Legislature(2013 - 2014)BUTROVICH 205
03/17/2014 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB135 | |
| SB160 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 160 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 135 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 160-DNR: HUNTING GUIDES, CONCESSION PROGRAM
3:48:42 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced SB 160 to be up for consideration.
CHAD HUTCHISON, staff to Senator Coghill, sponsor of SB 160,
Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said the bill
authorizes the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
commissioner to implement a guide concession program or
otherwise restrict authorized individuals to conduct big game
commercial hunting on state land.
MR. HUTCHISON said this bill is necessary because currently
there is no process relating to commercial guide use on state
land and there are no limits to the number of authorizations
that a guide can have on state land. This has created a number
of different problems that they will hear about. Key issues
identified by the Board of Game, the Big Game Commercial
Services Board, and members of the guiding industry include
conflicts between user groups, decreased quality as it related
to guided hunts on state land, decreased incentive for wildlife
conservation, lack of stewardship on state land, and
difficulties in enforcing game laws and regulations.
3:51:02 PM
He said Senator Coghill's solution is to restrict the Guide
Concession Program to a number based on a scoring system where
essentially the people with the highest tally are the ones
deemed fit to receive some of these permits.
Another benefit to the program would be that it would benefit
the average day-hunter in Alaska that has nothing to do with any
of the commercial guiding practices. These are simply the
hunters that want to go out and get meat to put in their
freezer.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked why the DNR is engaged in this.
3:52:16 PM
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), Anchorage, Alaska, explained that in 2006 the department
was asked to develop a concession program with exclusive guide
areas through a Supreme Court decision and to see if it would
work. So, over a number of years with a number of public
processes they got pretty close to what they would do to
regulate a concession program.
He said this was a weighty decision, because it would be new
regulation regulating an industry that is not currently
regulated, and a growth in government. They would need staff to
undertake this program. The concept is to have the industry pay
for the program with fees, but the state would have to provide
the initial funding for getting ramped up.
3:55:08 PM
CLARK COX, Natural Resources Manager* Division of Mining, Land
and Water* Department of Natural Resources (DNR)* said the guide
concession program is not a new idea; they are used now in
Alaska on federal lands. It is primarily a land use tool to
select those commercial businesses that want to work on state
lands. Right now there are no rules or limits, so some areas
have an overabundance of guides working one spot or many spots
around the state creating a lot of crowding and conflicts come
with that.
3:56:51 PM
He said a competitive selection process for those working on
state land was a key component of the 1988 Owsichek decision.
With stakeholder input that has been covered pretty well the
idea being to manage the industry use that puts commercial
guiding pressure on state lands. So, instead of letting guides
pick where they want to go the process thinned them out in the
overcrowded areas and put additional ones in areas that were
underutilized.
In 1973 the Guide License Control Board was established and they
started off with a similar system called "exclusive guide
areas." In 1988 that was found unconstitutional in the Owsichek
decision that created clear sideboards.
MR. COX said the main problem of overcrowding is where the game
populations are high, but sometimes that migrates. Sometimes
it's where the easy access is and that's where the pressure
builds that results in lots of phone calls to the Troopers.
Clients don't want to see other camps and planes flying over on
their Alaskan wilderness experience.
So, they came up with some main issues to address while working
with ADF&G, the Board of Game, and the Commercial Services
Board:
-decrease incentive to practice wildlife conservation: the idea
is if I don't shoot that legal moose now, someone will shoot it
tomorrow. Guides have talked about not being able to "farm"
their areas.
-the experience of the clients and other hunters
-the overall lack of land stewardship: now the guides have a
base camp and site camp all over on state lands. They have
noticed it's difficult to trace back whose stuff has been left
at those sites, not at the base camp. This would be a way to
reign in who exactly is commercially working that area. They
expect those guides to be their best allies in solving these
problems.
-general difficulties in enforcing game laws: caribou is a great
example. As the migrations swell, some of the guides will work
the hot areas for a couple of years and then move on. That tends
to crowd in the guys and gals who have been established for
years. They are trying to limit some of that by focusing folks
on working in an area for an extended period of time.
4:01:43 PM
GCP design: They started off by trying to keep the decision
process simple and came up with four main criteria on the
application:
-experience of the guide
-operating strategies for running a successful business
-operations plan (how they will do their business)
-violations
MR. COX emphasized that violations is a big issue, because they
would be adding points for the first three sections, but then
they subtract points for violations including both game
violations and non-game violations of certain kinds, in Alaska
and outside. They want to know if anyone who wins an area up
here, came up here because they were kicked out of another
state.
He said the applications would be reviewed by staff and
concessions would be offered to the highest scoring applicants;
many areas would have more than one guide; two and three are
pretty common numbers. And because the new guys thought there
would be no way they could ever compete with the big guys, two
different types of opportunities are proposed.
4:04:27 PM
He said the application is "fairly involved" with a scoring
process and a timeline of availability around January through
March. They would be evaluated by a panel using a standardized
scoring matrix. There will be fees that are intended to pay for
the program.
MR. COX said the differences in the two concessions - full and
limited - are fairly vast. A full concession would be for four
years for a full time guide who would be given additional
assistant guides to work with; whereas a limited concession
would be like an apprenticeship for some areas where there isn't
as much pressure and they are allowed a lesser number of
assistant guides to work with. It would be their choice and they
would compete only against other like-applications.
4:06:00 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked how the resident population of animals
versus migratory will be treated: caribou versus moose. Are they
still in one area and hunting whatever happens to come through?
MR. COX answered that they actually looked at going species-
specific, but decided whatever area you want to work in is
yours. If you've worked an area for a while you would know the
trends. But they established a limit for the number of areas one
can apply for. This is an additional tool that could be used by
the Boards of Fisheries and Game and the Troopers. The duration
of the permit came from the Owsichek decision that was basically
unlimited, but these have a very finite term; it's a 10-year
term with a 5-year review in the middle to make sure everything
is going good. If everything is going good, you get the
additional five non-competitive years.
They heard a lot about transferability and vacancies and they
are proposing to issue these as a permit, because they are non-
transferable. If someone is done in an area, the permit reverts
back to the department for competitive selection. Working with
the public and the agencies, as vacancies arise, they have an
application pool that gives them ideas about people who have
applied for a permit in that area. They don't want to have areas
sitting fallow for a couple of years and try to use existing
area boundaries throughout the state, but they split some areas
because of animal populations or topography.
4:10:54 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said if you were a sheep guide, and also brown
bear, moose, and caribou, it would be tough to land adequate
acreage for the four species, because they live in different
geography.
MR. COX said he was right and this program would encourage
people to find a certain area and work with the species in it.
SENATOR BISHOP asked how many guides are registered in Alaska.
MR. COX answered 548 in 2011.
SENATOR BISHOP remarked that they only have 298 hunting spots.
MR. COX said that was right.
SENATOR BISHOP said unit 1402, as an example, shows one full
concession and one limited concession and asked what a full
concession would accomplish there and what a limited one would
accomplish.
4:12:58 PM
MR. COX answered that there are 298 opportunities available on
state land, first, but there are still Park Service, Forest
Service, Fish and Wildlife Service lands, and 44 million acres
of private land where hunting opportunities exist. There are 548
registered guides; to run a hunt you have to be a registered
guide or a master guide. Of those 548, typically, only about 300
run at least one hunt every year. So you have 250 who keep the
license current but don't use it for some reason. Some folks
might not win an area because of violations.
The difference is in their business plan, which the department
reviews. Knowing they chose to apply for a full concession,
applicants will have to show their history in the area, how they
plan to run their business, and what equipment they have, and
compete with maybe 14 or 15 other applicants. So, the full and
the limited concessions would work in the same geographic area
and will have to "play nice in the sandbox together" for the
next 5-10 years. Now you never know who your neighbor is or how
many you have.
SENATOR BISHOP asked if they would draw a DMZ and let guides
come up with a gentleman's agreement.
MR. COX answered that in some areas they did draw the DMZ.
4:16:21 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked what states they can look at to compare
programs.
MR. COX answered Canada, Africa, and wherever there is Park
Service land in the USA.
MR. FOGELS added that Alaska is pretty unique amongst the states
in that they are talking about program for 5 million acres of
state land, which most states don't have.
SENATOR DYSON asked how a person just starting out in business
wanting to get a concession area can enter that career path.
MR. COX answered that it's a "bit of a road;" you have to get a
license first and do a lot of apprenticeship work through the
Commercial Services Board. He explained that the Board licenses
big game guides. You have to work a few years as a packer and as
an assistant guide for a few years. You can't run hunt without
the appropriate license as a registered guide or above.
SENATOR DYSON asked if the folks who already have a concession
area hang tight and there is no opportunity for a new guy, does
he just continue to build his points hoping that an area shows
up. He was thinking about it in terms of limited entry in the
fishing industry where the licenses are transferable.
4:20:22 PM
MR. COX said some families would love to have that opportunity
and explained that they had done two things to address
vacancies. First of all, they plan to stagger the offerings over
three periods of 3-4 years, 7 years and 10 years.
SENATOR DYSON said that was problematic for him, but the telling
point will be being able to manage the resource and there being
incentive for those who have the concessions to be good stewards
of the resource. He asked when someone has won an area and then
they choose not operate it for just one year, can they delegate
it to someone else for just that year.
MR. COX responded that they want these areas utilized - for the
hunters and for the revenue it generates - and as drafted now,
if you can't use an area for one year, it can't be farmed out to
someone else to use for an indefinite period of time.
SENATOR BISHOP asked if one part of the reasoning behind this is
to protect the resource and that letting an area sit fallow for
one year would let that bull get a little bit bigger. But how
would he make sure his buddy on the other side of the line would
honor his fallow piece of ground?
MR. COX replied these are not monopolistic areas; in many cases
there are two or three other folks there. So, if they come
across a bull that's legal, they can take it.
4:24:27 PM
He said the department went public with a draft document in 2009
that laid out some of the program's ideas and took 544 comments
on a total of 218 days. They released the management framework
document in January 2013 and got public comment, but there has
been no funding for the program, so nothing was finalized and no
staff is working on it today. They were looking at existing
authorities: limited enforcement authority, program receipt
authority, and confidentiality. If this bill is approved this
legislative session, they could bring on staff in July or
August. They have draft regulations from before, but another
public process would have to be done. Applications would be out
by January 2016.
4:27:46 PM
MR. FOGELS added that they see this would be a huge change to
the guiding industry, restructuring it fundamentally. They can't
go forward without their buy-in and coordinate with ADF&G and
the Board of Game. He likes the stewardship component that would
come with this program, because they have a lot of state land to
manage without enough resources to manage it.
4:29:39 PM
LYLE BECKER, Board Member, Alaska Professional Hunters
Association, Anchorage, Alaska, supported SB 160. About 75
percent of his annual income comes from guiding big game hunts,
which he thought was fairly consistent with many members of the
association.
One of the items that has brought this into more urgent focus is
on guides coming into the industry on Refuge lands where they
have had to go through a limited entry competitive process to
get permits. If the DNR concession program models that in any
way, that can be used as a precedent. Also, many have been
saddened to see the trend on state land that more resident
hunters are adding pressure on the game itself. The first place
they go to is DNR lands, so with no limits to the number of
guides who can enter one area - for example, sheep hunting in
Chugach (Units 14(A) and (B) - there was no limit to the number
of guides who hunt in certain drainages and every year there
would be more and more conflicts in the field. That area went to
a drawing process including both residents and non-residents,
which is a shame and perhaps could have been avoided. Their
concern is if something doesn't happen on DNR land, more and
more guides will be hunting there and it will become more
crowded and there will be more conflicts between resident
hunters, potentially subsistence resident hunters, and non-
resident hunters with more areas going to a drawing system.
MR. BECKER said they believe the concession program is going to
be a great piece of hope for the longevity of guiding in Alaska.
They hear two complaints fairly regularly; one has to do with
the whole procedure being one more piece of government
encroachment on free enterprise. But he clarified that this has
to do with land access on DNR property; they are not inviting
government carte blanche to come into their lives and take
things away.
4:34:32 PM
Secondly, young guides having less opportunity to come into the
industry and establish themselves, because at the end of the day
there are going to be fewer registered guides signing contracts
in Alaska. It will take a little bit longer to go out on your
own and start a new guiding business. But as things stand today,
either they will see more areas go to a draw, which will be far
less guides having possible businesses or the pressure on DNR
land will grow to the point that no one will bother hunting
there - not good for hunters or the guiding industry.
MR. BECKER said he is part of the new wave of younger guides who
are trying to establish themselves and he saw early on that
hunting on state land you had to "elbow your way into an area"
that already had close to 100 percent usage of the resource. As
a result, he tried to establish himself with the Federal Refuge
System, but that is another area that takes time to build up
business. He was able to do that and was granted a small refuge
concession on the Alaska Peninsula.
4:38:09 PM
PAUL JOHNSON, representing himself, Elfin Cove, Alaska,
supported SB 160. He said he had watched this process unfold for
over 40 years and there isn't any question that guides are
competing on a world-wide basis for people to come to Alaska.
But to keep that or improve on that, there is no choice; it is
not working now and this is an answer.
He said after the Owsichek decision the federal government
eventually stepped in and the fees the feds get the state
doesn't get. Everybody would rather deal with the state than the
feds. DNR has a solution and it is necessary. It might take a
little bit to ramp up but other costs, including court costs,
will go down.
4:40:59 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked how he viewed the species challenges for
a particular lease.
MR. JOHNSON answered that in several areas of the state multi-
specie hunts were taken and in some places there will be again,
but it's getting harder and harder when the Board of Game is
trying to deal with all the issues in, for instance, his
property in Brooks Range that used to have 3 or 4 guides and now
has 22.
4:42:36 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Director, Division of Wildlife, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), said that ADF&G has
existing authorities and tools to manage wildlife populations
for sustained yield and they don't believe a guide concession
program is necessary for only conservation purposes. The primary
benefit they see in a guide concession program would to provide
for an additional tool for managing allocation issues. These
issues are increasing in front of the Board of Game that also
supports this measure, which is needed primarily in many of the
sheep hunting areas across the state.
Such a program has been of "incredible use" to federal land
managers. He emphasized that ADF&G worked very closely with the
DNR to develop this program and they would assist them in
implementing it, especially bringing a biological perspective,
if it is adopted.
SENATOR DYSON asked him to talk about what should be done to
increase hunting opportunities for Alaska residents on non-
guided hunts.
MR. LANG answered that right now because the Board doesn't have
a guide concession program, they typically set a draw limit on
non-resident hunters, saying 10 percent of the permits can go to
non-resident hunters. Or they are season-based differentially.
This would give the Board another tool by capping the number of
guides that are operating in an area that keeps them short of
having to go to drawing permits. For instance, in Units 26(b)
and (c) where there is a federal guide concession program, non-
resident guided hunters took 27 percent of the harvested shoot
but comprised only 15 percent of the total hunters. In Unit
20(a) which is not covered by a guide concession program, guided
hunters took 60 percent of the harvest shoot, but only comprised
34 percent of the total hunters. Having a guide concession
program would be just another tool for allocation as opposed to
going to a drawing.
4:46:43 PM
SENATOR DYSON asked how the circumstances are going to be dealt
with when a resident hunter spots some game and sets down on an
airstrip in a particular area that the guide who has a
concession to that area has maintained, then the guide with his
wealthy clients show up.
4:47:16 PM
MR. LANG said those conflicts exist now and the Board would
limit the number of non-residents that are hunting in those
areas, which in essence causes hardship on the guided industry.
Seeing the experience on federal lands, when a guided industry
is capped in an area, it's more stable and typically there seems
to be fewer user conflicts. User conflicts might dissipate if
this tool is put in place, but those could be dealt with using
other mechanisms if they have to.
4:48:49 PM
CLIFFORD SMITH, registered guide 1318, representing himself,
Wasilla, Alaska, opposed SB 160. He said he is a new member of
the Alaska Professional Hunters Association and his testimony
was based on being a young guide coming in through the new
system. Since 2004 he had put millions of dollars into creating
his business. He was very concerned about the potential to lose
10 years of his life investments if he doesn't get one of the
guide use areas.
He stated that a lot of conflicts occur in sheep areas on state
land in Unit 9 and those are the areas that need to be
addressed. He found his niche, which was bear hunting on state
property in certain areas, so he was concerned about the impacts
this would have on his livelihood. Seventy-five percent of his
income is through guiding hunters and the other 25 percent is
from fishing. He can't even compete for a federal area until
2021, so if he didn't get an area he would be out of business.
He didn't see how this would help biologically whatsoever. He
advised them to look at all the public testimony over the years
that have been put into this project before making a decision.
4:52:47 PM
HENRY TIFFANY, member, Big Game Commercial Services Board,
Anchorage, Alaska, supported SB 160. He said the Big Game
Commercial Services Board regulates the guiding and transporter
activity in Alaska and remains in full support of the guide
concession program. An independent economic impact study
completed just a few months ago has highlighted the significant
positive economic impacts the guiding industry has on Alaska. In
2012 guiding hunting accounted for a total of 2210 jobs and $35
million in total labor income. Guided hunting generated a total
of $78 million in economic activity in Alaska in 2012.
He said that guiding big game hunters has been a part of the
fabric of Alaska for over 100 years and passing SB 160 will help
it remain a vital part of the state's tapestry for another 100
years. The industry went to the DNR asking for help because it
saw the growing problems developing on state lands and asked for
help for the benefit of the land, the resources, and all user
groups. His Board has been very active and supportive throughout
the entire time the guide concession program has been in
development. A very diverse group of individuals and
professional independent guides understand the very real
necessity that something must be done on State of Alaska land
and understand that, while not perfect, the guide concession
program is the best solution to curbing the growing issues that
are developing.
4:56:11 PM
MR. TIFFANY said if the state doesn't act immediately and
implement a guide concession program, the industry will fall
victim to yet another encroachment of federal regulatory
authority, this time on BLM land. While it is natural to respond
with anger and frustration at the thought of federal overreach
and a BLM guide concession program, it should be clearly
understood that that outcome is avoidable. The BLM has made it
clear that they have given the state as much time as they
possibly can to fill the regulatory vacuum and permanently
forestall this potentially irreversible course of action. It is
in the state's best interest to create a viable state concession
program that could eventually result in the state reasserting
its role as the sole regulatory authority.
CHAIR GIESSEL invited Mr. Tiffany to send his written testimony.
She announced that she would keep public testimony open on SB
160.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 160 vs A.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 Fiscal Note-DFG-WCD-03-14-14.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 Fiscal Note-DNR-MLW-3-08-14.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 Backup Information.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 Economic Impacts of Guided Hunting Final.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 BOG letter to DNR 201205.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 Opp Letter IsraelPayton 20140313.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 Opp Letter TonyDingess.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 Supp Letter AirCarrier.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 Supp Letter BradDennison 20140208.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 Supp Letter CabotPitts 20140210.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 Supp Letter JoeyKlutsch.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 Supp Letter MichaelLitzen 20140311.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 Supp Letter USGO Fithian WHHCC 20120203.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 Supp Letter-TRC RobertFirthian 20140220.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| SB 160 GCP DNR Presentation 20140317.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |
| HB 135 vs A.PDF |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 AS 41.23.600-.630.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Additional History Docs.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Legal Question Memo 20130129.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 DNR Letter-HB 340 20100409.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
|
| HB 135 Petersville Area Map.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Petersville Mine Map.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Petersville To Mine Dist Map.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Supp Letter AMA 20140118.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Supp Letter AMA 20140310.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Supp Letter JulesTileston.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 DNR Letter 20100409.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| SB 160 Phil Byrd Letter.pdf |
SRES 3/17/2014 3:30:00 PM |
SB 160 |