Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/11/2013 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB158 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 11, 2013
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Andrew Josephson
Representative Bob Herron
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 158
"An Act authorizing the commissioner of natural resources to
implement a hunting guide concession program or otherwise limit
the number of individuals authorized to conduct big game
commercial guiding on state land."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 158
SHORT TITLE: DNR HUNTING CONCESSIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COSTELLO
03/05/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/05/13 (H) RES, JUD, FIN
03/11/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIA COSTELLO
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 158.
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint overview of the DNR's
state's guide concession program.
MR. FLEENER, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint and answered
questions during the discussion of HB 158.
MR. KELLY VREM, Master Guide 102; Chair
Big Game Commercial Services Board (BGCSB)
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 158.
MR. PAUL JOHNSON, Registered Guide 463
Gull Cove, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 158.
TED SPRAKER, Chair
Board of Game (BOG)
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 158.
CLARK COX, Natural Resources Manager
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 158.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 158.
THOR STACEY, Registered Guide 1194; Lobbyist
Alaska Professional Hunters Association (APHA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 158.
JOE KLUTSCH, Master Guide 91; Representative
Alaska Professional Hunters Association (APHA)
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 158.
BILL STEVENSON, Registered Guide 661
Sutton, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 158.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:22 PM
CO-CHAIR ERIC FEIGE called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Hawker,
Johnson, Tuck, Olson, P. Wilson, Tarr, Saddler, and Feige were
present at the call to order. Representative Seaton arrived as
the meeting was in progress. Representatives Josephson and
Herron were also present.
HB 158-DNR HUNTING CONCESSIONS
1:03:40 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 158, "An Act authorizing the commissioner of
natural resources to implement a hunting guide concession
program or otherwise limit the number of individuals authorized
to conduct big game commercial guiding on state land."
1:04:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIA COSTELLO, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that HB 158 would give the Commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources authority to implement a hunting guide
concession program. She explained the purpose of introducing
this bill is for the state to answer the question of whether the
state should have a guide concession area program. She offered
that last legislative session the legislature appropriated
funding for Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to work on
public comment and preparation for such a program. While the
issue is not new, HB 158 would allow the legislature to weigh in
and take public testimony. She expressed an interest in land
stewardship, wildlife conservation, and to promote a healthy
hunting guide industry.
REPRESENTATIVE COSTELLO said the state management of game is an
important issue. Several departments and two boards have been
involved in this issue. Additionally, she advised that the
House Finance budget subcommittee removed funding for this
program since it is important for the legislature to answer the
aforementioned question.
1:07:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COSTELLO raised the issue of overcrowding and
over utilization in some game management areas (GMUs) and
underutilization in other GMU areas. Additionally, conflicts
with other user groups routinely occur. She offered her belief
this is a significant issue for the state to address, which is
one reason the committee room is so full today. This issue
pertains to land management and game management issues that must
be answered. She summarized her interest is to ensure the state
manages its game and resources for generations to come.
1:08:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired whether the sponsor has
considered allowing the hunting guide concession program to
evolve regionally to address over or underutilization rather
than to take a statewide approach.
REPRESENTATIVE COSTELLO said the DNR's Division of Mining, Land
and Water have conducted work related to this issue. One of the
things the DNR has indicated is that it would like to retain
some flexibility to address some of the issues. Thus HB 158
specifically gives the power of creating such a program to the
commissioner, while the details would be designed by regulation,
especially through the ongoing public comment period.
1:09:15 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE noted that today's testimony is by invitation.
1:10:28 PM
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), introduced himself and
recognized some members of the audience. He offered to provide
an overview of the guide concession program, noting the
department began its efforts in 2006. The department has been
asked to provide a solution and this is DNR's proposal, which
should not be taken lightly since the program could potentially
significantly increase government and will require a number of
staff to implement and run the proposed program. Additionally,
the bill would create more oversight and regulation of an
industry at a time when government is moving toward less
regulation.
1:12:25 PM
MR. FOGELS asked to focus on the problems to be solved. He
related that the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), the
Board of Game (BOG), and the Big Game Commercial Services Board
(BGCSB) have helped outline the issues related to big game and
guiding. First, one question that has been asked is why DNR has
been assigned to solve the issue. He predicted that the
testimony from the BOG and the BGCSB will be fairly
enlightening. Second, he asked whether this proposal will help
the guiding industry, which is an important sector of Alaska's
economy that contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to the
state's economy. He stated that members of the guiding industry
will testify on the proposal. Third, he asked whether the guide
concession program (GCP) would help the state's wildlife and
answered that the ADF&G and BOG will testify on the GCP's effect
on wildlife management. Finally, he asked whether the program
will help the public and if non-guided members will benefit. He
suggested that the board members will be able to enlighten the
committee and members of the public will testify on the
proposal.
1:13:41 PM
MR. FOGELS provided a brief history of the guide industry in
Alaska. In 1974, the BOG established an area system limiting
guides to operate within Exclusive Guide Areas (EGA). By 1976,
the program was extended statewide [slide 2]. In 1978, the
Alaska Supreme Court (ASC) found the EGA system unconstitutional
for several reasons. First, the ASC found a lack of connection
to wildlife management. Second, the ASC found the guide
industry did not provide any remuneration to the state. Third,
the ASC found the industry was not subject to competitive
bidding and exclusivity, and finally, the ASC found the guide
areas were of unlimited duration without contractual terms or
restrictions.
MR. FOGELS explained the proposed Guide Concession Program (GCP)
in HB 158 [slide 3]. He explained that the DNR is responding to
a problem identified by members of the guiding community, the
BGCSB, and the Board of Game (BOG). Additionally, former
Governor Palin supported the DNR proposal as did a strong sector
of the guiding industry. In essence, the program would create a
system that manages and distributes guided hunting pressure
through a competitive process that would be implemented on all
state lands.
1:15:16 PM
MR. FOGELS highlighted the reason to implement the system on
state lands, including briefly outlining the issues identified
by the guide industry, the BGCSB ,and the BOG. The issues,
related to the ongoing problems identified in the field,
included a decreased incentive to practice wildlife
conservation, especially in high use areas. The industry has
experienced a decreased quality of experience for guided
clients. Other problems include increased conflicts between
user groups, an overall lack of land stewardship, and
difficulties enforcing game laws. In short, these represent the
problems the DNR would attempt to accomplish with its program.
1:16:07 PM
MR. FOGELS turned to slide 5, entitled, "Anticipated Benefits
and Most Common Concerns of the GCP." He explained an economic
reason exists to help the guiding industry in Alaska. Although
the primary goal of the GCP is to promote a healthy guide
industry, other concerns have been raised about the program from
the public and some guides.
MR. FOGELS briefly reviewed the 2011 Guide License by Class,
indicating the total number of guides is 1,428, with 312
contracting guides, or those who booked at least one trip last
year [slide 6].
1:17:15 PM
MR. FOGELS highlighted that the concession system has been
implemented on other lands in Alaska, with 110 concessions
available on Fish and Wildlife refuges [slide 7]. Currently,
the U.S. Park Service has 36 concessions, and the U.S. Forest
Service has 35 concessions. If the DNR's GCP goes forward an
additional 298 concessions would be added for a total of 479
concessions. Recalling the 312 contracting guides previously
mentioned, he noted there are currently more concessions than
guides operating at this time.
MR. FOGELS related that a white paper was distributed in 2009
with a 113-day comment period, in which 277 comments were
received [slide 8]. A proposed decision was released on
February 15, 2012, with a 68-day comment period, in which 190
comments were received. The DNR just finished a 37-day public
comment period for the Framework Management Document released on
January 23, 2013, with the department receiving 77 comments.
Currently, the DNR has been working to fully analyze the 77
comments, although most of the comments were reasonably
supportive of the program. He noted very specific feedback was
received. He offered his belief that the department can work
within many of the comments, but some go beyond the "sideboards"
placed by the ASC's decision.
1:19:20 PM
MR. FOGELS described the proposed GCP Design [slide 9]. The
program would offer two types of concessions, full and limited
concessions. The full concession has been designed for the
guide who has been in the business as a serious professional,
noting 208 guides fit this category. Additionally, the limited
concession has been designed for entry-level guides, which
currently number 90. Each guide would be required to submit an
application to compete for the 136 guide areas in the state.
All applications would then be evaluated and scored by panels
comprised of agency staff. The concessions would be offered to
the highest scoring applicants within each guide concession area
and according to number of concessions available and type of
concession application. He indicated that no bidding will be
allowed under this proposal.
MR. FOGELS discussed violations [slide 10]. He said that DNR
scoring will reflect any violations by guides. Additionally,
while the fee structure is complicated, it is ultimately
designed to pay for the cost of the program estimated to be
about $1.4 million per year. As the program is implemented, the
fees will be evaluated to make sure the program costs are
covered, which will be set by regulation. In essence, the DNR's
goal is to cover costs but not overcharge or undercharge for
concessions.
1:21:56 PM
MR. FOGELS directed attention to slide 12, entitled,
"Transferability and Vacancies." Concession areas would not be
allowed to be transferred, sold, or exchanged so as not to risk
being unconstitutional. He emphasized this initiated a big
debate on the program; however, the Department of Law has
indicated it is important not to risk being unconstitutional.
Additionally, a system for vacancies has been developed. He
indicated the system is somewhat complicated, which will be
discussed in more detail later.
1:22:42 PM
MR. FOGELS pointed out two slides provide a sense of the
concession area maps [slides 13-14]. He stated that maps have
been prepared for the whole state. He offered to print them off
for the committee and indicated a web link also allows people to
download the map and review them on-line. The areas are
numbered, depicting the number of concessions in parenthesis and
showing the split between full and limited concessions.
MR. FOGELS directed attention to slide 15, entitled, "Historical
Information." This slide indicates the progression over the
years, including what was proposed in the 2009 white paper, in
last year's proposal, and the current proposal. He offered his
belief that each version has considered public comments and
industry comments and program has been adjusted accordingly. He
said the DNR feels that the current framework is "pretty close"
although he imagined some adjustments will still need to be
made. However, given the legal framework that DNR must
currently operate under and the framework of the Alaska Supreme
Court's decision, it is not likely that too many significant
modifications will be made.
MR. FOGELS briefly discussed the current and required statutory
authority [slide 16]. He said given the current authority under
AS 38.05.020, AS 38.05.035, and AS 38.05.850, the Department of
Law believes the DNR has the authority to develop the program.
This bill will help to clarify the GCP program and allow for
additional debate and discussion before the legislature.
1:25:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for further explanation on the
historical information. She asked for clarification on full
assistant guide concessions.
MR. FOGELS replied the DNR has two different kinds of
concessions, which are full and limited concessions. Under the
proposal, each guide will be allowed to have a certain number of
assistant guides. As you can see the number has increased from
the 2012 figures [slide 15]. The lead guide can have more
assistant guides, which allows him/her to take out more clients
into the field. Thus the greater the number of assistant
guides, the more clients that can be served. Therefore, the DNR
felt strongly that the number of assistant guides should be
capped; otherwise, the effect is to not cap the level of guided
use in an area.
1:26:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for the number of camps served by
guides in each area as compared to the current use.
MR. FOGELS responded that under the proposal, a guide assigned
three full concessions can have six assistant guides for each,
or a total of 18 assistant guides. Theoretically, the number of
camps or clients served would depend on the guiding operation
but the proposal outlines the total workforce for the area. The
current guide areas don't mesh with the proposed GCP areas so it
is more difficult to estimate the number of clients. Some of
these problem areas have more than three guides, with some areas
having as many as twenty guides. He offered his belief that
this proposal would reduce the hunting pressure in some of the
well-used areas.
1:28:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related a scenario in which 20 guides
worked. He asked whether this proposal would allow 18 camps.
MR. FOGELS responded that it's important to keep in mind that
while there may be 20 guides in an area, each will have a number
of assistant guides, which would mean that more than 20 guides
could work in an area. However, currently the number of
assistant guides is not restricted for an area.
1:29:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he would like the department to
provide an estimate on the number of camps currently operating
in order to compare it to the number of camps that would be
permitted under the proposal.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked who requested the number of assistant
guides to increase from three to the six allowed under the
current proposal.
MR. FOGELS replied that DNR had proposed three assistant guides
in its 2012 proposal, but received substantial comments from the
industry urging the department to allow more assistant guides.
In fact, a strong contingent of guides did not want any limits
on the number of assistant guides. While the DNR and ADF&G felt
strongly that some cap was necessary, the DNR agreed to increase
the cap based on comments to the 2012 proposal.
1:30:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the department would work
with the ADF&G to adjust "take" based on over utilization.
MR. FOGELS answered yes; DNR would be able to conduct periodic
evaluation of the program to see how it is working in terms of
fees or guides per area. He emphasized the DNR plans on
periodic evaluation and will adjust the "take" if necessary. He
reminded members that guided hunting is not the only pressure on
an area and the BOG also manages the public hunts.
1:31:49 PM
MR. FLEENER, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), added that the ADF&G
would still have management responsibilities to ensure
overharvest of wildlife does not occur. Additionally, the BOG
has similar responsibilities. He explained that when the
department notices an impact on wildlife resources, it will
reduce harvest opportunities, as well.
1:32:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the department has enough
biologists in the field to monitor activities. She understood
the legislature has cut funding for positions.
MR. FOGELS answered that the fees for the GCP program are
designed to fund the staff for the program. He understood that
approximately 11 DNR staff and one or two staff from ADF&G would
manage the program. He anticipated some on-the-ground
enforcement will be covered by these fees. Additionally, other
ADF&G staff will be doing field work, too. He said the hope is
that this program will be self-funding and self-sufficient.
1:33:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said it seems as though more guides and
more assistant guides in the program would result in more
funding to cover staff necessary for the program. She asked
whether there are any checks and balances to prevent the
possibility of allowing too many guides in order to sustain
program funding.
MR. FOGELS answered that the GCP program has been designed to
spread the guide concessions throughout the state based on where
the guiding activity and game populations exist. Every guide
area will have between 1-3 full concessions, he said. The cost
has been designed based on the DNR's best estimate on the number
of guides. As the system changes, the regulations will need to
be changed, which will also require public involvement.
1:35:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK returned to the number of assistant guides
allowed. He recalled that originally the white paper was set by
an operations plan. He asked whether the DNR planned to have
someone submit a plan and if the department would approve or
disapprove the number of guides.
MR. FOGELS answered that is correct. He explained the number of
assistant guides would have been based on a proposal by the
guides.
1:36:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to an earlier map [slide 13]. He
asked whether the map was a 1974 map or if it was prepared
recently.
MR. FOGELS answered the map was recently developed through
substantial work by ADF&G and DNR, as well as by both boards.
In further response to Representative Tuck, he agreed it was
created in anticipation for the framework document issued in
January, which is contained in HB 158.
1:37:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for the regulatory process. For
instance, the ADF&G found too many bears were being taken,
whether the DNR would limit the number of assistant guides.
MR. FLEENER answered that question is best answered by the ADF&G
and the BOG. He did not envision that DNR would review annual
program changes because it would be impossible to do so.
Instead, the restrictions would clearly come from ADF&G and BOG.
He suggested that the DNR would work in conjunction with ADF&G
and the BOG. This could result in changes to draw hunts,
general season hunts, or by restricting seasons and bag limits
to address declining wildlife populations.
1:39:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how that would relate to the
restricted guide area concessions.
MR. FLEENER offered to discuss this later on in the
presentation.
1:39:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled in 1973 the legislature created the
Guide License Control Board. She asked whether the BGCSB is the
same board.
MR. FOGELS answered no; that the Guide License Control Board no
longer exists. He deferred to the BGCSB to provide the history.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE pointed out there was a gap in time between the
end of the guide license control board and the beginning of the
BGCSB.
1:40:51 PM
KELLY VREM, Master Guide 102; Chair, Big Game Commercial
Services Board (BGCSB), stated the guide board was sunsetted in
the 1970s and another board was instituted and later sunsetted.
He offered his belief this is the third version of the guide
licensing board. He deferred to Paul Johnson, the immediate
past chairman of the BGCSB to answer.
1:41:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the boundaries of the proposed
map and asked whether these boundaries match the BOG boundaries,
in terms of allocation management.
MR. FLEENER responded that these maps overlap the game
management units (GMU) very well. He said the sub-units follow
those lines pretty well, too.
1:42:11 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER referred to slide 14 in members' packets
entitled, "GCA Map Close-up." He asked what the small squares
refer to since he cannot read the legend due to the print size
MR. FOGELS answered he thinks Co-Chair Saddler is referring to
the numbers in brackets. For example, 14-04 has three total
concessions, of those, two would be full concessions and one
would be a limited concession.
1:42:45 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER referred to GCA map 14-02 and asked him to
identify the full concessions and the limited concessions.
MR. FOGELS answered that the concessions will only apply to
state lands, which are shaded blue on the map. He added that
the guides would be able to operate anywhere in the area.
1:43:35 PM
MR. FOGELS directed attention to slide 17, entitled, "Timeline,"
which refers to the framework document prior to HB 158 being
introduced. Essentially, the timeline begins with the January
23-February 28, 2013 public comment period. The timeline
assumed regulations would be developed in the Spring and Summer
2013, and staff would be hired in the Fall 2013. Next fall, a
call for applications would occur, which he anticipated would be
approximately 1,000 applications. The applications would be
scored throughout the Summer 2014 and the DNR would notify
guides approximately in August-September 2014 of areas, with
guide concession areas being effective January 1, 2015. However
this timeline may change based on HB 158, he said.
1:44:43 PM
MR. FLEENER reported that ADF&G has worked closely with DNR on
this for about three years. He named reasons for the proposal
including impacts to wildlife, reducing overcrowding, improving
stewardship, improving hunter success and satisfaction rates,
and responding to requests by the BGCSB and BOG to make changes
to improve the overall system. He mentioned the need for action
relates to increasing problems, which includes impacts to
wildlife populations, user conflicts due to overcrowding, and
declining stewardship [slide 18].
MR. FLEENER directed attention to slide 19, entitled, "Case
Study - Chugach Sheep." This example uses the Dall sheep in
Game Management Unit (GMU) 14A since some of the greatest
conflicts in terms of guide overcrowding relates to Dall sheep.
He prefaced his comments by stating the department really has
not identified any population-wide negative impacts from user
conflicts associated with unregulated guiding. However, the
ADF&G has identified a number of areas experiencing severe
impacts to certain age classes. For example, referring to slide
19, one segment of the Chugach Dall sheep population that has
been impacted is the number of full-curl rams. That part of the
population has experienced a significant decrease. The areas in
the state with the largest impact include GMU 13A, which is
Glennallen and west, GMU 13D, Glennallen and south, and GMU 14A
which is the Palmer-Wasilla area. Additionally, the ADF&G has
growing concerns about GMU 19C, since the department has noticed
some increases; however, he anticipated that the problem will
worsen.
1:47:46 PM
MR. FLEENER, returning to slide 19, pointed out the overharvest
of full-curl rams and overcrowding. The ADF&G went to a drawing
hunt in 2008 and the bar graph significantly dropped. He also
pointed out the significant decrease in hunter opportunities
from 2007-2008. The numbers on the left side of the graph
indicates the number of hunters or permits awarded whereas the
numbers on the right side of the graph indicate the actual
number of harvested rams. The lines shown in orange represent
resident harvest while the green lines depict the non-resident
harvest. In essence, the slide shows a significant decrease in
overall hunter opportunities. He pointed out severe
restrictions are sometimes necessary to resolve these types of
conflicts. For example, the ADF&G and board instituted a permit
hunt in 2008 to protect the segment of wildlife population in
trouble.
MR. FLEENER said also of importance to note is the crossover of
success rates depicted. He pointed out that beginning in 2004-
2005 the orange line, or resident success rate, starts to
decline and continued to decline until 2010. In 2002, the non-
resident success rate began to increase [until 2005]. Of
course, resident hunters would be vocal about their inability to
successfully harvest rams. In fact, the department continues to
hear about overcrowding and resident hunters not being able to
meet their needs. According to regional wildlife staff, the
declining resident participation and success rates are
attributed to overcrowding and conflicts on the ground.
1:49:57 PM
MR. FLEENER indicated it is easy to see that ADF&G was able to
resolve the problems of overharvest and overcrowding, with
resident success stabilized and increasing beginning in 2008
through 2012. Certainly, this is logical given that far fewer
hunters are on the ground in drawing hunts so the success rates
will increase and hunter satisfaction correspondingly increases.
MR. FLEENER said the problem with severe limitations on non-
resident opportunity is that it has the potential to decrease
state revenue due to lost license and tag fees, as well as the
dollars hunters spend. Moreover it makes it difficult for
hunting guides to have effective business planning due to
restrictions on permits and numerous guides operating in the
same area. He reiterated that the department doesn't only
consider dollars and cents, but the committee should be aware
the potential for decreased revenue exists if the ADF&G or the
BOG goes to very restricted numbers of permits instead of
providing ample opportunity to hunters.
MR. FLEENER surmised that the general amount of money brought
into the state by guided hunters is $12,000-$15,000 on average.
He anticipated that this topic will be covered in more detail
during testimony.
1:51:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how many licensed guides are non-
residents and how many licensed guides are residents.
1:52:22 PM
MR. PAUL JOHNSON, Registered Guide 463, noting he previously
served on the BGCSB, stated that about 15 percent of the guides
are non-resident guides. He said that under the common use
clause [in the Alaska Constitution] the state cannot restrict
non-residents from obtaining professional licenses. In further
response to Representative Wilson, he said that assistant guides
figures are higher, but he was uncertain of the figures. Still,
most of the assistant guides are residents, he said.
1:53:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to slide 19 entitled "Case Study
- Chugach Sheep." He asked whether the purpose of the draw hunt
was to reverse the non-resident take with non-residents taking a
greater share of the harvest.
MR. FLEENER answered no; that is not the purpose of the program
at all. What he attempted to say is that implementing a permit
was a last-ditch effort to stabilize a decreasing segment of the
population favored for hunting. The graph illustrates the
success rate. He referred to the 2008-2012 period in which
animals taken by non-residents were limited to two or three
animals and resident opportunity highest being at 12 harvested
rams, which was less limited. The department and BOG's goal has
been to stabilize the population and prevent the 8-year-old,
full-curl ram population from decreasing any further and also
increase the hunter success rates and overall satisfaction.
TED SPRAKER, Chair, Board of Game, stated he would cover this
topic during his presentation.
1:55:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed an interest in how the Alaska
GCP program would have affected the ram harvest and hunter
numbers in GMU 14A if it had been implemented in 2008, instead
of the draw hunt, as depicted on the graph. He wondered if
concession guides would take a higher percentage of the rams.
It seems if the problem is a biological problem, it is probably
a different solution, given that residents hunt, as well. In
essence, he asked what effect will the concession program versus
[draw hunt policy have with respect to] the resident and non-
resident take.
MR. FLEENER answered that from the ADF&G's perspective the end
result is to attain viable wildlife populations that can sustain
harvests over the long term. He indicated his primary interest
is to meet the needs of Alaska residents, with subsistence being
first, and to expand the opportunity to others as harvestable
surplus is available. He predicted that the GCP would have
worked better since it would not have necessitated the BOG to be
so restrictive [in 2008 by instituting a draw hunt]. He
suggested the [draw hunts] make it much tougher for guides to
have a business plan. For example, if a small number of non-
resident permits are available but the number of guides in an
area is not restricted, it could mean 25-30 guides and numerous
assistant guides are operating in an area. Therefore, it makes
it tough for guides to develop their business plans. He
anticipated the guide representatives will discuss this in more
detail; however he has heard from guides that when hunts are
restricted to only a few permits, guides don't know whether they
will be selected, which adversely affects their business plans.
1:57:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK understood the aforementioned chart depicts
the number of resident and non-resident hunters. However, the
total population of rams is not indicated. He understood that
in 2007, the ADF&G put in place [draw hunt] measures to increase
the population densities of 8-year old rams. The measure
resulted in the number of resident/non-resident permit hunts and
the harvested amounts. He understood Mr. Fleener to say that
wasn't a good thing, or that it could have been prevented if a
concession plan had been in place. He asked whether the [draw
hunt] was effective in increasing the ram population.
MR. FLEENER answered absolutely. He said the success rates for
residents increased; however, the harvest opportunities for
residents and non-residents decreased since far fewer hunters
were in the field. From the perspective of managing the single
age-class, the draw hunt was successful. He deferred to Mr.
Spraker to elaborate.
1:59:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out that the graph doesn't show the
outcome, but the ADF&G "knows" [it positively affected the 8-
year-old ram population].
MR. FLEENER answered that is correct.
1:59:43 PM
MR. SPRAKER offered to weigh in since the comments have moved
into the BOG activities. He reminded members the BOG must first
manage on a sustained yield basis. Therefore, conservation is
the BOG's number one priority. Next, the process is a step-down
process. As Representative Tuck alluded to, there is the
"building back" of a population, but the [permit hunt] also
allows for a quality hunt. While the BOG doesn't attempt to
quantify quality, the BOG is very cognizant of overcrowding in
areas.
MR. SPRAKER explained the process the BOG took to address the
Chugach ram issue. First, the BOG considered the conservation
issue. As Mr. Fleener mentioned, the number of legal rams was
decreasing. Second, the BOG considered overcrowding and
competition in the hunts. He mentioned a prior article he read
by Representative Mia Costello [not in members' packets] that he
thought hit on a number of points the board must consider.
Again, he characterized the process as being a "step-down
process," with conservation considered first and crowded hunts
considered next.
2:01:17 PM
MR. FLEENER continued his presentation. He reviewed the harvest
success rate in GMU 13D and 14A [[slide 20]. The harvest for
GMU 13D Tazeast dropped by 59 percent. This slide indicates the
actual numbers of hunters and harvest. In 2003, GMU 13D Tazeast
had 88 hunters with 27 sheep harvested. The resident hunt
success rate was 22 percent, and the non-resident success rate
was 65 percent. By 2008, draw permit hunts were implemented,
which resulted in 43 hunters, 11 harvested sheep, or 26 percent
resident hunt success rate as compared to 79 percent non-
resident success rate. This depicts the overall opportunity,
which decreases by more than 50 percent when the department
switched from a general hunt to a draw permit hunt. On the
whole, these figures show a lot of hunters, with very low hunter
success rates, and a reduction of 50-80 percent hunter
opportunity by going to the draw permit. This slide indicates
that when the draw program was implemented, it severely limited
hunter opportunity, which has a greater negative impact on
resident hunters; however, he offered his belief that
implementing the permit hunt did reestablish healthy full-curl
ram populations and improved success rates.
2:04:04 PM
MR. FLEENER tuned to slide 21, entitled, "ADF&G - An example of
GCP benefits." He read, as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
· Unit 8, Kodiak) is by far ADF&G's most active area for
guides in Region II.
· Within the Kodiak archipelago there are 30 guide use
areas, about 6 of which have significant state lands
within them.
· Although there are rarely guide-resident conflicts in
GMU 8, passage of the proposed guide concession would
enhance our ability to work cooperatively with guides
to assure residents have fair treatment.
· If history is a good teacher, we can learn from the
Kodiak NWR exclusive guide areas that the guides who
are awarded these concessions are better stewards of
the resources, better partners to let us know what is
going on within their areas, and are more engaged in
the public process.
· The guides are also able to provide better services
for their clients because they are more willing to
invest in infrastructure (e.g. cabins or tent
platforms) and they have a better ability to advertise
and provide hunts in the future.
· It would be an asset to state resources to implement a
fair guide concession program.
MR. FLEENER said the second to the last paragraph summarizes
that guides can have a better ability to advertise and provide
future hunts if they are operating in an area. Thus a small
group of guides with a long-term business plan can provide a
better quality hunt for clients as compared to numerous guides
and assistant guides operating in overcrowded areas in which ram
population issues have also developed.
2:06:01 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether the number of game animals has
increased or decreased statewide since the policy changes in the
1990s.
MR. FLEENER answered that it depends on the species and which
general population is under consideration. For example, some
caribou herds have increased and some have decreased. In his
data review, he did not see any dramatic declines that appeared
related to sheep. He deferred to Mr. Spraker to elaborate, due
to his long-term board experience. He said the department has
done a good job increasing moose numbers in some parts of the
state; however, Alaska is a big state and game management is a
very complex question.
2:08:25 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE pointed out federal lands within the state have
concessions. He asked for the relative health of the game
populations in those areas compared to state areas.
MR. FLEENER responded that he could speak more about hunter
satisfaction, in general, rather than the relative health of
game populations on federal lands. From his discussions with
DNR, he has heard that many guides prefer to hunt on federal
lands due to less crowded hunting, good wildlife populations,
and the target age class of animals typically being better than
on state land.
2:09:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, referring to the six assistant guides per
concession [proposed GCP program], assumed that the most
qualified master guides would be selected prior to taking new
entrants. He asked whether the guides could be located in
Montana while the six assistant guides were working in Alaska.
MR. FLEENER was unsure, but recalled that the hunter must have a
registered guide with him while out hunting, but perhaps it
could be the assistant guide. He admitted this is an area in
which he is unfamiliar.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE noted some statutes were changed last
legislature.
MR. JOHNSON answered that the process is still an ongoing
process. In response to Co-Chair Feige's question on
supervision levels, the provision is not in HB 158; however, the
guide must in the state. This requirement was not previously
required; however, the supervision level will be increased once
regulations are adopted.
2:11:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the operations plan used to be
part of the proposal, but is now limited to the scoring system
that will be used.
MR. FLEENER answered that the guides must still submit an
operations plan as part of their application package.
2:12:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to the licensure system for guides,
including assistant guides, master guides, and registered
guides. She asked whether the criteria will be reevaluated
through the regulatory process if HB 158 passes.
MR. FOGELS said he believed so. He suggested that the
regulatory process will be driven by the bill that is passed.
The department will receive guidance on the program and will
adjust the regulations accordingly.
2:13:09 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER inquired why the DNR is tackling this issue
instead of the ADF&G and the BOG.
MR. FOGELS answered that the 1988 Alaska Supreme Court decision,
[Oswichek], basically threw out the old guide program, which
specifically pointed to DNR's land concession and land
permitting authority to implement the areas.
MR. FLEENER concurred. However, the ADF&G has worked closely
with DNR and believes the new program will help resolve the
problem. While there are guides who do not support this
solution, he has heard from a number of guides who support the
GCP's concession program. Many guides are asking for regulation
of their own program, due to impacts on the resource, which he
characterized as good stewardship. He offered his belief that
the ADF&G is trying to be responsive to that request.
2:15:24 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether not having this program would
require the BOG to have more draw permits.
MR. FLEENER offered his belief that is correct.
MR. FOGELS added there are a number of ways the issue could be
resolved. In fact, the GCP program represents only one solution
to the issue, so the debate is whether this is the appropriate
solution. He pointed out the full-curl ram population addressed
in slide 19, which required the BOG to take radical measures to
address. He suggested Mr. Spraker will speak to the downsides
of that approach.
2:16:41 PM
MR. SPRAKER explained the BOG considers DNR to have the
authority to establish the leasing program and set up the guide
control use areas, but the ADF&G will continue to provide the
BOG information to make management decisions with respect to
wildlife conservation. In essence, the DNR, the ADF&G, & the
BOG work in unison, but the BOG has the final decision-making
authority in terms of whether a more restrictive harvest program
is adopted.
2:17:21 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE understood the guides would be spread out across
the land by DNR, but the program would not interfere with the
ADF&G's or the BOG's ability to manage game populations by
setting bag limits and seasons.
MR. SPRAKER answered yes.
2:17:49 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER echoed that as the [ADF&G, & the BOG] considers
the health of the resource, the distribution of the guiding
effort would be one factor considered.
[MR. SPRAKER nodded yes.]
[MR. FLEENER nodded yes.]
2:18:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said it seemed like the state has a
contract with the guides. He asked what the process will be if
the state's contract with the guides is broken when more
restrictive measures are put in place.
MR. FLEENER did not think such changes would be breaking a
contract because the guide concession program does not guarantee
access or a successful hunt. Instead, it provides opportunities
for guides to take hunters out to use the land. He said that
aspect [land use] would always be available through the guide
concession program. Additionally, the ADF&G and BOG must always
manage the wildlife populations, which will be in the forefront
when the department and the board make decisions on whether or
not a guide-concession program will exist.
2:19:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related a scenario such that in year one
hunts are allowed, but in year two the hunts are restricted. He
asked whether the state is legally responsible for a guide's
lost revenue if the state finds it must reduce the terms of the
guide's five-year contracts. He expressed concern over the
liability.
MR. FLEENER responded that did not think the state would be "on
the hook." He said that hunting is a gamble due to weather and
game populations. He deferred to others to provide a more
definitive legal viewpoint.
2:21:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to the chart on slide 20 for GMU
13D that indicated a 90 percent success rate on guided sheep
hunts and 70 percent success rate for non-guided hunts. He
characterized this statistic meant hunters using a guide were
nearly guaranteed a successful sheep hunt.
MR. FLEENER answered yes; that hunting with a guide is a good
way to be successful.
2:22:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related he has some questions regarding
contracts that are better answered by the House Judiciary
Committee. He recalled earlier testimony that the permit holder
for the concession would be in the area or in an adjacent area.
He asked whether the guide in question would have two areas and
if a guide can have more than one area.
2:22:53 PM
CLARK COX, Natural Resources Manager, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), answered that under the proposal guides can
apply for and hold up to three guide areas, which is similar to
the current system.
2:23:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the areas would be adjacent
area.
MR. COX answered that the guide use areas don't need to be
adjacent areas.
2:23:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the guide could be in one
part of the state with clients hunting in another part of the
state.
MR. COX pointed out that hunting seasons also vary.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether a guide could hold a moose
permit in three different areas. In further response to a
question, he agreed a guide could hold a moose, sheep, or bear
permit in three different areas.
2:23:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, returning to the Chugach case study
[statistics on slide 19], noted an increase in the guided non-
resident take, which he said caused concern about the ram
population and led to the BOG limiting hunting through a permit
hunt. He asked how many guides and camps participated in that
elevated harvest. He expressed his interest that if the same
number of guides and hunters under the six assistant guides
could hunt under the proposed program, it might not change the
biological makeup of the rams. While some guides might not
participate to ensure the health of the herd, it seemed to him
the non-residents certainly affected the population dynamics.
He requested the population and guide figures at the next
meeting so he could see how this proposal would solve the
problem.
MR. SPRAKER responded that 36-38 guides operated during the
aforementioned case study, [slide 19]. He agreed that was the
primary reason for BOG action to limit hunters by instituting a
draw hunt. He characterized the competition [at the time] as
being "fierce."
2:27:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether this bill would be limited to
non-residents who are required to obtain guide services for
hunting brown bear, Dall sheep, or mountain goats. She further
asked whether the proposal would be expanded to include black
bear, moose, or caribou.
MR. COX answered no; that while this bill primarily pertains to
guided clients a resident could hire a guide and would be
subject to the same requirements. In further response to a
question, he said the requirements apply to all guided species,
including moose, black bear, and caribou.
2:28:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the concession is transferable
if a business would was sold during the five-year timeline.
MR. COX answered that the concession is nontransferable so if
someone chose to leave in year two or three, the authorization
would be referred back to the department. He commented that the
DNR would maintain a reserve list of people who had competed for
the guide use area. In the event a vacancy occurred, the
concession would go to the next person on the list.
2:28:58 PM
MR. SPRAKER provided his background. He said he has lived in
Alaska for 40 years and has served on the Board of Game (BOG)
for three governors. Currently, he said he serves as the
chairman of the BOG and he previously served on the Big Game
Commercial Services Board (BGCSB) from 2004-2013. He asked to
briefly discuss challenges the BOG will face if the guide
concession program is not implemented [slide 22]. He clarified
that he would not be reviewing the budgets or the program
configuration, but would focus on the wildlife resources. He
indicated the BOG has two major concerns. First, the BOG is
concerned about conservation of the state's wildlife resources.
Second, the BOG has concerns about overcrowding and competition
between resident and non-resident hunters. Thus he has written
three letters to the BGCSB to support limiting the number of
guides and their ability to move around the state. He offered
his belief that the current system, which does not limit the
number of guides, has resulted in fairly heavy, locally limited
overharvest of game.
2:30:58 PM
MR. SPRAKER related that at every BOG meeting since 2003, new
proposals have requested some reduction of harvest by non-
residents. In the past few years, these proposals focused on
sheep harvest, primarily due to competition and overharvest of
legal rams for sheep hunting. However, he has also noticed some
proposals have spread to encompass all big game, with requests
for some type of reduction on non-resident take for all big
game.
MR. SPRAKER stated that the requests to the BOG come in two
forms. First, proponents would like to eliminate all non-
resident hunters. He characterized this request as being a
common statement. At the very least, proponents would like to
stagger the opening hunting season dates to give residents a
five-to-seven day head start before non-residents can hunt.
Second, in the next level of proposals, proponents suggest
limiting non-residents to only participate through drawing
permits. These proposals typically include an allocation, which
is typically around 10 percent. In fact, he recently reviewed
all the hunts and estimated the effect of reducing them to 10
percent. Such action would make a huge difference, he said.
While the BOG does not look at the financial aspects and only
considers conservation aspects, it is aware of the impacts. In
conclusion, he said reducing non-resident take to 10 percent
would have a significant impact in terms of the hunter dollars
coming into the state since fees for licenses and tags are
designated to the ADF&G for game management.
2:33:06 PM
MR. SPRAKER elaborated on the overcrowding issue. For example,
GMU 13D and 14A, the Palmer to Glennallen area, had 36-38 guides
operating in it. The BOG convened a "town hall" meeting to
discuss overcrowding, which resulted in a good discussion. It
was at this meeting that he learned the financial difficulty
guides experience on planning based on permit hunts. All but
one of eight guides at the town hall meeting said they'd "had
enough" since the competition is so great that clients have a
limited opportunity for success. These guides indicated they
would rather have permit hunts since it would raise the quality
of the hunt, the size of the ram would increase, the client
would have more rams to consider, and the conservation will be
addressed. However, the main reason these guides supported a
permit hunt is to address the overcrowding issues.
2:34:30 PM
MR. SPRAKER pointed out the BOG will also consider GMU 20A,
south of Fairbanks, the spring of 2014. He said approximately
13 guides are registered for the area, but what he has heard
from guides is that the area can only support about a third of
that number in order to provide quality hunts.
MR. SPRAKER explained there is a difference between guides
competing with guides or competition between residents. From a
BOG perspective and a state's rights perspective, competition
with guides adversely affects residents because residents have a
tough time competing with the guided hunts. He pointed out most
guides are well equipped with large camps, wall tents, a string
of horses, aircraft, or other enhancements since this is their
business. Therefore, the average hunter has a tough time
getting game in areas with substantial guide competition.
MR. SPRAKER pointed out GMU 19C, west of the Denali National
Park and Preserve, is an area that receives competition between
guides. One guide said that competition in this area has been
building, primarily due to actions the BOG took in GMUs 14A and
13D, which likely pushed some of the guides into GMU 19C.
Again, when an area is fully utilized, the areas of access are
limited, with a finite number of areas to access the sheep
areas. Additionally, guides spend the whole season at their
camps so it limits the residents who can hunt in these areas.
2:36:47 PM
MR. SPRAKER said the next BOG meeting will be held in Kenai next
Friday. He said the BOG has 53 proposals to consider, of which
nine proposals address some type of competition, overcrowding,
or over harvest issues. He concluded that substantial concern
exists between guides and resident hunters.
MR. SPRAKER, in summary, said that the BGCSB licenses about 15-
20 new registered guides annually, but in the board's opinion,
the state cannot accommodate that level of growth without
additional hunting restrictions. He predicted that the new
guides will have difficulties competing with established guides
in their area, but these guides will likely be able to compete
with residents. Unless additional limits are imposed, it will
spill down to the residents and their ability to take game, he
predicted.
2:38:15 PM
MR. SPRAKER raised another concern, which he referred to as "hot
spot" hunts. He explained that as the BOG remedies one area,
the problem is pushed to another area. He characterized the
"hot spot" hunts as problem that has been addressed in a
piecemeal manner since fixing one area pushes use into another
area. He recommended some sort of a "global" approach as a
better means to consider hunter pressure.
MR. SPRAKER concluded that adopting a system that addresses
overcrowding and overuse will result in a more stable guiding
system that will benefit the resident Alaskan hunters.
2:40:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER commented that slide 23 states the
proposal will promote multi-generation family businesses. He
expressed concern that this may create an entitlement mentality.
He wondered whether this will create special interest
legislation that would not withstand constitutional muster.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE pointed out that Mr. Spraker represents the BOG
and not the ADF&G.
2:41:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed an interest in better
understanding the wildlife conservation portion of the proposal.
He recalled reasons for the changes included the guides did not
want to compete and ram sizes were smaller. It sounds like
limiting the number of guides in an area would help, but he
wondered if [the proposal] would reduce the number of overall
hunts. He was uncertain how the wildlife conservation would
occur under the proposed GCP.
MR. SPRAKER answered that he has identified one of the issues
the BOG has struggled to address. He said the BOG does not look
at whether there are too many guides, but considers whether
there are too many hunters. Thus BOG determines how many
hunters can be allowed in an area. Since sheep requires hunters
to take a full curl ram and nothing smaller, it is a self-
regulating system. Additionally, the BOG has implemented a
selected antler harvest for non-residents for moose and in most
areas of the state for a bull with a minimum 50-inch antler
spread with four brow tines or three brow tines. In essence,
the BOG has moved to a conservation approach by limiting size.
However, the "bottom line" is that in some cases there are still
too many hunters. He agreed it would not change the outcome to
allow just as many guides in an area without also limiting the
total number of hunters. Certainly, the guides must submit a
request or understanding that they take a certain number of
moose or bear in each area, which is submitted as part of the
operational plan. This is one way the BOG has requested the
conservation be addressed in the GCP proposal. Additionally, a
guide who operates in an area for 10 years under a concession
will be looking for a stable financial plan so he would
basically "farm" the numbers of animals he has in his area. Not
only does the GCP promote land stewardship, but wildlife
stewardship will also be enhanced. In conclusion, the BOG faces
many challenges, but the last step the BOG takes is to require
permit hunts to severely restrict the numbers of hunters.
2:44:56 PM
KELLY VREM, Chair, Big Game Commercial Services Board (BGCSB),
referred to the statement [on slide 23] the proposal will
promote multi-generation family businesses. He explained that
he included this statement in his presentation because most of
the guides he knows discourage their sons and daughters from
entering the business since guiding is too unstable at this
point. He envisioned if the business of guiding was more
stable, the guide's children would be mentored, which could
result in better guides; however, he did not mean to imply the
children would take over the same GMU.
MR. VREM offered to cover the remaining bullet points on slide
23 entitled, "Big Game Commercial Services Board - Perspective."
He said Alaska cannot avoid restricting guide activities. He
offered his belief that the state is approaching a saturation
point [of hunters]. He offered his belief that the public and
even some guides are getting fed up, including some older, very
fit guides. He agreed that guide concessions promote good
citizenship and stewardship. The guides who have federal guide
use areas can have them revoked if they don't adhere to their
operations plan or overharvest animals. Further, guides with
concessions tend to develop relationships with the local
villages and local hunters. Finally, these guides "farm" their
areas since they depend on them in future years.
2:48:15 PM
MR. VREM turned to the bullet relating that land managers are
able to help BGCSB enforce regulations. The BGCSB can only
enforce behavior and professional standards; however, the land
manager controls the access. For example, currently a guide
operating on state land can keep on operating despite violations
since the DNR must provide the land use authorization. The
control that the land managers can exert over an occupant is
tremendous and should not be overlooked. In particular, this
has been evident for guides operating on federal lands who must
be in compliance.
MR. VREM turned to the bullet point that concessions insure
long-term stability for future guides. He suggested the
concessions could create a more stable guide business, one that
allows guides to plan their businesses.
MR. VREM offered his belief that in some areas of the state it
is the transporters exerting more pressure on the resource than
are the guides, which he experienced when he guided in Southwest
Alaska. He referred to AS 08.54.790 [12][B], which read
[original punctuation provided]:
[12] "transportation services" means the carriage
for compensation of big game hunters, their equipment,
or big game animals harvested by hunters to, from, or
in the field; "transportation services" does not
include the carriage by aircraft of big game hunters,
their equipment, or big game animals harvested by
hunters ...
(B) by an air taxi operator or air carrier for
which the carriage of big game hunters, their
equipment, or big game animals harvested by hunters is
only an incidental portion of its business; in this
subparagraph, "incidental" means transportation
provided to a big game hunter by an air taxi operator
or air carrier who does not ... "
MR. VREM offered his belief that this language creates a huge
loophole. The BGCSB will need the legislature's help to
eliminate this provision before transporter compliance can
occur. While he has personally found most licensed transporters
are honest, it is the air taxis who operate under the [AS
08.54.790 [12](B)] loophole that have caused most of the
problems. On the North Slope, the two biggest service providers
for drop-off service are "hiding" behind this exemption. He
apologized but needed to leave the meeting now in order to
travel to a BGCSB meeting.
2:52:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether penalty provisions similar
to the federal concessions would be covered under regulations.
He specifically asked whether someone working outside their
operational plan would be subject to suspension.
MR. VREM replied that is his assumption. He said he couldn't
speak for the DNR, but the federal concessions have an annual
performance review. While he serves on the BGCSB, he has been
both a commenter and a spectator [on federal reviews.] He
anticipated that the penalty provisions would be more refined as
the process continues.
MR. COX responded that absolutely, the permits would be subject
to terms and conditions, which will be established by
regulation.
2:53:44 PM
MR. VREM, responding to Representative Johnson's fear about the
implied contract, emphasized that guides do not seek an implied
contract or buyout provision. He said this has never been the
case.
2:54:56 PM
THOR STACEY; Registered Guide 1194; Lobbyist, Alaska
Professional Hunters Association (APHA), introduced himself.
JOE KLUTSCH, Master Guide 91; Representative, Alaska
Professional Hunters Association (APHA), introduced himself.
2:55:25 PM
MR. STACEY, who also holds Registered Guide license number 1194,
is testifying on behalf of the Alaska Professional Hunters
Association. First, guiding is a complex issue involving a
number of agencies with oversight over commercial hunting and
wildlife resources. Currently, in order to obtain a land use
authorization on state lands, a registered guide must apply to
the DNR and pay a $500 fee. It does not matter how many pending
investigations, game violations by clients, or problems with
assistant guide compliance, the DNR is compelled to issue the
land use permit and has no authority to deny, revoke, or suspend
the land use authorization. However, on federal lands, the
guide concession program seeks to have the most qualified guide
hold a specific geographic unit. The selected applicant is
subject to a progressive fee structure, but is chosen based on
his knowledge, compliance with operating permit, reported
employee safety record, and reported client use days in the
field.
2:57:08 PM
MR. STACEY said the DNR has an opportunity to develop a similar
program in the form of the guide concession program (GCP). The
question before the committee should not be focused on whether
guides should have six assistant guides or the fee structure,
but whether to empower the DNR to geographically restrict guides
based on a system that rewards quality, experience, and promotes
stewardship among operators on its lands.
MR. STACEY indicated the current status quo has been to
encourage an unlimited competitive entry at the expense of
degraded wildlife resources and state residents, non-residents,
and all user groups. He supported the [proposal in HB 158],
which would empower DNR to encourage and promote a guide
selection program that rewards the most qualified experienced
applicants, encourages them to be wise stewards of the land and
resources and penalizes them or revokes land use authorization
if the guides violate the public's trust.
2:58:18 PM
MR. STACEY compared APHA's guides operating concessions on
federal lands since 1988 to those operating on state lands. The
guides operating on federal lands have seen their opportunities
remain stable or flourish whereas guides operating on state
lands have seen declining and unstable businesses. He offered
his belief the state program has harmed the public. He said
that competitive, unrestricted, commercial opportunity has never
been the state's policy for renewable resource development,
beginning with fish trap restrictions. In conclusion, the
proposed guide concession program would reward merit and
experience when selecting guides for concessions. Finally, the
proposal is designed to charge appropriate fees and give the
state the ability to deny or revoke permits.
2:59:18 PM
MR. KLUTSCH said he has been living on the King Salmon Peninsula
for almost 40 years and has operated a small summer guided sport
fishing operation. He currently operates Katmai Guide Service
and is a master guide, number 91. Further, he has been guiding
on federal lands post-Owsichek. He said everything that he had
worked for eight years went away when the ruling was issued.
Subsequently, a Task Force on Guiding and Game was appointed by
Governor Steve Cowper, with representatives of the guiding
industry, state, and federal land managers participating over
several years to formulate a series of recommendations to
restructure some type of statutory and regulatory framework for
guiding. While a state board was not authorized to rank,
evaluate, or establish a specific concession area, the federal
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Park
Service (NPS) established concessions. He described himself as
one of the "guinea pigs" of the federal concession system. He
said currently holds and has held permits for over 25 years in
the Alaska Peninsula Wildlife Refuge, the Becharof Refuge, the
Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, and the National Park
concession contract in Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve.
3:01:23 PM
MR. KLUTSCH said in short, the justification for this system was
for the benefit of the [wildlife] resources and the users.
Despite the regulatory constraints of federal agencies, the
quality of the experience on federal lands is far greater than
it is on state lands. He asked to address Representative P.
Wilson's question on accountability, which he said is done by an
operations plan. He detailed the operations plan, which
includes pre-season client rosters, the proposed take by species
by date, and the assistant guides. The operations plan under
the proposed GCP system would be administered by DNR, including
a requirement for an operations plan and a post-season hunt
record submitted to the BGCSB. In fact, this record provides
all the data, including the hunters, the species hunted, and the
dates of the hunt.
MR. KLUTSCH, addressing Representative Johnson's question on
whether this would constitute a contract, said the federal
agencies address this under permit stipulations, which says that
nothing in the permit supersedes the Board of Game's authority
to set seasons and bag limits.
MR. KLUTSCH offered his belief that the status quo is
unacceptable. He suggested that without the preferred
alternative [as proposed in HB 158], wildlife resources will
diminish, which will primarily affect residents and subsistence
users. He acknowledged the process to develop the concession
program has been a long one, and his testimony has been repeated
each year. In his view, everything that was predicted to happen
has happened. In conclusion, he offered his belief that these
problems can be fixed.
3:04:14 PM
MR. BILL STEVENSON, Registered Guide 661, stated he has been
Alaska resident for over 50 years and registered guide for over
20 years. He related he has significant experience in GMUs 14A
and 13D. He supported guide use areas on state lands, similar
to the federal guiding concession program. He said having a
guide area does not represent an entitlement, but is something
that must be earned. The catalyst for this current push is the
overcrowding of guides in GMUs 13D and 14A in the Chugach
Mountains. Prior to 2000, six guides operated in the
aforementioned GMUs, which increased in 2008 to 38 guide
operations.
MR. STEVENSON highlighted what he characterized as an almost
"silent problem" which is the number of clients an air taxi
takes into an area, Previously, only a few guides had their own
airplanes so operators typically could avoid one another;
however, now, one air taxi operator will take in over 50 clients
on the ground at one time. Several air taxi operators have
multiple aircraft, while others have a single operator with a
Super Cub. In summary, he agreed a guide area system would be
great to have in place, but the transporter issue must also be
addressed.
3:06:52 PM
MR. STEVENSON said a few problems exist with the forms/permit
applications that must be filled out. He emphasized that guides
with concessions can act as stewards of the lands and wildlife,
whereas with totally unregulated areas what happens is the
mentality that if you do not do it, the next guy will. For
example, if one air taxi doesn't drop clients off at an
airstrip, the next one will. He characterized the overcrowding
can be visualized as layers of transparencies with lines drawn
for activity. Over time some lines get quite thick and pretty
soon the entire transparency is blocked.
MR. STEVENSON specifically characterized the sheep populations
in GMUs 14A and 13D as being a "perfect storm." After several
difficult winters, sheep populations were down. Although
hunters don't impact ewes and lambs, since they hunt rams, the
ewes are affected by nature and eventually the ram population is
decreased.
3:10:17 PM
MR. STEVENSON identified the four basic user groups as including
Native, resident, air taxis, and guides. He described the
Native use he is most familiar with as ones that use relatively
small areas near villages and expand to nearby waterways.
Typically, residents use the road system and ATVs, with some
aircraft use. Air taxis and guides are commercial operators
have made significant investments and make a living from profit.
He suggested one guide may have 10-15 clients, but many take
fewer clients, although a few guides take out more clients.
However, the smallest air taxi operator will take more clients
to the field than any of the guides. He offered his belief that
the proposed GCP proposal would limit the smaller of the two
user groups. He estimated that non-resident hunters take about
10 percent of the game, but contribute about 80 percent of the
revenues. He remarked that by and large, the guiding industry
is comprised of "good" guides with a few "bad apples."
MR. STEVENSON emphasized that a guided client contributes far
more revenue to Alaska than an unguided client. Overall, the
larger air taxi operators may contribute more than guides, but
the air taxi operators have a much larger footprint and impact.
He offered his belief that a GCP would be a worthwhile program,
but only if it will increase the quality of the experience for
the guiding industry without leaving "the door open further for
the air taxi operators."
3:13:20 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE held over HB 158 and announced public testimony
would be taken March 13, 2013.
3:13:27 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0158A.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HB158 Hearing Request.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HB158 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HB158-DNR-MLW-3-8-13.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HRES HB 158 DNR-F&G 3.11.13.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HRES HB158 Letter Packet 1.PDF |
HRES 3/11/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HRES HB158 Letter Packet 2.PDF |
HRES 3/11/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HRES HB158 Letter Packet 3.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HRES HB158 Letter Packet 4.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |