Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
04/03/2019 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB87 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 87-LIMIT NONRESIDENT TAKING OF BIG GAME
3:32:17 PM
CHAIR BIRCH announced the consideration of Senate Bill 87 (SB
87).
3:32:45 PM
SENATOR COGHILL, sponsor of SB 87, provided an overview of the
bill and explained that Alaska Statutes Title 16, Article 2
addresses Alaska Fish and Game rules regarding game management
via the Alaska Board of Game for non-residents. He conceded that
non-resident regulation is an issue where he does not agree with
all his friends. He said SB 87 addresses the question on whether
Alaska residents should get a preference when a restriction is
necessary.
He referenced AS 16.05.255(d) as follows:
Regulations adopted under (a) of this section must
provide that consistent with the provisions of AS
16.05.258, which is subsistence hunting, basically.
Taking a moose, deer, elk, caribou by residence for
personal or family consumption has preference over
taking by nonresidents.
He said AS 16.05.258(d) is a principle that the Alaska Board of
Game has operated under. He opined that for the most part the
board has done "pretty good", but when coming to permits is
another question. He remarked that the statute section has a
"couple of operatives" and the "big one" changes "may" to a
"shall," which makes the section "mandatory" rather than
"permissive".
He said the committee will hear from both sides of the
nonresident issue on why the "shall" gives a preference to
Alaska residents and why "may" gives the Alaska Board of Game a
"flex point". He emphasized that the bill addresses when it is
necessary to restrict the taking of big game and the opportunity
for residents to take big game is reasonably satisfied.
He explained that presently the law says, "May through a permit
system limit the taking of big game by nonresidents." What SB 87
does through a hard requirement is say, "No, it must, then
through a permit system limit the taking of big game by
nonresidents and nonresident aliens." He explained that part of
the argument for the bill comes from an argument within the
Alaska Board of Game that speaks to, "Have we treated the
resident hunters at the level they should be treated or are we
chasing dollars for nonresidents and that goes to the heart of
the question."
3:36:37 PM
He emphasized that his intent is to fall on the side of
residents and to make sure residents are taken care of. He said
the committee will hear from both sides of the nonresident
question, why some people feel like the Board of Game has been
"tone deaf", and partly why the dollars that nonresidents bring
in has not only been valuable to Alaska but has not been harmful
to residents in taking big game as well.
SENATOR COGHILL affirmed that it is up to the committee to hear
both sides of the nonresident issue as clearly as possible,
without the vitriol. He said he has tried to be as even handed
as he can. He said he has asked for invited testimony to lay out
the nonresident issue before the committee for further
discussions rather than listen to 50 to 60 people who have
strong opinions but no solutions. He explained that his idea for
the committee meeting is to bring the strong opinions that are
thoughtful to the table and then ask the question whether the
Alaska Board of Game can be trusted to continue the way they are
or if they should be restricted.
He summarized that he has no malice towards anybody; however, he
said the bill addresses whether nonresident permits should be
restricted when the reasonable opportunity for residents comes
under the specified restrictive conditions.
CHAIR BIRCH noted that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
and the Alaska Board of Game are available to answer questions.
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that a letter from the chair of the Board
of Game did not support SB 87. He asked if the Alaska Board of
Game voted on that position.
3:39:43 PM
KRISTY TIBBLES, Executive Director, Alaska Board of Game, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, did not provide a position
on SB 87. She explained that the Alaska Board of Game did bring
SB 87 up at the meeting in March. There was a request to submit
a letter and there was no objection to the chair doing so, but
there was no motion or a vote by the board to do so.
SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that the board chairman stated that
he was giving his opinion, but it was a board discussion.
CHAIR BIRCH asked whether the Alaska Board of Game is doing an
adequate job of managing the allocation of big game. He asked
Senator Coghill whether SB 87 proposes that the legislature
insert itself into managing the allocation of big game.
SENATOR COGHILL reiterated that he introduced SB 87 because
there are people that feel the Alaska Board of Game has been
"tone deaf" to some nonresidents and the board needs to have a
reason to tell the legislature why that is the case. He said if
the bill helps the Alaska Board of Game to see a different
perspective, then the legislation will help the legislature
enter a discussion, whatever that may look like. He said his
intent is to error on the side of taking care of the residents
of Alaska first, but he wants to hear why the "may" or "shall"
language will or will not be helpful.
3:42:57 PM
MR. MARK RICHARDS, Executive Director, Resident Hunters of
Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in support of SB 87. He
said SB 87 allows for a conversation to start on issues that
have been going on with the Alaska Board of Game for quite some
time.
He quoted from page 7 of the Fish and Game's Alaska Hunting
Regulations booklet:
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.
He noted that the previous paragraph in the regulation booklet
is nowhere in statute and is not how the Alaska Board of Game
makes decisions. He added that the paragraph is an unfulfilled
promise by the state that is in writing in the state's own
hunting regulation booklet; SB 87 seeks to fulfill that promise.
He opined that SB 87 is very narrow and seeks to ensure that
when wildlife populations are diminished, or there are
conservation or other concerns that lead to restrictions or
reductions in resident hunting opportunities, that nonresident
hunters are limited in opportunity first and they bear the brunt
of any restrictions.
He asserted that SB 87 does not in any way affect the board's
overall authority on allocation decisions. The board will still
be allowed to offer unlimited nonresident sheep hunting
opportunity in areas of the Interior while at the same time
acknowledging that nonresident guided hunters taking 60 to 80
percent of the state's sheep creates conflict of field,
overcrowding, and leads to less resident success rates.
MR. RICHARDS said moose draw permits where nonresident hunters
receive 50 percent of the allocations will still be in statute
and the board will still be allowed to allocate 40 percent of
Kodiak brown bear tags to nonresident hunters. The board will
also be able to create new must-be-guided species absent
legislative approval to benefit the guide industry.
He remarked that his previous testimonial issue points are how
and why Resident Hunters of Alaska (RHAK) was formed nearly
three years ago, but the noted issues are not what RHAK seeks to
address with SB 87.
3:45:45 PM
He explained that the existing statute, AS 16.05.256,
essentially tells the Board of Game that whenever they need to
restrict resident big game hunting opportunities, they "may"
then put nonresident hunters on a draw permit system to limit
their opportunity. However, RHAK has never seen the board take
that action in the last 12 years. Rather than act to limit
nonresident permits, the decisions the board has made over the
past 12 years has restricted everyone equally. He noted that the
board reduced the season and bag limits for the Central Arctic
Caribou herd without having nonresident hunters bear the full
brunt of the restrictions, which is a reason why the statute
should be changed from "may" to "shall."
3:48:19 PM
MR. RICHARDS opined that the legislature has granted broad
authority to the Alaska Board of Game to determine all wildlife
allocation decisions, but any institutional system over time
needs to "have the hood open and inspected."
He noted that SB 87 was introduced the day before a recent Board
of Game meeting when board chair said, "This board does not like
the word 'shall', 'may' to 'shall' ties our hands." He pointed
out that there are other instances within Title 16 statutes that
includes the provision "shall," even the word "must." He
emphasized that "shall" is meant to tie hands by requiring a
certain outcome that avoids situations like what occurred with
the Central Arctic Caribou herd.
He summarized that some may oppose SB 87 because the legislation
affects nonresident hunting opportunities that could impact some
guides as well as some species which are not required to hire a
guide. However, SB 87 is very narrow and only applies in
circumstances where resident hunting opportunities are
restricted or reduced. SB 87 applies if the Alaska Board of Game
has determined it cannot allow wide open opportunity for
everyone. Resident hunters must come first under circumstances
when opportunities must be restricted. He said some may argue
that the legislature should not interfere in Alaska Board of
Game business, but the Alaska Legislature is fully capable of
taking in information and making sense of a wide variety of
issues.
3:52:44 PM
GARY COLBATH, Vice President, Alaskan Bowhunters Association,
Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of SB 87. He noted that
the association has nonresident members as well. He said SB 87
helps to ensure that nonresident hunters face restrictions first
in an equal or greater amount than resident hunters when there
is a restriction on hunting rights like bag limits, tag
availability, and season length due to declining wildlife
populations, conservation concerns, or other environmental
factors.
He specified that SB 87 is simply an insurance policy for
resident Alaskan hunters that will require nonresident hunters'
rights be first affected by any restrictions or reductions that
the Alaska Board of Game decides to impose. SB 87 is very narrow
and does not in any way affect the Alaska Board of Game's
overall authority on allocation decisions. SB 87 does not change
the board's ongoing authority to limit nonresident hunters;
however, the board will have to consider and restrict the rights
of nonresident hunters first when necessary.
3:55:21 PM
He noted that SB 87 could be opposed by the Alaska Professional
Hunters Association and added that the chairman for the Alaska
Board of Game does not support the bill. The Alaskan Bowhunters
Association does not see SB 87 as anti-nonresident or anti-
guide, reiterating that the bill is narrowly focused.
He concurred with Mr. Richards' previous testimony on the need
for the legislation due to Alaska Board of Game handling of
hunting restrictions on the Central Arctic Caribou herd where
residential hunting for personal and family consumption was not
given preference over nonresidents. The result from the
restriction shows that nonresident hunters now take 55 percent
of the Central Arctic Caribou herd harvest. He opined that none
of Alaska's residential hunters would travel to a state in the
Lower 48 to hunt and expect to be regulated more favorably than
the in-state residents.
3:58:33 PM
MR. COLBATH said the Alaskan Bowhunters Association hopes that
sound management policies by the Alaska Board of Game and good
conservation practices by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
never again requires additional hunting restrictions for any
resident and nonresident hunters. However, SB 87 assures that
nonresident hunters are affected first when additional hunting
restrictions are required and resident rights will only be
affected after nonresident considerations.
SENATOR KIEHL addressed the hunting regulations in the 26B
management area that Mr. Richards and Mr. Colbath addressed for
the Central Arctic Caribou herd. He read the regulations for the
remainder of the 26B season in the Dalton Highway management
controlled-use area and stated the following:
As I look in the reg book, residents at two bulls,
nonresidents at one. Residents: August to April,
nonresidents: August to September.
He asked if the restrictions that are currently in place satisfy
the language of the bill.
MR. COLBATH asked Senator Kiehl to confirm that he questioned
whether the current restrictions would be satisfied if the bill
passed and the regulation read "shall."
SENATOR KIEHL confirmed that was his question.
MR. COLBATH replied yes; he believes that a restriction or
limitation would be placed on nonresident rights that is equal
to or more than the rights of residents.
4:01:45 PM
At ease.
4:02:33 PM
CHAIR BIRCH called the committee back to order.
4:02:43 PM
SAM ROHRER, President, Alaska Professional Hunters Association,
Kodiak, Alaska, testified in opposition of SB 87. He noted that
he is a master guide who owns a multigenerational guiding
business in Kodiak.
MR. ROHRER explained that guide operations in Alaska are largely
family affairs made up of many second and third generation
guides. The guiding businesses are small family and community-
based businesses with 80 percent serving fewer than 15 clients
per year and 40 percent serving fewer than 6 clients per year.
He said Alaska's big game guiding has one of the highest rates
of resident ownership of any other state industry. Approximately
90 percent are Alaska owned and many guides live in rural
Alaska. Over 50 percent of the guiding industry's $52 million in
new dollars brought to the state stays in rural Alaska.
4:04:40 PM
He detailed his guiding business's impact at the local level as
follows:
• $23,000 charged to a client for a Kodiak bear hunt.
• $2,500 goes to a local transporter who flies the hunters
and guides to the field.
• $4,000 pays the wages of local guides he employs.
• $2,000 pays for a local packer and cook.
• $1,000 spent on food from a local grocery store.
• $500 for fuel at a local fuel dock.
• $500 for miscellaneous supplies from a local sporting goods
store.
• $2,000 for business expenses like workers' compensation and
liability insurance that is bought from a local broker.
• $1,000 for maintenance costs for camp, equipment, and
boats.
• Total costs: $13,500 to put on a hunt.
He explained that his remaining profit of $9500 is spent on
local charities, home mortgage, property taxes, etcetera. He
emphasized that all $23000 is spent locally which benefits both
his family and his local community. He said his own example is
what happens in rural communities across Alaska during each
hunting season where small, local businesses support other
small, local businesses.
4:06:22 PM
He opined that the guiding industry works in Alaska because the
state is home to an incredibly vast wildlife resource. Alaska
has eight big game species that are unique to the state that are
all open to over the counter hunting opportunities. Alaska's
world class resource sets the state apart from the rest of the
country.
MR. ROHRER emphasized that Alaska's residents have opportunities
to hunt the state's incredible resources as well, but
nonresidents pay a much higher cost. While nonresident hunters
only represent 13 percent of the hunters in the field, they pay
over 72 percent of wildlife management in Alaska. Nonresident
contributions ensure that resident Alaskans can continue to hunt
for a very low cost.
He said the guiding industry's vision for the future is that
guide businesses continue to remain viable long into the future
by:
• Adding value to Alaska's iconic wildlife resources.
• Bringing opportunity and financial resources to rural
Alaska.
• Nonresident hunters continue to pay the lion's share of
Alaska's wildlife management.
• Resident Alaskans can continue to raise their families with
strong hunting traditions for as little cost as possible.
MR. ROHRER opined that the guiding businesses' vision for the
future is what managing Alaska's resources for the benefit of
all Alaskans really looks like. Resident hunters can continue to
have low-cost world-class hunting opportunities and small guide
businesses continue to support their families and local
communities.
SENATOR COGHILL asked him to breakdown the guiding industry
numbers for nonresidents versus resident hunters.
MR. ROHRER answered that in 2015 the industry guided 154 Alaska
residents. He noted that his business is contacted approximately
six times a year by residents who generally want to go deer
hunting. He said his guiding business guides approximately one
to two resident hunters per year.
4:09:28 PM
THOR STACEY, Director of Government Affairs, Alaska Professional
Hunters Association, Juneau, Alaska, testified in opposition of
SB 87. He said his intent is to provide background information
on the policy, legal, and regulatory framework that SB 87 would
effect. He noted that he is a life-long Alaskan who had utilized
wildlife as a resident hunter, registered hunting guide,
federally qualified subsistence user, and trapper. He remarked
that he has a personal level of use and interest in SB 87.
MR. STACEY addressed AS 16.05.407 regarding the requirement for
nonresidents to hire a hunting guide, a requirement that dates
to Alaska's territorial days. The guide requirement applies to
hunting Dall sheep, brown and grizzly bear, and mountain goats.
The reason for the hunting guide requirement is for safety
concerns due to terrain, climate, and dangerous animals. The
nonresident requirement created the hunting guide industry.
He emphasized that being a hunting guide is a privilege that
guides understand they have. He pointed out that Alaskans
commonly own the hunting resources and hunting guides do not in
any way feel a sense of ownership for the resource because the
resource is reserved for common use and equal access.
4:12:16 PM
MR. STACEY addressed hunting guide duties to the public as
follows:
• Support and promote the hunting guides' core competencies
as professionals, especially safety.
• Understand that animals are highly valued by Alaskans, both
hunters and non-hunters alike.
• Must demonstrate a respect for the animals, land, and
water.
• Must act as active stewards of the land and the wildlife
resources when using them for commercial purposes.
• Must work as a group within the constitutional framework
laid out for hunting guides:
o Guides cannot lay claim in a "private property" sense
of wildlife resources from a pure profitability
prospective.
o Guides must operate within the broad constitutional
framework whether hunting guides like it or not.
o There is no limited entries amendment in the state's
constitution.
• Must treat other users with respect because valuable
animals are being used for commercial use, food, and
enjoyment.
He noted that Mr. Rohrer referenced the 13 percent allocation
for nonresidents. He specified that hunting guides are a much
smaller percentage of the 13 percent allocation. There are
approximately 3,000 hunting guides out of the approximate
100,000 hunters that annually buy licenses in Alaska, some of
which are resident hunters.
MR. STACEY said hunting guides support the Alaska Board of Game
efforts to create regulatory allocation schemes for the benefit
of all Alaskans, nonhunters and hunters alike. Many of the
benefits hunting guides bring are to nonhunters and business
owners.
He emphasized that "sustained yield is number one" and the
resource must be sustainably managed. Hunting guides support the
statutory mandates for resident preference as referenced by the
bill's sponsor, Senator Coghill, for food, animals, and animals
recognized for subsistence priority.
He said hunting guides support the existing preferences,
especially with subsistence preferences. Hunting guides work
with rural residents all around the state to make sure people
are meeting their needs if hunting guides have extra meat
available. Hunting guides share the resource with Alaskans all
over the state.
He opined that a worst-case scenario from destabilizing
regulatory schemes occurs when a sustainable resource is lost
where the animal populations can no longer endure harvest and
that the health of the wildlife itself is in jeopardy.
He said a worst-case scenario from a hunting guide perspective
is a drawing hunt or permit hunt where hunting guides do not
have a concession program in place. Hunting guides have opposed
many efforts to put allocation proposals in front of the Alaska
Board of Game where the resource is healthy and can endure the
harvest. Proponents ask for permits to simply reallocate the
resource where there is no concession program in place. He
opined that hunting guides simply cannot live in a random-draw
world without a concession underneath their feet. The effect of
that situation most affects guides on state land. He noted that
he and Mr. Rohrer do not operate or work on state land, but they
care about what happens to guides on state land as much as what
happens to guides with concessions on federal lands.
4:16:29 PM
He explained possible worst-case scenarios for hunters as
follows:
• High cost to participate would affect hunters if costs are
raised to hunt:
o Hunting participation will be lost, and future hunters
will be lost.
• Complex regulatory schemes confuse and discourage hunter
participation.
• Drawing-hunts require a random chance to participate:
o Discourages hunter participation, especially young
hunters hoping to get into the hunting world.
• Preference points benefit older hunters:
o Hunters that have time for a lot of applications.
o Discriminatory against younger hunters where they are
not given the same opportunity.
• Land use and land access:
o If land cannot be accessed, the resource cannot be
accessed.
o Undue burdens placed on hunters will result in losing
hunter participation.
MR. STACEY addressed hunting participation rates as follows:
• National hunting participation rates since 1991:
o Gone from 14 million hunters to 11.4 million hunters.
o Percentage of the population has gone from 7 percent
to 4 percent.
• Western state hunting participation rates since 1991:
o Gone from 1.1 million hunters to 697000 hunters.
o Percentage of population hunting from 4 percent to 2
percent.
He said when objectively looking at the policies around the
country, especially in the western states, the examples that
proponents of SB 87 are using to suggest that hunting guides
should comply with, there has not been a success for hunter
participation, states are losing hunters at a high rate.
Policies that the proponents are suggesting should be put in
place in Alaska have been a failure. The state's hunting guides
would suggest that the other states would do better to follow
Alaska's example: sustained yield, maximum benefit, allocation
authority kicked to a regulatory board to work specifically with
groups and others. Hunting guides would suggest that Alaska's
model is a better model and requires less impediments to the
hunter.
MR. STACEY opined that SB 87 mandates another level of
bureaucracy. Changing the word from "may" to "shall" in the
statute mandates an additional burden of proof on the Alaska
Board of Game process and additional pages will be required for
the hunting regulations, mandating that will discourage hunter
participation and will likely cost conservation dollars to the
Division of Wildlife.
4:20:07 PM
CHAIR BIRCH asked if there are any other instances in state
statute where there are other sideboards on the Alaska Board of
Game regarding limiting nonresident access to game.
MR. STACEY replied that there are multiple layers of residence
preference currently built into the statutes. He pointed out
that there are subsistence and resident hunting priorities in
regulation and statute.
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that 60-80 percent of sheep hunting
opportunities in the Interior go to nonresidents, the Alaska
Board of Game allocates 40 percent of Kodiak brown bear to
nonresidents, and the moose draw permit allocation is at least
50 percent for nonresidents. He asked why those numbers are so
high.
MR. STACEY answered that the sheep numbers are based on actual
harvest where 80 percent of the sheep are harvested by
nonresidents, but the actual participation rate is 15 to 30
percent nonresident. The nonresident participation rate for
Kodiak brown beer is 37 percent. The nonresident moose hunting
participation rate is a very specific example in a very remote
part of the state where tag utilization is higher for
nonresidents.
4:25:39 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked which animals SB 87 specifically affects.
SENATOR COGHILL answered that any animal that falls under the
definition of "big game," which is a category that is different
from food animals. Big game includes sheep and bear.
4:27:23 PM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, Palmer,
Alaska, testified in opposition of SB 87. He explained that the
council opposes the bill because the legislation is unnecessary.
He pointed out that AS 16.05.255(b) addresses subsistence
provisions with a resident preference versus nonresidents. He
added that a court case decided in 1955, Shepard v. State of
Alaska, clearly shows that the state has the authority to give
preference to residents. The court considered nonresidents as
"trophy hunters" in the Shepard case. He noted that when federal
management came into the state the decision was made that sheep
and bear were traditionally not considered to be subsistence
animals and they were the primary animals for the guide
industry, that is why the animals were left out of AS
16.05.255(d).
4:30:49 PM
MR. ARNO cited art VIII, sec. 2, Constitution of the State of
Alaska as follows:
The legislature shall provide for the utilization,
development, and conservation of all natural resources
belonging to the State, including land and waters, for
the maximum benefit of its people.
He said the benefit is for the people, not just hunters. He
opined that reserving a portion of high quality game for
nonresidents to help pay for management benefits all Alaskans.
He noted that the number of nonresident hunters has not
fluctuated much since the 1980s, averaging between 10,000 and
15,000, so there has not been a constant increase in the number
of nonresidents.
MR. ARNO pointed out that the legislature is considering several
proposals to cut state government. He asked committee members if
they really want to add game management to their budget list. He
noted that the nonresident game management proportion pays for
70 percent of wildlife management. He remarked that he is
fearful of believing that residents would pick up the funding
slack if nonresident opportunity is reduced.
4:33:55 PM
He opined that the Alaska Board of Game process allows for ample
public participation. Previous legislators created a functional,
accessible, and transparent system that allows the legislature
to avoid the business of allocating game. He opined that the
majority of Alaskans would prefer to "battle it out" with the
Alaska Board of Game rather than the legislature.
SENATOR GIESSEL reviewed the fiscal note from the Department of
Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation. She said the
analysis on page 2 regarding the Pittman Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Program (PR Fund) projects a potential loss of $22.6
million, and a $7.5 million potential loss from licenses and
tags. She pointed out that under Statewide Support Services, a
revenue loss is not quantified, but there would probably be
changes in how meetings are scheduled. She clarified that the
fiscal notes are not exactly zero.
CHAIR BIRCH agreed that it was a very good point. He asked
Director Grasser to comment on the Fish and Game fiscal note for
clarification.
4:37:40 PM
EDDIE GRASSER, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, explained
that the division submitted a zero fiscal note with some
information about possible cost because they didn't know the
impact without putting it into practice.
SENATOR KIEHL asked for a breakdown of the nonresident fees by
species so the committee would look at whether this was
disproportionately on the brown and grizzly bears and Dall sheep
or spread evenly among the deer and caribou.
CHAIR BIRCH asked Mr. Grasser to follow up with the information
that Senator Kiehl requested.
MR. GRASSER agreed.
4:39:09 PM
CHAIR BIRCH held SB 87 in committee.
SENATOR COGHILL stated his intention to take all the information
presented and bring forward something that either corrects or
over argues each point.