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |