Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
04/10/2013 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB161 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 161 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 2013
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Kurt Olson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 161
"An Act relating to auctions or raffles for big game harvest
permits and to the selection of nonprofit organizations to
conduct auctions and raffles for the Department of Fish and
Game."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 161
SHORT TITLE: AUCTIONS FOR BIG GAME HARVEST PERMITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTIS
03/11/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/11/13 (H) RES
04/10/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN GATTIS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the prime sponsor of HB 161.
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff
Representative Lynn Gattis
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 161.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 161.
CONRAD (CON) BUNDE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 161.
GARY STEVENS, Member
Board of Directors
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 161.
AL BARRETTE, Board Member
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 161.
WAYNE HEIMER
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 161.
ROD ARNO, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 161.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:30 PM
CO-CHAIR DAN SADDLER called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives Seaton,
P. Wilson, Tarr, Feige, and Saddler were present at the call to
order. Representatives Tuck and Hawker arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 161-AUCTIONS FOR BIG GAME HARVEST PERMITS
1:07:52 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 161, "An Act relating to auctions or raffles
for big game harvest permits and to the selection of nonprofit
organizations to conduct auctions and raffles for the Department
of Fish and Game."
1:08:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN GATTIS, Alaska State Legislature,
paraphrased from the following written comments [original
punctuation provided]:
The Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) operates
several programs where big game permits for auction or
raffle are donated to nonprofit sporting groups to
support state wildlife management. Three separate
auction programs are authorized in statute: Delta
Bison, Etolin Elk and Big Game and the rules governing
which organizations are eligible to operate the raffle
or auction, the species and number of permits that are
available, and disbursement of the proceeds differ for
each program. Currently, the statutory framework
governing the two most important programs -Delta Bison
and Big Game -are so dated -groups have become
ambivalent about participating.
HB 161 proposes changes to better align the programs
with the objectives of the department and the
nonprofit partners. As well, the bill increases the
financial incentive for the Big Game program so that
the outdoor or conservation groups approved to operate
the auctions are able to recoup administrative fees
and retain 25 [percent] of the net profits.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS said this is up from 10 percent. Anyone
involved in fundraising understands that it takes money to
fundraise, but 10 percent wasn't enough [to cover the
administrative costs].
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS continued to paraphrase from written
comments [original punctuation provided]:
Nurturing and improving these public/private
partnerships is foundational to the department's
resource conservation scheme. This resource management
model is based on set of principals known as the North
American Model of Wildlife Management, which among
numerous tools is a user-pay system of licensing fees.
Around these principles, resource managers, sportsmen
and women support wildlife and habitat conservation.
Using science as a management tool, the hunting
community works in partnership with state agencies to
set limits in order to protect what they love, foster
ethical and competent hunting skills training and
assume responsibility for the stewardship of the
natural resources.
From this history the department established the
donation of big game permits to empower hunting and
fishing groups with some ownership of the cost of
stewardship. HB 161 updates the programs to ensure
that these public/private partnerships thrive into the
future.
1:11:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS identified this as being one of the
"contentious" parts of the bill. She expressed a willingness to
work on the bill with the end result being a bill that works.
1:11:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS said the North American Model of Wildlife
Conservation, which has not been adopted in Alaska, provides an
interesting model. She stated that fish and wildlife are held
in public trust and belong to all the people.
1:12:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out the two basic principles of
the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. First, fish
and wildlife are held in public trust and belong to all
Americans. Second, the wildlife resources need to be managed in
a way that their populations will be sustained forever. He
wondered if increasing the number of permits under permit
drawings would mean the wildlife will not be available to all
Americans. He asked how that provision corresponds to satisfy
the North American Wildlife Conservation model. In essence, he
offered his belief that the bill would increase the number of
permits not available to the general public since those permits
would be given to certain groups to auction off to their
members.
1:13:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked for further clarification on the
question.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON restated that the North American Model of
Wildlife Conservation states that fish and wildlife will be
available to all Americans. It seemed as though the bill would
take a larger number of animals out of the pool and designate
the permits to an organization to be raffled off to a more
limited group of users.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS said this bill specifically addresses the
permits that can be raffled off. The proceeds would be used for
conservation. The crux of the bill is to allow permits to be
auctioned off to raise money for organizations.
1:15:38 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE referred to page 2, line 13-17 of HB 161, which
read, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
[NOT BE USED TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO ANY CANDIDATE
FOR POLITICAL OFFICE OR TO ANY ORGANIZATION SUPPORTING
OR OPPOSING BALLOT PROPOSITIONS OR TO PAY EXPENSES
ASSOCIATED WITH LOBBYING THE LEGISLATURE OR
ADMINISTRATION].
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked for the reason the language was deleted.
In response to a question on clarification, he again asked why
the specific language was deleted.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS answered that the purpose is for
conservation principles and not for political purposes.
1:17:08 PM
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff, Representative Lynn Gattis, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that the language amplifies the intent that
of the program. This bill would stipulate that funds will only
be allowed to support conservation projects and conservation
education programs approved by the department. She
characterized the deletion as tightening up the language. Under
the bill, the department will approve the activity and stipulate
the purposes the funds can be used for. Additionally, the
raffle proceeds were never intended to be used for political
activity. Further, the deficiency in the original bill did not
adequately convey the intent of the funds. Thus the language is
being removed to make it very clear about how funds can be used.
1:18:05 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE pointed out that many of the hunting groups [who
are awarded big game permits through raffles] make contributions
to political candidates and hire lobbyists. He asked how the
legislature would know without conducting audits about specific
expenditures of raffle funds. He wondered how the legislature
could enforce this provision and ensure that the receiving
organization complies with the law.
MS. SYLVESTER stated that the department and the participating
groups are available to testify.
1:18:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that the language would limit the
scope.
1:19:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to page 2, lines 11-12. She
asked whether the language which read, "The percent of the
proceeds from the auction or raffle of a big game harvest permit
retained by the organization may be used only to support
conservation projects and conservation education programs
approved by the department ...." She questioned whether "may"
should be replaced with "shall" since "may" is more permissive.
MS. SYLVESTER answered that "may" was the language used in the
original statute. She noted that the sponsor of the original
program is currently a Co-Chair of the committee and may be able
to speak to that aspect.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER said he did not specifically recall.
1:20:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER referred to the drafting manual, which
specifies how language is used in bills. He said there have
been numerous arguments about the distinctions between "may" and
"shall" but the legislative manual merely contains drafting
conventions. He recalled that one time the legislature changed
the language in a bill to "shall" but the revisor changed it
back to "may."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out the prior language indicated
it "may" not be used, which is very specific and means it cannot
be done. He said "may not" means a person cannot do something.
Additionally, "may be used only" has a different connotation.
He indicated the legislative drafters often change language.
1:22:04 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), said
that the existing governor's tag program provides essential
revenue and partnership opportunities for wildlife management
and conservation in Alaska. He reported that funds generated by
the program are used as match to the federal [Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration program] to conduct research on largely for
big game projects. In fact, this information has been used to
inform management and long-term conservation of these species.
It also allows the department to partner with other entities
that have mutual conservation goals and objectives. He offered
the department's belief that this has been a very successful
program and one it does not wish to lose. However, it may be
time to "tweak" the program with an eye towards improving it.
This bill would make some minor changes that will build upon the
success of the existing program. Further, the department
believes the bill will augment wildlife conservation in Alaska
and improve conservation partnership opportunities across the
state. Finally, the bill would help ensure that funds are spent
on projects that support the North American Wildlife Model, a
model that has a proven record of success in wildlife
conservation in the U.S. and in Alaska. However, this model has
been under recent increased attacks.
MR. VINCENT-LANG said he has been working with the bill's
sponsor and understood several modifications are being
considered to further enhance this bill. He said he would be
happy to discuss the potential changes with the committee.
1:23:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR observed the ADF&G's fiscal note lists the
organizations that would no longer be eligible. She said,
[referring to page 2, line 10], that after doing the math it
appears that the change in the amount of the proceeds from 10 to
25 percent would result in a loss of $70,000 in revenue to the
state. She asked how the department would manage with the loss
of revenue.
MR. VINCENT-LANG acknowledged that it was difficult to put
together an estimate for the fiscal note. He suspected that as
organizations gain permits and are able to keep a greater
percentage, the result will be that the organizations would
potentially enjoy greater proceeds. He characterized this as
balancing out any potential losses resulting from the
organization retaining the additional [15] percent in proceeds.
Incidentally, he also believed that some of the Lower 48
organizations included in the fiscal note would likely
incorporate their organizations in Alaska in order to become
eligible to gain permits. Finally, the number of permits will
increase from [two to four] under the bill, which will probably
result in increased revenue. He estimated that the net result
would be a "wash" or potentially result in increased revenue to
the department. While it's difficult to estimate the effect of
the bill with any degree of accuracy, he did not think the
department would lose any revenue.
1:26:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, with respect to organizations incorporating
in Alaska, understood that the department would use the funds to
support conservation projects and conservation education
programs. She surmised that the out-of-state organizations
would become knowledgeable about Alaska's conservation issues
such that the department could work with them to develop
appropriate education plans.
MR. VINCENT-LANG considered this aspect as being one of the good
benefits of the changes being proposed. The bill would allow
the department to work in partnership with organizations being
awarded or issued big game tags to ensure that programs being
conducted are in the best interests of the state. Specifically,
this bill would provide the department with the opportunity to
define criteria "upfront" so the organizations will have a good
understanding of the programs being conducted and how it will
benefit wildlife conservation and education efforts across the
state.
1:27:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled Mr. Vincent-Lang previously
testifying that the funds have been used for wildlife
conservation. He referred to page 1, line 10 of the bill and
asked whether the partnership currently promotes fish and game
law enforcement. He further asked whether the funds are being
used for that purpose.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that different programs are conducted
under the "tag" program. First, the ADF&G currently donates a
single Delta bison permit to an organization that promotes law
enforcement. However, the department has had difficulty in
awarding the bison permit since no single entity wants to take
the tag, raffle it off, and designate the proceeds to fish and
game law enforcement. In fact, the department has
unsuccessfully been attempting to conduct the raffle for years.
Basically, Section 1 of the bill would change this to allow the
ADF&G to donate one bison and one Dall sheep to an organization
requiring the proceeds to be used to promote outdoor and
conservation programs in partnership with the department. This
could potentially include law enforcement, as well as other
activities. He emphasized that the goal is to use the donations
from the raffle to benefit the conservation programs.
1:28:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to proposed Section 2 of HB 161,
which would increase the harvest permits being raffled off from
two to four permits, which also will include Dall sheep, bison,
and other species. He asked whether the intent is to have five
Dall sheep permits and bison and four harvest permits designated
for each of the other species listed.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that Section 1 would award one bison
and one Dall sheep to a non-profit organization that would use
all the proceeds for outdoor and conservation programs.
However, Section 2 would award up to four harvest permits for a
wide range of big game species. He acknowledged that this
provision could result in up to five Dall sheep permits under
the program and five bison permits.
1:30:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what percentage of the permits will
be issued.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied he did not have the figures before him
and offered to get back to the committee with that information.
1:30:30 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether the programs [in Section 1 and 2]
could be combined. He understood that sometimes language
develops over time.
MS. SYLVESTER answered that the sponsor considered combining all
the programs into one. She pointed out that one group takes
advantage of the small program for Etolin elk and derives all of
the proceeds for its program. Thus combining the programs would
result in a loss of income to the one organization that would
normally benefit from the raffle. She indicated it makes sense
to keep the programs separate. In response to a question, Ms.
Sylvester indicated that Etolin Island is in Southeast Alaska
near Petersburg. She reported that the Petersburg Archery Club
is the only group that consistently applies for the Etolin elk
permit. Further, the auction otherwise has little interest and
the raffle typically goes for $700, which is a small amount.
1:32:18 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked for the criteria that will be used to
determine which organization will qualify for the program.
MR. VINCENT-LANG said the department would be most interested in
research programs that will add to the understanding of the
management needs for the species or the life-history
characteristics of the species. Further, the department would
be interested in those organizations that would contribute to
outdoor education and hunter heritage programs. He expressed
concern that hunter heritage is being lost across the state.
MR. VINCENT-LANG said to the extent that the department can
partner with different groups helps to ensure an increased
understanding about the value of hunting and participating in
hunting, which would be a good thing. He concluded those would
be the types of things that would be included in an agreement
prior to issuing a raffle permit.
MR. VINCENT-LANG added the requirement would indicate via an
"upfront" agreement that the money cannot be used to make a
contribution to any candidate for political office or to pay for
lobbying expenses. In response to a question, he said this
prohibition would be written into the agreement at the time the
"tag" is issued to the organization.
1:34:20 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether there would be any advantage to
combining the two programs outside the Etolin Island program.
MR. VINCENT-LANG offered his belief that the reason the programs
are separate is that 100 percent of the proceeds of the first
category - which is the bison and sheep permit - can be given to
the organization. However, the department would receive 75
percent of the proceeds from the other program, so it's really
an allocation decision.
1:35:21 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether there any shorthand term used for
the programs.
MR. VINCENT-LANG responded that he calls them Section 1 permits
and Section 2 permits, with Section 1 permits being donated
permits and Section 2 permits being permits issued on a 75/25
percent allocation. He characterized the difference as being
donated versus issued permits.
1:36:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked him to describe the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) process and whether the department works with
the same groups year after year.
MR. VINCENT-LANG said his hope is to enter into a Memorandum of
Agreement process that would raffle off to a law enforcement
group. He also hoped the department could work with another
group, the Outdoor Heritage Foundation, which is the
department's official foundation and is one that shares the
values the department values. While the department would not
limit the raffle to any groups, it would carefully consider
groups that the department envisions as being good partners in
the future.
1:37:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood that to implement the bill the
department would not need to draft regulations so the director
would make decisions about the program. She asked whether the
bill provides enough clarity for the director to proceed. She
imagined a larger pool of applicants would be had under the
bill.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that he has been through the process
twice as the director. He offered his belief that the bill
contains enough flexibility to allow him to write criteria to
expand the applicant pool and raise more revenue for the
program, which he identified as one real benefit of the program.
Additionally, he said having discretion makes it easier and
possibly gives greater certainty to the people being issued the
permits. Finally, the ADF&G would receive a product or
partnership that works for the department.
1:38:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to whether the criteria
will be standard criteria for qualifications.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered the department would want to have some
discretion to tailor the program capacities and skills but still
have some baseline foundations to ensure the funds aren't being
used in ways that are not in the best interests of the
department. For example, if the department awarded a permit to
the North American Sheep Foundation that he would envision the
benefits would be used for sheep management and sheep hunting
rather than for caribou or bison. He said the department would
want the flexibility to craft this type of criteria into the
agreement. Again, the department would want to ensure that
funds did not go to political contributions, regardless of the
organization. Again, if a permit is issued to a bison group, he
would want to ensure that bison are benefitted. Similarly, if a
group focused on outdoor hunter heritage and education programs,
he would hope that proceeds would be used for those types of
programs rather than ones in which the group has little
expertise.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said that was exactly what she wanted
to hear on record that there were some base criteria for the
[big game harvest permit raffle] agreement.t
1:40:50 PM
MS. SYLVESTER explained the first program, the Delta Bison
program, which will be modified under the bill, is one that
retains 100 percent of the proceeds. She explained that the
participating group has developed a comprehensive effort to
encourage hunter training, ethical hunting practices, and
outdoor women skills. This group has worked with the ADF&G to
identify the department's needs and determine how to advance
hunting and fishing. Finally, license fees are deposited
directly to the department. The second program, the big game
program, is smaller so these groups are doing something on a
smaller scale. Under the second program, the department will
allow the group to retain the funds and must agree on how the
funds will be used. She concluded that everyone has been
working together to reach common goals.
1:42:38 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether the department requires
organizations to be of a certain size. It seemed to him anyone
could file paperwork and set up a non-profit organization.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that the participating organization
would need to be incorporated in the state prior to being
considered; however, the department would evaluate the applicant
in terms of their ability to deliver terms.
1:43:43 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER referred to the Section 2 permits, and asked
how many of the harvest permits are actually issued and the
allowable "take" that is allowed under the permits.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered there has not been significant
interest in wolf or in caribou. He pointed out the species
people are most interested in are grizzly bears, moose, Dall
sheep, bison, and musk ox. In most instances, this would result
in a small percentage of the opportunity; however, the
department does try to find hunts of interest. Typically, the
numbers are small, compared to the overall opportunities. He
added that people could still apply and it would represent yet
another opportunity for them to take an animal. Again, overall
the total number is a small number, he said.
1:45:19 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked what kinds of restrictions are on the
permits.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that the permits are restricted to the
current hunting season and the current limitations set by the
Board of Game (BOG). He referred to Section 2, on page 2, line
27, which would allow the commissioner to set some of the terms
of the permits. He hoped the department would be able to work
with the BOG to allow the department additional discretion on
the permits. For example, perhaps the BOG would allow the
permittee an opportunity to hunt a day or two early or after the
season. He pointed out one of the difficulties is some of the
hunts are required to be guided hunts so the big game guide
needs to be available, which is generally before or after their
regular season.
1:46:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2, line 5, of HB 161,
which discusses conducting an auction or raffle. He wondered if
the language specifies that the raffle must be offered to the
public or can this can be limited to the membership of the
organization.
MR. VINCENT-LANG responded that the department would leave that
up to the organization and because the nature of the effort is
fundraising and most organizations will try to sell to the
broadest group possible to raise the most amount of revenue.
1:47:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to line page 2, line 19, of HB
161, which requires that funds "shall" be deposited in the fish
and game fund, except for the amount being withheld and used to
support conservation projects or education. He asked whether
the funds could be used for other purposes such as the fisheries
conservation program.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that the proceeds must be deposited
into the fish and game fund due to diversion issues; however, he
agreed that the proceeds could be used for any division.
Surely, he hoped the commitment would be that if a big game tag
is being auctioned off that the funds would be used to benefit
wildlife management across the state instead of a different
conservation program.
1:48:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether it would be acceptable for
the receiving organization to specifically use it for wildlife
conservation.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered yes. He indicated an acceptable
purpose would be to use funds for wildlife conservation.
1:49:10 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER referred to page 3, line 10, of HB 161, which
refers to the judgment of the department that the qualified
organization demonstrates support for the North American Model
of Wildlife Conservation. He inquired whether the department is
comfortable making that type of judgment or if it needs further
definition.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied he is very comfortable with making that
determination. He indicated the North American Model of
Wildlife Conservation really has been a model of wildlife
management that is a user-based pay system. He said it really
has led to the successful restoration of fish and game resources
across our nation and in Alaska. In fact, the division uses
this model to base its wildlife conservation program. Thus, he
is not only comfortable with the model, but he supports ensuring
that the model continues to be a basis for wildlife management
in the state. He predicted that if the state were to lose the
user-pay based system over time, the state would lose its
ability to have a vibrant conservation program across the state.
He understood several definitions exist and one consideration
the sponsor has contemplated is actually placing the specific
principles into statute; however, he feels comfortable making
those types of decisions on a daily base.
1:50:42 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER understood he bases his management practices on
the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, but there is
not any obligation for a new director to do the same.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered yes.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether there would be value in placing
the specific requirement in statutory definitions.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered yes.
1:51:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired whether the group would need to
have a [Department of Revenue] gaming license to auction off a
raffle.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered yes.
1:51:45 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER, drawing attention to page 2, line 19, of HB
161, asked for the current balance of the fish and game fund and
the typical use of the fund.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that the current balance of the
wildlife portion of the fish and game fund is from $3 to $4
million. The funds are used as matching funds for the Pittman-
Robertson fund, which is derived from federal taxes on gun
sales, ammunition, and gear used by hunters. The [fish and
game] fund is used to fund most of the wildlife stock
assessments and populations, as well as for research to inform
management and the Board of Game to ensure sustainability of
those populations. Additionally, the fund is used for outdoor
hunter education programs and to ensure hunter area aspects
important to the division. Basically, the fish and game fund is
used to match the Pittman-Robertson fund in Alaska.
1:53:02 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER inquired whether the division has expanded its
efforts for game management to watchable wildlife - in addition
to those that are hunted - and if so, how the division would
capture money from those persons.
MR. VINCENT-LANG responded that [watchable wildlife] has been
"on the books" for a long time. The Congress has tried to hone
in on the user group by taxing a wide-variety of outdoor gear
and other equipment. However, the department eventually gave up
on that aspect and instituted a program called the state
Wildlife Action Grants. This specific program examines species
not targeted by hunters to ensure they remain common in state.
However, the department faces some challenges in this approach
since it does not want to use [comingled] hunter dollars from
gear proceeds. He suggested several measures have considered
various ways to tax outdoor gear and binoculars; however, none
of those bills have passed. He said that making sure that
species that aren't hunted remain common and don't become
targets of the Endangered Species Act listings remains a
challenge for the state. He has worked to provide sufficient
funds to ensure that negative effects on the ability to hunt are
not encountered.
1:54:36 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE referred to page 2, line 2, of HB 161, noting
goat and elk have been added to the species. He asked whether
elk are found on other areas than Etolin Island.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that elk are also found on the north
side of Kodiak Island.
1:55:04 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE referred to AS 16.05.343 (d), to auctions and
raffles that are not changed under the bill, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
(d) Auctions and raffles of harvest permits
authorized under this section are not subject to AS
05.15.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE pointed out that AS 05.15 relates to games
of chance or skill. Thus he assumed the parties would not need
a gaming license.
MS. SYLVESTER said that Section 4 repeals subsection (b).
CO-CHAIR FEIGE clarified he was referring to subsection (d). He
said that subsection (b) speaks to the elk on Etolin Island.
1:56:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether this bill would repeal Etolin
Island. She asked whether the consolidation is actually already
being addressed.
1:57:15 PM
MS. SYLVESTER offered her belief that provision refers to the
gaming.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER restated the question, which is that AS
16.04.343 (b) refers to the Etolin Island hunt and
Representative Tarr's question is whether the sponsor intends to
eliminate that section of the bill.
1:57:40 PM
MS. SYLVESTER answered that the intention is not to repeal the
Etolin Island elk hunting program. She offered her belief that
Section 4 refers to whether the program is subject to the gaming
provisions. She deferred to Mr. Eddie Grasser to answer.
CO-CHAIR suggested that this be worked on over the legislative
interim.
1:58:13 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER opened public testimony on HB 161.
1:58:52 PM
CONRAD (CON) BUNDE stated he is testifying on his own behalf as
a long time Alaskan and hunter [Mr. Bunde previously served as
an Alaska State Senator]. He offered his support for the
committee substitute for HB 161. He said he was the original
author of the governor's tag bill, which he supported due to the
results of similar programs in other states. He explained that
in those states substantial amounts of money were generated for
fish and game management as well as for non-profits interested
in promoting outdoor sports hunting and fishing. It seemed like
a "win-win" to him since hunters of means or philanthropists are
willing to contribute a substantial amount of financial support
for their opportunities to hunt and fish in the U.S., in
particular, since this type of hunting is not available in many
other countries. He has been a member of number of these
organizations that support and promote wise use of wildlife
resources and hunting and fishing. These organizations are able
to generate additional hunting opportunities for the public as
well as funds to continue their activities through the raffle
process.
2:01:32 PM
MR. BUNDE mentioned one such organization, the Rocky Mountain
Elk Foundation, contributes tens of millions of dollars to
habitat restoration throughout the Lower 48. He mentioned a
number of other organizations feel an obligation to give back to
the state.
MR. BUNDE, after reviewing the proposed legislation and the
proposed committee substitute [not yet offered], had some
suggestions. He suggested that the proposed committee
substitute would generate even more money than in the past.
MR. BUNDE mentioned that the first Dall sheep governor's "tag"
that was sold generated over $250,000. The interest has not
been at that volume, since it was the first instance; however,
he has heard [anecdotally that interest in permits] would
increase if the proposed changes in HB 161 are adopted.
2:04:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that under HB 161, the
department could auction the permits or the ADF&G could choose
an organization to conduct the auction. He asked whether any
issues exist if the department offers an auction and retains the
entire proceeds to benefit the species. He further asked
whether the intention would be to have a selected organization
auction the permit or if it should be limited to the department.
MR. BUNDE said he supports the department to have options to
have an organization hold the auction for two reasons. One, not
all tags generate interest in a particular year. For example,
the Etolin elk hunt is a difficult hunt that would likely
generate little interest. The department may wish to offer the
auction based on receiving a percentage of the proceeds rather
than none. Two, based on his prior experience as a state
senator, it seemed that ADF&G would not have the time to conduct
an auction. Finally, he thought the department would act as "a
good neighbor" and "sitting" on the permits wouldn't be "a good
neighbor" if other interest existed.
2:07:44 PM
GARY STEVENS, Member, Board of Directors, Alaska Outdoor Council
(AOC), provided a brief background, including that he has been a
resident for over forty years, serves as a life member of the
National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Alaska Chapter of Wild
Sheep. He also holds memberships with other wildlife
organizations, including the Safari Club International (SCI).
He said the intent of HB 161 is good; however, he expressed
concern with the inclusion of the North American Model of
Wildlife Conservation's provision that "sound science" is
essential to managing fish and wildlife. While he believed that
"sound science" represents the ultimate goal in utilization of
managing Alaska's wildlife resources, he said the organization
does not believe that "sound science" is actually what currently
exists. In fact, some unintended consequences could occur by
placing that reference into statute, he also said.
2:09:05 PM
MR. STEVENS related other board members have expressed concern
on how this bill would affect trapping. He said that the large
scale commercial sale of wildlife or anatomical parts of
wildlife is discouraged to ensure the sustainability of wildlife
populations. He requested more time and information to research
and allow for more public input on the bill.
2:09:52 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether he was speaking formally for the
AOC.
MR. STEVENS answered yes.
2:10:05 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER indicated work on HB 161 during the legislative
interim will allow time for the public process and to have
discussions on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
and any issues it may raise.
2:10:26 PM
AL BARRETTE, Board Member, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated
he is representing himself today and is a life member of the
Alaska Trapper's Association. He described his involvement with
the fish and game process as being "highly involved." He
predicted that the bill, as written, would adversely affect his
family - that his family would become homeless - since it would
eliminate the "large scale sales of wildlife and their parts."
He advised members that his entire income revolves around
wildlife resources in Alaska. He expressed further concern that
under the bill he could not sell wild furs or possibly the sale
of skins, hides, capes, antlers, or horns. He maintained that
"sound science" is a matter of acoustics not wildlife
management. In fact, the state tries to achieve "sound science"
but the Board of Game and ADF&G must use the best science it
has.
2:11:49 PM
MR. BARRETTE questioned the ADF&G being able to issue an
additional four Dall sheep permits with a total of five permits
for Dall sheep and bison. He stated the AOC and residents have
spent many hours testifying and lobbying the Board of Game for
additional opportunities for residents to no avail. Further,
Dall sheep and bison are managed on a sustained-yield basis so
one additional permit doesn't always exist. According to the
ADF&G's drawing hunt supplement located on department's website,
currently half of the brown bear, Dall sheep, bison, musk ox,
and mountain goat permits have less than five permits issued.
He expressed concern that the bill would increase the total
permits to five. He offered his belief that people would need
to be involved in the Board of Game process in order to fully
understand the impact of issuing one extra permit for the
Chugach Dall sheep hunt. He predicted the bill would be highly
contentious since many resident hunters seek to hunt Dall sheep
in the Tok Management Area or bison in the Chitina Bison hunt.
He stated that these are highly sought out permits by Alaskans.
2:13:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for further clarification on his
comments about being prohibited from selling furs or antlers.
He asked whether his comments were general in nature or if he
was referring to the bill.
MR. BARRETTE referring to page 3, line 20, to subsection (c) of
the committee substitute for HB 161 [not in members' packets]
which relates to large scale commercial sale of wildlife part is
prohibited due to the sustained-yield principle.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER said Mr. Barrette is referring to a draft
version of the bill that has not been adopted and is not before
the committee. He indicated these issues will be discussed
during the legislative interim.
MR. BARRETTE apologized for referencing the draft document
[since the committee members do not yet have the draft committee
substitute (CS)].
2:14:37 PM
WAYNE HEIMER began by relating his previous experience,
including that he worked as a Dall sheep research and management
biologist with ADF&G for over 20 years. Additionally, he
previously has worked on federal and state issues for five
years, and served on the Wild Sheep Foundation board, which is
formerly known as the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep
for nine years.
2:15:41 PM
MR. HEIMER said he is familiar with how permits are obtained,
marketed, sold, and the types of people who buy them. He
suggested that the committee be very cautious about HB 161. He
offered his belief that intuitively it seems like the right
thing to do and the intentions are good. He expressed concerns
that he characterized as being in two categories, conceptual and
practical. Practically speaking, the assumption would be that
since the permitting system has worked well, that the department
could do even better if more permits occurred.
MR. HEIMER said he was unsure that what currently exists is "all
that broken." He considered the amount of money the Dall sheep
permit has generated since its inception with the federal
matching funds, which he said is about $7 million. He also
reviewed the fiscal note analysis and said the $1.7 million,
which includes the federal matching funds, comes almost
completely through sheep-associated outfits or the [fees from
hunting] sheep. One of the things that make an auction a good
auction is that two-bidders participate. Secondly, part of what
makes special permits sell is that it is special so hunters
anticipate as the buyers, they will have a special experience.
Thus, he questioned the notion that the revenue would be as high
for additional permits. He further questioned the reason there
are not any costs for this program and if the number of permits
is substantially increased why there will not be any costs to
the department. He concluded that just because the program has
worked well in the past does not mean it will continue to do so.
2:17:18 PM
MR. HEIMER highlighted the conceptual issues with HB 161.
First, he North American Wildlife model is expansive, since it
applies primarily to the U.S. and does not have much relevance
to Canada. He pointed out that Gifford Pinchot, Canada, worked
with President Teddy Roosevelt and "made it up." Second, it's a
set of principles which pertain to democracy and fairness;
however, he suggested that the relevant principles that are
important in Alaska are already in Alaska's Constitution and its
statutes. Third, some of the simple things that raise his
concern are wording changes, such as from "sustained yield" to
"sustained use." He explained that "sustained yield" comes down
to food for human food, but "sustained use" can be anything.
MR. HEIMER expressed concern about Section 1 of the bill. He
said if he were in Director Vincent-Lang's shoes that he would
love the idea of creating a special use fund and decide would be
spent on things of his interest if it the expenditures did not
relate to production of wildlife for harvest. Hunter Heritage
has been mentioned considerably through the discussion. Years
ago, when he first argued for the permit system, ADF&G was
opposed since it would make obligated funds. Subsequently, the
ADF&G has embraced it and now it seems that the concept has
evolved to the point that the department would like obligated
funds on a selected basis. He cautioned that it seems like
"special interest legislation, which makes him a little nervous.
2:19:50 PM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
explained the AOC is an umbrella organization with 49 clubs
statewide and approximately 9,000 members. He said in his
capacity as executive director that he has had many
opportunities to speak to sportsmen throughout the state and his
comments are based on that interaction. First, fish and game
enforcement is extremely important and this bill would undermine
fish and game enforcement. The Alaska State Troopers have a
volunteer enforcement program called the "Fish and Wildlife
Safeguard Program" that operates similar to the "Crime Stoppers"
program. He offered his belief that this program needs to be
"nurtured not murdered." He said the Fish and Wildlife
Safeguard program has been dormant for some time, but the AOC
has been working jointly with individuals to rejuvenate it.
2:20:59 PM
MR. ARNO said, secondly, that this legislation is an opportunity
for the legislature to strengthen the accounting, transparency,
and controls. He said that it is critical to be able to tell
Alaskans where the money is being spent. The AOC has auctioned
off permits, including Delta bison permits and in fact, an
auction is currently underway. He understood the funds would be
directed to the Fish and Wildlife Safeguard program; however, he
questioned the accountability that the money was directed to the
enforcement via the Fish and Wildlife Safeguard Program.
Meanwhile, the AOC has not spent its portion of the raffle
proceeds since it would like to see the funds go to the Fish and
Wildlife Safeguard program. He hopes that the legislature will
rejuvenate the program. He concluded that the department needs
to be held strongly to reporting systems.
2:22:42 PM
MR. ARNO outlined his third concern, which is that the
principles of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
have not been put into any states' statutes, as far as he knows,
since these principles evolve over time. The points in the
committee substitute, not yet before the committee, are not the
definitive principles from the North American Model for Wildlife
Conservation. He reported his belief that the Wildlife Society
- an organization of professional wildlife personnel in the U.S.
- and the Boone & Crockett [Club] worked together in 2006 to
develop the seven points of the North American Model of Wildlife
Conservation.
2:23:54 PM
MR. ARNO said this [model] has nothing to do with fish; it has
to do with trophy hunting of big game. He cautioned against
picking out certain pieces and defining it as the model. The
proposed bill directs the department to follow the North
American Model of Wildlife Conservation; however, he did not
believe a "definitive" of the model exists. He highlighted that
the proposed committee substitute, not yet before the committee,
is quite different from the North American Model of Wildlife
Conservation. He indicated that the AOC has a willingness to
work with the sponsor of HB 161 during the legislative interim.
Finally, he questioned giving away Alaska's very high quality
wildlife resource that the public wants, which is a big issue.
In fact, at last year's Board of Game meeting, 24 proposals were
on the agenda to limit the opportunity for non-residents to hunt
Dall sheep or that would give residents a head-start on hunting.
He understood the director basically decides who will get the
permits. He highlighted that the department would be giving
away a public resource which Alaskans would like to have an
opportunity to hunt, with little accountability, at a time when
the harvestable surplus is about half what it has historically
been.
2:25:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled previous testimony that indicated
if the department auctions off four times the number of permits,
the value may go down. He asked for comments on that statement.
MR. ARNO responded that most of the tags have been awarded to
the Wild Sheep Foundation or Safari Club International, which
are national and international trophy hunting organizations. He
said a lot of trophy mounts are on display at these
organization's banquets whereas the AOC is comprised of "meat"
hunters. Therefore, when the AOC raffles off its permits,
people pay between $5-20, which is a limited group, whereas the
national organizations have a demand. He surmised the five tags
would draw a lot of money for the fish and game fund.
2:27:10 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE posited that Mr. Arno is saying on one hand not
to give away as many permits since it will take away the
public's use, but on the other hand the permits will raise more
money for fish and game programs in Alaska by auctioning off the
permits to outside groups.
MR. ARNO replied that what the co-chair said pretty much targets
his concern with this legislation. He offered his belief that
one aspect is the fish and game fund will need additional
funding to match the Pittman-Robertson fund to obtain funds for
the state. He said this bill is trying to find another funding
source for the fish and game fund, which is good; however, the
AOC wants accountability. His constituency needs to know the
five sheep are being auctioned for a very good reason, which is
to obtain matching federal funds so the department can research
the science that allows for intensive management to result in a
greater harvestable surplus.
2:29:23 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether he would be advocating for a
reserved bid on permits.
MR. ARNO answered that is a good possibility and something the
AOC would be interested in considering pursuing.
2:29:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the AOC has 40 organizations
under its umbrella.
MR. ARNO answered that is correct. For example, the
organization in Juneau would be the Territorial Sportsmen and in
Fairbanks, the Tanana Valley Sports Association and the Outdoor
Access Club. He did not believe any of their members are out-
of-state members, noting the members are all residents.
2:30:38 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER held public testimony open on HB 161.
2:31:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS stated that Mr. Arno [AOC] and Mr. Grasser
[SCI] both reside in the Matanuska-Susitna valley and Mr. Arno
is her constituent. She reiterated that the intent of the bill
is to be able to fund [the fish and game fund]. She agreed the
funding mechanism is important and noted the valid point
regarding accountability. She offered to continue to work on HB
161 during the legislative interim.
2:32:23 PM
[HB 161 was held over.]
2:32:34 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 161 Auction Application.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 Auction Call for Proposals.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 Auction Permits Overview.xps |
HRES 4/10/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 Version U.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 Fiscal Note - DFG.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 LOHCAC Letter.pdf |
HRES 4/10/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
| HB161 J. Hall Email.xps |
HRES 4/10/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |