Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
03/02/2023 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB39 || HB41 | |
| Fy 24 Budget Overview: Department of Fish and Game | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 2, 2023
1:34 p.m.
1:34:50 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Johnson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
ALSO PRESENT
Doug Vincent-Lang, Commissioner, Department of Fish and
Game; Melissa Hill, Acting Administrative Services
Director, Department of Fish and Game.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
SUMMARY
HB 39 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUND; SUPP
HB 39 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 41 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 41 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
FY 24 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Co-Chair Johnson reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 39
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making reappropriations; making
supplemental appropriations; making appropriations
under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State
of Alaska, from the constitutional budget reserve
fund; and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 41
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
1:35:44 PM
^FY 24 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
1:35:49 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, provided a PowerPoint presentation titled "Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G) FY2024 Budget Overview," dated
March 2, 2023 (copy on file). He reviewed slide 3 titled
Constitutional and Statutory Mandates:
The Constitution of the State of Alaska
Article 8 Natural Resources; §4. Sustained
Yield.
Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all
other replenishable resources belonging to the
State shall be utilized, developed, and
maintained on the sustained yield principle,
subject to preferences among beneficial uses.
The Alaska Statutes
Title 16. Fish and Game; Sec. 16.05.020.
Functions of commissioner.
(2) manage, protect, maintain, improve, and
extend the fish, game and aquatic plant resources
of the state in the interest of the economy and
general well-being of the state.
Mission Statement
To protect, maintain, and improve the fish, game,
and aquatic plant resources of the state, and
manage their uses and development in the best
interest of the economy and the well-being of the
people of the state, consistent with the
sustained yield principle.
1:37:31 PM
Commissioner Vincent-Lang turned to slide 3 titled Core
Services:"
Management
Provide hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities,
protect state's rights to manage its fish and wildlife
resources, conserve and improve habitat and access.
Stock Assessment & Research
Ensure sustainability and harvestable surplus, improve
assessment and research capabilities, invest in new
technologies, anticipate changing conditions.
Customer Service and Public Involvement
Make improvements to information and education
services, the Boards and other regulatory processes,
licensing and permitting.
1:39:06 PM
Representative Ortiz cited slide 2 related to the Alaska
statutes and read the following from the slide, manage,
protect, maintain, improve, and extend the fish, game and
aquatic plant resources of the state in the interest of the
economy and general well-being of the state. He asked if
the directives were prioritized.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that in his view there
was no priority. The legislature had never implemented a
priority either. He believed that it was a balancing act
between himself, the Alaska Board of Fish and Board of
Game, the legislature, and the people of the state.
Representative Ortiz referred to the interest of the
economy and asked if it was in the context of fisheries or
was the meaning extended to other areas of the economy
versus exclusively fisheries. Commissioner Vincent-Lang
thought there was a recognition in the words, interest of
the economy and the well-being of the people of the state
He exemplified that the state could likely get the highest
value for bear hunts in the Municipality of Anchorage, yet
it was likely not a priority for the city; public safety
was probably a higher priority. He considered the two
statements in context of the situation and then discussed
it with the regulatory board. Subsequently a decision would
be made regarding either maximizing the economy or the
general well-being of the state. He provided the example of
subsistence use where it may not be in the best economic
interest, but it was in the best interest for cultural
wellbeing.
1:41:57 PM
Representative Galvin pointed to the Constitutional
mandates of fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and the
aquatic plant resources listed under state statutes. She
wondered whether kelp, mariculture, etc. was included in
fisheries. Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that the
Natural Resources Section of the Constitution also was a
mandate for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to
mange to the sustained yield principle. He related that the
legislature had granted him, as commissioner, with the
specific ability to manage fish, game, and aquatic plant
resources. Clearly, mariculture was an aquatic plant
resource that fell under the Department of Fish and Games
purview. Representative Galvin commented that aquatic
resources was a newer area and she wanted to highlight
that management was under the departments umbrella.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that it was under his
umbrella, but it was under DNRs umbrella for permitting
water use. Commissioner Vincent-Lang highlighted slide 4
titled "Leadership." He listed some members of DFGs
leadership team (listed on the slide) and directed
attention to his Deputy Commissioners, Ben Mulligan and
Rachel Baker. He noted that Rachel Baker sat on the North
Pacific Fisheries Management Council and dealt with treaty
issues under the International Pacific Halibut Commission
and Ben Mulligan also served as Director of the Habitat
Division among his other duties.
1:43:33 PM
Representative Hannan asked for information on the
professional background of Ben Mulligan, Rachel Baker, and
Tom Taube, Acting Director, Division of Sport Fish. He
answered that Deputy Commissioner Mulligan worked for the
department for 10 years and worked as the Legislative
Liaison under the prior commissioner. He felt that he was
doing an excellent job navigating the interface between the
Federal Subsistence Board and DFG. He reported that Deputy
Commissioner Baker had worked for the state and then the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
which was helpful in her role on the council. He indicated
that he had the ability to appoint directors. Tom Taube,
was the Acting Director of Sport Fish with about 30 years
experience in the division. He chose not to appoint a
director until the end of the board cycle because he felt
it was unfair to appoint someone in the middle of a board
cycle without being involved in the board preparation and
proposal development. Acting Director Taube had willingly
accepted his current position and had applied for the
director position. The commissioner would decide at the end
of the board cycle.
1:47:59 PM
Representative Cronk was concerned that there was not a
designated person for subsistence research. He thought it
needed to be elevated and was a high priority for Alaskans.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that subsistence had a
presence at every Board of Game and Board of Fish meeting.
He emphasized that nothing was happening from a regulatory
standpoint in terms of informing the boards decisions on
subsistence. He was not in favor of spending money to hire
a director. He relayed that the subsistence sections
statutory purpose was to collect information to inform
board discussions as necessary for subsistence and
customary and traditional practices.
Representative Ortiz referred to the two director roles
[Subsistence Research and Habitat Sections] that were cut
from the department. He recalled that the positions were
moved to the governors office, which decreased the
departments expenditures but not the total spend for the
government. He asked whether he was correct. Commissioner
Vincent-Lang could not recall where the positions went. He
recounted that he had been asked to find reductions in both
programs. He added that it had been his decision to forego
hiring the positions that were vacant at the time. He
viewed it as more valuable to keep the same number of staff
working in the field and researching than filling the two
vacant director positions. Representative Ortiz did not
doubt it was a good decision. He was uncertain the
commissioners actions saved the state money. He asked if
habitat was something the state needed to start paying more
attention to and whether water was included in habitat. He
voiced that the oceans were changing and wondered whether
the state needed to invest more resources to understand the
problem.
1:52:16 PM
Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that most of the
research was being done by the science groups in the
Division of Sport Fish and the Division of Fisheries. The
Habitat Section was associated with Title XVI permitting
authority. He emphasized that the Title XVI authority was a
unique function granted to the commissioner of DFG. He
could not think of another situation in any other state
where the commissioner could halt fishing in an anadromous
waterway by refusing to issue a Title XVI permit. The
Habitat Sections primary responsibility was to issue the
Title XVI permit thought the Fish and Game Coordination
Act. He reiterated his reasoning for not hiring the
director positions and why he felt they were not necessary.
1:53:38 PM
Commissioner Vincent-Lang addressed slide 5 titled Budget
Organizational Chart. He indicated that the department had
7 different budget departments: Sport Fish, Anchorage &
Fairbanks Hatcheries, Southeast Hatcheries, Wildlife
Conservation, Statewide Support Services, Subsistence
Research and Monitoring, and Commercial Fisheries. He
reported that Anchorage & Fairbanks Hatcheries and
Southeast Hatcheries used to be subcomponents of Sport Fish
and were now separate components in the budget as defined
by the legislature in the prior year. He noted that the
Commercial Fisheries Component which included several
regional fisheries management subcomponents, and the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) was contained
within the Commercial Fisheries Division, but they were
really separate components. The Statewide Support Services
Component included the Commissioner's Office, Boards of
Fish and Game, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Trustee
Council, and State Facilities Maintenance.
1:55:10 PM
Commissioner Vincent-Lang summarized slide 6 titled FY
2024 Budget Overview:
The Department will continue to provide an excellent
return on investment as we have in the past under the
Governor's proposed budget.
ADF&G turns a $240 million dollar (of which $65
million is GF) into a return of over $12.5
billion annually.
We do not anticipate any reduction in services as
a result of the proposed budget.
The proposed budget includes new funding for
fisheries, wildlife, and resource projects.
Consolidating the various budget components in
the Division of Commercial Fisheries into a
single unit to improve efficiency.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang delineated that when he began as
commissioner the DFG budget was roughly $195 million and
much of the recent increase was in federal dollars.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang discussed slide 7 titled "FY 2024
Budget Overview Comparison. He pointed to the table on
the bottom of the slide containing the FY 2024 total budget
request and related that $65 million was in UGF, $13
million in DGF, $75.6 million in Other (primarily the Fish
and Game Fund), and $88.5 million in Federal funding
totaling the $242 million request compared to the FY 2022
Actuals of $184.3 million. He believed the governor was
aware of the value of DFG and the worth of adding funding
to address the challenges in fisheries and wildlife
management across the state.
1:56:55 PM
Commissioner Vincent-Lang briefly reviewed slide 8 titled
FY 2024 Fund Group Breakdown by Fund Category, which
included a pie chart of the departments fund categories.
He moved to slide 9 titled FY 2024 Fund Source Breakdown
by Fund Category showing the fund group breakdown in a
table format.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang drew attention to slide 10 titled
FY 2024 Division Breakdown and explained that the
Division of Commercial Fisheries (DCF) was the largest
division at $82 million, followed by the Division of
Wildlife Conservation (DWC) at $63 million, Division of
Sport Fish (DSF) at $50 million, and the Division of
Statewide Support Services at $22 million. He noted that
Habitat and the Subsistence Sections were relatively small
sections. He turned to slide 11 titled Budgeted Positions
and History:
FY2024 Governor Budget:
819 permanent full-time positions
596 permanent part-time positions
1 non-permanent position
Commissioner Vincent-Lang reported that the department
experienced a decrease in position counts, but the budget
had increased. He added that the situation was beginning to
affect the existing staff who were relaying to him that
their workloads were too heavy. He notified the committee
that he would ask for more positions in the future so the
employees could have a fair work life balance.
Representative Galvin thought she heard the commissioner
say he made sure there was a subsistence voice at every
meeting. She asked if there was a person in a position of
power who represented subsistence in the department.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang clarified that the department did
not advocate for any position, it only provided information
when asked questions. He shared that he was a non-voting
member of the board and a staff person from each relevant
division or section was present at all the meetings.
Representative Galvin was not suggesting an advocate, but a
representative; a person who was able to provide
information. Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that the
deputy operation manager had a seat at the table and was
supported by regional staff who were also present.
2:01:18 PM
Representative Hannan had reviewed the departments
budgeted positions and noted that 10 years prior there were
68 non-permanent positions and currently there was only
one. She deduced that they were seasonal or temporary
positions. In addition, the overall Position Control Number
(PCNs) had decreased. She asked what happened to the jobs
that used to be non-permanent. Commissioner Vincent-Lang
replied that he had been the commissioner since 2019. He
furthered that many of the positions were re-hires and
retirees that were moved into those rolls in permanent
positions so there would not be so called double dippers
in the system. He was unsure what caused the precipitous
decline and offered to look into the matter and provide the
answer. He acknowledged that the overall position count had
decreased, and the department was examining the issue. He
ascertained that there were some vacant PCNs in difficult
to fill jobs like bio-nutritionists that required a high
level of education for low pay or the more stressful
management biologists. Representative Hannan asked when the
department undertook its last job classification study and
had looked into how it related to recruitment. She voiced
that management biologists were paid much less than other
agency staff with far less responsibility. Commissioner
Vincent-Lang responded that the department had hired a
consultant to address some of the issues related to
recruitment and retention and the report would be done in
the following week.
2:04:40 PM
Representative Josephson asked if the Habitat Section had
been a division at one point. Commissioner Vincent-Lang
answered in the affirmative. Representative Josephson asked
what the public should take away from the change from a
division to a section. Commissioner Vincent-Lang reiterated
his prior answer that he was faced with the choice of
hiring the directors at the expense of cutting funding in
other areas of the budget and reduce services. He added
that he had not heard of any significant issues from the
decision from the Habitat section. Regarding Subsistence,
he had heard concern over representation at the table. He
noted that the Subsistence Section had only approximately
25 employees versus hundreds in the other divisions.
Representative Josephson understood the commissioners
decision and noted that the states finances had improved
somewhat since he eliminated the positions. He noted that
the department increased UGF in other areas and wondered
why they remained vacant. Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied
that if he were appropriated an additional $200 thousand,
he would choose to hire more permitters for Title XVI.
2:07:01 PM
Commissioner Vincent-Lang illuminated slide 12 titled
FY2024 Operating Budget Change Highlights Division of
Commercial Fisheries:
Central Region Fisheries Management
Maintain UGF Support for Bristol Bay Science and
Research Institute Watershed Projects $800.0 UGF
AYK Region Fisheries Management
Restore Assessment and Management Projects that were
Eliminated in Prior Year Budget Reductions $285.0 UGF
Westward Region Fisheries Management
Alleviate Shortfall in Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands
Crab Test Fishery Receipts $1,000.0 UGF $-1,000.0 DGF
Statewide Fisheries Management
Consolidate Division of Commercial Fisheries Regional
Components $0.0
Commissioner Vincent-Lang expounded that the $800,000 from
the Central Region fisheries management had been cut in
prior years. It was a state core service that the Bristol
Bay Science and Research Institute in part, had to take on,
which was a burden for the institute. The state had spent
roughly $400 million for Alaska Yukon-Kuskokwim (AYK)
salmon management in prior years that was currently
replaced in the amount of $1.5 million from non-UGF
sources. The amount of $285,000 was reinstated for the AYK
region fisheries management to help discover the reason for
the Chinook and Chum decline issues. He pointed to
Statewide Fisheries Management [consolidation] on the slide
and explained that he had determined that the department
could be more efficient by managing the regional components
as one statewide fisheries management component. He
reasoned that many of the management activities benefitted
all the states commercial fisheries, and the department
was investing a lot of time in administratively moving
money around via the single components.
2:09:45 PM
Representative Cronk asked how the test fisheries worked.
He asked if someone caught the crab and then sold it.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered in the affirmative.
Representative Ortiz commented that it was apparent what
would happen in the regions specified on slide 12 and
having regional budget components was very helpful to
understand where the funding was going; especially from an
appropriator standpoint. He was not in favor of the budget
consolidation. Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that
the budgeting will still be project based and regional
projects would be listed under one component. He reiterated
that he was trying to administratively streamline the
budgeting process.
2:12:27 PM
Commissioner Vincent-Lang continued on slide 13 titled FY
2024 Operating Budget Change Highlights Division of Sport
Fish:
Sport Fisheries
Restore Authority to Sport Fish Projects Post Pandemic
$500.0 Other 1024 Fish/Game
Anchorage and Fairbanks Hatcheries
Delete Capital Improvement Project Authority $-53.4
Other 1061 CIP Rcpts.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang related that during the pandemic,
sport fisheries lost money due to lack of visitors. The
division reduced its expenditure as a result, but currently
it was thriving again hence, the restoration of spending
authority to pre-pandemic levels. He reported that the plan
was to restore the projects that were cut during the
pandemic.
Representative Hannan recalled that there had been some
issues around a sportfish license fee surcharge of $5 to
help with hatchery reimbursement. She had always understood
it to be important for the hatcheries to keep producing
fish. She did not know of any current legislation by the
administration and wondered if the desire or need for the
surcharge had been eliminated. Commissioner Vincent-Lang
answered that the state had a unique way of paying for the
Fairbanks and Anchorage hatcheries; they established a
surcharge to repay the bonds and used Dingle-Johnson money
for the match. The state built two hatcheries largely at
the expense of non-resident anglers through a surcharge
fee, which was eliminated once the bonds were repaid.
Presently, the state was left with paying the maintenance
costs and the need still existed. The Senate opposed the
prior surcharge bill. The department was in talks with the
Senate to find a pathway forward. He elaborated that when
the bonds were paid, DFG had built up credit with the
federal Fish and Wildlife Service that it could use as
match money for maintenance. The current budget structure
implemented by the Senate had the Fairbanks and Anchorage
hatcheries in one component resulting in leaving a lot of
match money on the table. The action hamstrung the
department's ability to utilize it for maintenance.
2:17:36 PM
Co-Chair Johnson asked about a dilapidated hatchery in her
district in Eklutna. She did not know the history of why
some hatcheries were abandoned. Commissioner Vincent-Lang
responded that there had been the Fishery Rehabilitation
Enhancement Division in DFG that built hatcheries around
the state and eventually, the legislature and the
department transferred its operations to private nonprofits
(PNPs). The Eklutna Hatchery was transferred to the Cook
Inlet Aquaculture Association, and they determined how to
best operate it through their own cost recovery mechanism.
The state maintained ownership over many PNP hatcheries. He
offered to provide more information. He did not believe
they were currently operational and reiterated that it was
up to the PNP regarding hatchery operations. Co-Chair
Johnson requested a status update.
Representative Cronk inquired that regarding the Fairbanks
and Anchorage Hatcheries what was prohibiting the use of
the matching funds. Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that
they were placed in a separate budget unit or component,
and it structurally became harder to utilize the funds. The
department could only utilize the amount of funding in that
specific component and if it was UGF there was no funding
for the match. There had been better opportunities to use
the match when it had been one component. He was working to
find mechanisms to make it work.
Representative Coulombe asked where the money for the Fish
and Game Fund came from. She asked for the balance.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that when the Dingle
Johnson and Pittman Robertson Funds (federal funding
sources designated by Congress) were developed it required
states to pay a guaranteed match. The fund was
constitutionally protected by the voters in the state. The
fees came from the sale of hunting and sport fishing
licenses and fines. He was uncertain of the current balance
and guessed that it was $50 million on an annual basis. He
would follow up.
2:22:01 PM
Representative Coulombe wondered whether the department had
the authority to use the funding outside of the matching
funds. Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that the funds
could only be used for very specific purposes.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang turned to slide 14 titled "FY
2024 Operating Budget Change Highlights Division of
Wildlife Conservation:
Wildlife Conservation
Maintain Prior Years Level of Fish and Game Fund
Authority for Wildlife Conservation
$5,000.0 Other 1024 Fish/Game
Support and Outreach of Non-Pittman-Robertson Projects
$1,302.0 UGF
State Match for Increased Pittman-Robertson Funding
$2,080.1 Other 1024 Fish/Game
Capital Improvement Project Authority to Accommodate
Additional Projects $90.0 Other 1061 CIP Rcpts.
Hunter Education Public Shooting Ranges
Additional Pittman-Robertson for Shooting Ranges
$63.5 Fed 1002 Fed Rcpts.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang explained that a few years prior
the department had some Pittman-Robertson funding reverted
due to lack of match money. He worked to restore the health
of the Fish and Game Fund for wildlife and was presently
able to request spending authority from the fund. The
second item was for $1.3 million GF to use as match to
study species that were not hunted. He furthered that the
department could not study animals not hunted using
Pittman-Robertson funds. Other sources of federal funds
were available like State Wildlife Action Grants. He
exemplified a study on bumble bees.
2:24:57 PM
Representative Hannan asked if work could be done on
invasive species monitoring and research using Non-Pittman-
Robertson Projects funding. Commissioner Vincent-Lang
answered in the affirmative.
Representative Coulombe referenced the last item on the
slide, the public shooting range increment on slide 14. She
asked if the $63.5 thousand was for ranges. Commissioner
Vincent-Lang answered that the match requirement under
federal law for shooting ranges had increased.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang highlighted slide 15 titled FY
2024 Operating Budget Change Highlights Division of
Statewide Support Services:
Commissioner's Office
Replace Federal Receipt Authority with Interagency
Receipt Authority $-107.0 Fed $107.0 Other 1007 I/A
Rcpts.
Administrative Services
Fund Source Alignment Related to Change in Accounting
Method for Agency Indirect Cost Allocation Plan
$-135.9 DGF $-96.8 Other 1061 CIP Rcpts $232.7 Other
1108 Stat Designated
Rcpts.
One-time Increase of Statutory Designated Program
Receipt Authority $900.0 Other 1108 Stat Desig
Department Facilities Maintenance Unit True-Up $111.6
Other 1007 I/A Rcpts
Boards of Fisheries and Game
Joint Board Meeting of the Board of Fisheries and the
Board of Game $75.0 UGF
2:27:41 PM
Representative Stapp asked about the mechanism to replace
federal receipts with interagency receipts under the
commissioner's office. Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied
that DFG gained the authority to increase the tax on
federal receipts it received therefore, the balance had
increased. He decided to use inter-agency receipts for the
commissioners office.
Representative Josephson pointed to the third bullet point
and deduced that the department was increasing fees by
$900,000. He asked for more information.
MELISSA HILL, ACTING ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, replied that the division
received funding from the federal government and a fee was
charged that was called indirect or overhead. The
department collected enough to carry forward the funds. The
$900,000 request was to spend a large chunk of carryforward
for administrative costs for the divisions for one year.
Therefore, the divisions had more funding available for
programs.
Ms. Hill reviewed the other two items under the
Administrative Services Division on slide 15. She
referenced the first bullet point and noted that the fund
source changed to Statutory Designated Receipts from
dwindling capital funds. The last item was necessary for
current facility maintenance to keep the deferred
maintenance requests down.
2:30:49 PM
Commissioner Vincent-Lang discussed slide 16 titled FY
2024 Operating Budget Change Highlights Habitat &
Subsistence Sections:
Habitat
Travel for Permitting Site Visits
$50.0 UGF
State Subsistence Research
Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory
Council Update Project Subsistence Harvest Surveys
Contract $150.0 Other 1007 I/A Rcpts.
Representative Hannan recounted that in 2019 all of the
departments had been asked to cut travel substantially. She
asked how close the amount of the appropriation prior to
the cuts was. She believed that travel was essential.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied that the amount was the
same as prior to 2019. Representative Hannan requested the
amount that had been cut. Commissioner Vincent-Lang would
follow up with the information.
2:32:27 PM
Commissioner Vincent-Lang concluded with slide 17 titled
Issues and Concerns:
• Federal intrusion into state management authority
• Reduced marine survivals of salmon and crab resulting
in restricted or closed fisheries
• Intercept and Bycatch
• Poor winter survival affecting big game populations
• Food Security
• Urban wildlife management issues
• Impacts from Endangered Species Act and the Marine
Mammal Protection Act
• Non-Finfish mariculture
• Invasive species
• Recruitment and retention issues
Commissioner Vincent-Lang briefly spoke to each of the
issues and concerns that he faced as a commissioner. He
indicated that the state was in a lawsuit over property
rights in the Kenai Peninsula where the federal government
had property rights on federal land over DFG management.
The scenario had ramifications on the ability of DFG to
manage fish and game on federal property.
2:36:31 PM
Representative Josephson asked about the federal intrusion
issue. He cited the Kenai case that was currently being
considered by Supreme Court. He ascertained that the
Supreme Court had not yet decided whether to hear the case.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered in the affirmative.
Representative Josephson had heard from hunting guides
regarding the Kenai case and the federal rule making around
predator control. He relayed that the guides were concerned
that the definition of the preclusion of methods and means
was so expansive it included standard forms of hunting. He
asked whether he was correct. Commissioner Vincent-Lang
agreed with his statements. He detailed that the Kenai Rule
was a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rule that granted a
plenary right over management. However, the National Park
Service (NPS) rules indicated that any kind of hunting,
specifically sport hunting, that impacted a predator was
incompatible with the value system of the national preserve
system. The state argued that the discussion was held
during Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) deliberations and hunting bears was allowable. He
elucidated that the NPS ruled that it was incompatible with
the natural diversity mandates of the preserve. However,
the rule would allow bear hunting under federal hunting
regulations but disallowed sport hunting under state
regulations.
2:39:17 PM
Representative Josephson surmised that the result would
allow sport hunting, but it would be done under a federal
regime. Commissioner Vincent-Lang interjected that his
statement was not accurate. He clarified that a federally
qualified user would be able to hunt bears, but a hunting
guide on a preserve was prohibited from taking a non-
resident or a non-federally qualified hunter.
Representative Josephson assumed that guides primarily took
nonresidents. He deduced that there was a serious
substantive difference between the state and federal
regimes. Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that under
federal rules only federally qualified users would be able
to participate in the activity. Representative Josephson
would need to know the definition of [federally qualified
users.]
Co-Chair Johnson asked if a bumble bee was an actual
species. Commissioner Vincent-Lang answered that different
species of bumble bees existed and Alaska had Western
Bumble Bees.
Co-Chair Johnson thanked the presenters.
HB 39 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 41 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Johnson reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
2:42:38 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:42 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HFIN DOH MESA Presentation 3.2.23.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2023 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HFIN ADFG FY24 Budget Overview 3.2.23.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2023 1:30:00 PM |
HB 39 |
| ADFG Response to HFIN FY24 Budget Overview on 3.2.23 - 031723.pdf |
HFIN 3/2/2023 1:30:00 PM |