Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
03/10/2025 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB97 | |
| SB108 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 10, 2025
3:30 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Matt Claman
Senator Forrest Dunbar
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Robert Myers
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 97
"An Act establishing a big game guide concession area permit
program on land in the state; relating to the duties of the Big
Game Commercial Services Board, the Board of Game, the
Department of Fish and Game, and the Department of Natural
Resources; requiring the Board of Game to establish an initial
big game guide concession area; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 108
"An Act relating to finfish farms and finfish farm products; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 97
SHORT TITLE: BIG GAME PERMIT PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
02/12/25 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/25 (S) RES, FIN
02/28/25 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/28/25 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/05/25 (S) PRIME SPONSOR CHANGED - SENATE
RESOURCES COMMITTEE
03/05/25 (S) REPLACED SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
03/10/25 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 108
SHORT TITLE: FINFISH FARMS AND PRODUCTS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/24/25 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/25 (S) RES, FIN
03/10/25 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
INTIMAYO HARBISON, Staff
Senator Cathy Giessel
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented SB 97 on behalf of the sponsor.
EMMA TORKELSON, Staff
Senator Robert Kaufman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented SB 97.
SONJA KAWASAKI, Legal Counsel
Senate Majority Caucus
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 97.
JASON BUNCH, Outgoing Chair
Alaska Big Game Commercial Services Board (BGCSB)
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony in support of SB 97.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 97.
AARON BLOOMQUIST, Chairman
Big Game Commercial Services Board
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 97.
MARK RICHARDS, Executive Director
Resident Hunters of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 97.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 108 sponsored by the Rules
Committee by request of the governor.
Joseph Felkl, Legislative Liaison
Commissioner's Office
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 108.
JOHNNY FISHMONGER, Executive Director
Wild Salmon Nation
King Salmon, Alaska
Testified in opposition to SB 108
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 108.
JILL WEITZ, Government Affairs Liaison
Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 108.
MELANIE BROWN, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 108.
ADAM CUTHRIELL, representing self
Girdwood, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 108.
SUSAN GEORGINA STEVENS, representing self
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 108.
MATTHEW JONES, representing self
Save Our Salmon
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 108.
NORMAN PILLEN, President
Seafood Producers Cooperative
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 108.
JUDITH PHILLIPS, representing self
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 108.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:10 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Myers, Kawasaki, Dunbar, Hughes, Wielechowski and Chair
Giessel. Senator Claman arrived shortly thereafter.
SB 97-BIG GAME PERMIT PROGRAM
3:30:55 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 97
"An Act establishing a big game guide concession area permit
program on land in the state; relating to the duties of the Big
Game Commercial Services Board, the Board of Game, the
Department of Fish and Game, and the Department of Natural
Resources; requiring the Board of Game to establish an initial
big game guide concession area; and providing for an effective
date."
3:31:30 PM
INTIMAYO HARBISON, Staff, Senator Cathy Giessel, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, co-presented SB 97 on behalf of the
sponsor. He invited Emma Torkelson to introduce SB 97.
3:31:41 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN arrived.
3:32:04 PM
EMMA TORKELSON, Staff, Senator Robert Kaufman, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, co-presented SB 97, formerly
offered by Senator Kaufman [as Senate Bill 189]. She explained
that SB 97 addressed long-standing problems for commercial big-
game hunting guides operating on Alaska state land. After a
state-run system was struck down in 1988, a federal guide
concession program was instituted, leaving state lands without a
guide concession program. She said this led to overcrowding and
competition in certain areas that harmed guides, clients,
businesses, and wildlife resources. SB 97, first passed [as
Senate Bill 189] in 2024, created a guide concession program for
one problem area on state land, with the option to expand later.
She said the program functions like a lease, limiting the number
of guide permits in a defined area and using competitive
selection, term limits, transfer rules, enforcement provisions,
and equitable fees.
3:34:16 PM
MS. TORKELSON said the guide concession program was designed to
meet Alaska Supreme Court requirements, mirrored the successful
federal model, and incorporated recommendations from the 2023
guide concessions work group. She deferred technical questions
to Jason Bunch, the work group's chair.
3:35:05 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked for confirmation that SB 97 was identical
to Senate Bill 189, passed in 2024.
3:35:12 PM
MS. TORKELSON affirmed that SB 97 was identical to Senate Bill
189.
3:35:16 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked for an explanation of the need for the
committee to hear SB 97/Senate Bill 189 again.
3:35:25 PM
MS. TORKELSON deferred to Ms. Kawasaki.
3:35:50 PM
SONJA KAWASAKI, Legal Counsel, Senate Majority Caucus, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said SB 97 would reenact
parts of Senate Bill 189 that created the big game concession
area permit program. She said SB 97 was intended as a technical
fix to ensure the program remained valid because Senate Bill 189
was being challenged in court for allegedly violating Alaska's
constitutional single-subject rule. By reenacting the relevant
provisions of Senate Bill 189 separately, the big game
concession area permit program would stand on its own and could
potentially render the lawsuit moot. She said the lawsuit was
filed in November 2024, the state responded in January 2025, and
the next step was a trial-setting conference scheduled for May
12, 2025.
3:37:39 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL clarified that SENATE BILL 189 contained the [Big
Game Guide] concession and it also contained the renewal of
three regulatory boards, and legislation regarding child care.
Consequently, the assertion was made that SENATE BILL 189
violated the single subject law [in Alaska's constitution]. She
said this was why SB 97 was before the committee.
3:38:09 PM
SENATOR MYERS noted the previous concession program was
invalidated by the Supreme Court in [1988]. He asked why that
program was invalidated and why the program put forth in SB 97
was constitutional.
3:38:37 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted possible expert resources available online.
3:39:08 PM
MS. KAWASAKI said she was not familiar with the prior
legislation that was alleged to be in violation of the [state]
constitution. She offered to report back to the committee.
3:39:33 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL suggested that forthcoming testimony may provide
answers.
3:39:43 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced invited testimony on SB 97.
3:40:09 PM
JASON BUNCH, Outgoing Chair, Alaska Big Game Commercial Services
Board (BGCSB), Kodiak, Alaska, gave invited testimony in support
of SB 97. He explained the Big Game Commercial Services Board
long lacked a tool to manage the number of guides in specific
areas of Alaska, unlike federal land managers who successfully
used concession systems for decades. He said the work group
included state agency representatives, guides, and a public
member. They held 16 public meetings and developed the
concession program enacted in Senate Bill 189 and presented
again in SB 97. He acknowledged the working group's
unintentional oversight - that they did not consult with large
neighboring private landowners.
MR. BUNCH said the working group designed the big game
concession guide program to comply with the [1988] Owsichek
ruling and is confident the program itself is defensible.
However, he said the current law was vulnerable due to the
ongoing Eastman single-subject litigation. Because of that legal
uncertainty, the [Big Game Commercial Services Board] determined
they could not responsibly proceed without passing SB 97 to
solidify the program. He urged the committee to pass SB 97 as
written, emphasizing the extensive collaboration behind it.
3:42:35 PM
SENATOR MYERS reiterated his question. He noted the Alaska
Supreme Court 1988 decision to invalidate the previous iteration
of the big game guide concession program and asked why the
earlier program was invalidated and why the [Big Game Commercial
Services Board working group] found the program provided by SB
97 was different and why they expected it to survive court
scrutiny.
3:42:58 PM
MR. BUNCH said the previous program was challenged in the
supreme court and failed the tests of common use and equal
access. He said the case highlighted that concessions were
constitutional and legal if done under the lease authorities of
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) with equal opportunity. He
said the working group endeavored to address and correct
features of the program according to the weaknesses revealed in
the Owischek decision.
3:44:17 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL requested ADF&G Commissioner Vincent-Lang to come
forward to answer questions on SB 97.
3:44:34 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted reports that the sheep population in Alaska
was declining. She asked how a guide concession program would
affect those populations.
3:44:54 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), Juneau, Alaska, affirmed that sheep populations
were challenged across the state and there were limited hunting
opportunities. He said SB 97 would give regulators a tool to
limit the number of guides operating in a given area. He noted
that the number of guides operating on federal land were limited
and the only open-entry [hunting] areas were on state land. As a
result, highly used areas like 19C have heavy use with many
guides. He said limiting the number of guides would limit non-
resident hunting in the area and allow more opportunity for
residents. He said this could also be done by instituting
drawing permits.
3:45:42 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked why the state did not just use draw permits.
3:45:49 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG noted that some hunters needed a guide
to hunt sheep. He said using draw permits without a limited-
entry program for guides would still result in an uncompetitive
number of guides in the area. He said there could be a
combination of [draw permits and limited-entry guides] but
limiting guides would be necessary to reduce the competition for
resident hunters.
3:46:19 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked whether limiting the number of permits would
limit the number of guides.
3:46:31 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said resident and non-resident hunters
often need guides to hunt sheep and limiting the number of
guides would reduce the hunting competition.
3:47:11 PM
SENATOR MYERS noted that SB 97 did not specify sheep. He asked
whether it would apply to moose, caribou, black bear, grizzly
bear, etc.
3:47:34 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG affirmed that [similar legislation]
was used currently on federal lands on Kodiak Island. He said
there were still questions about how many permits should go to
non-resident hunters, but [hunting pressure] could still be
managed [effectively] by limiting the number of guides in the
landscape. He emphasized that guide programs enhance the guides'
sense of stewardship for the resource. He said the only areas
currently open for guiding were state lands.
3:48:20 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked how the federal guiding programs that
limited guides had affected the price for guiding services in
those program areas.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG deferred the question to the Big Game
Commercial Services Board.
3:48:42 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said the Owischek decision determined
that the state could not grant long-term, non-competitive leases
to individuals. Previously, guide areas were being issued and
sold without competition. SB 97 would restore the earlier,
successful structure but make it compliant by requiring
competitive allocation and limiting permit duration to 10-year
terms, after which guides must reapply, ensuring privileges are
not permanent and remain consistent with Owischek criteria.
3:49:29 PM
SENATOR MYERS said he would like to learn how programs limiting
the number of guides affected the cost of guide services.
3:49:46 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said the chair of the Big Game Commercial Services
Board would be testifying.
3:49:53 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL concluded invited testimony on SB 97.
3:50:00 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony on SB 97.
3:50:29 PM
Insufficient audio connection.
3:51:11 PM
AARON BLOOMQUIST, Chairman, Big Game Commercial Services Board,
Palmer, Alaska, introduced himself and testified in support of
SB 97. He said the Big Game Commercial Services Board and the
Board of Game long sought a state-land guide concession program,
and they were pleased to see progress. He said the Big Game
Commercial Services Board had no effective tools to reduce guide
conflict without harming the small businesses. He reported that
conflict among guides was especially high on state lands without
concessions, and drawing permits did not resolve these issues.
He said, in some areas, they worsen conflict, for example in
Units 14C, 13D, and on the Kodiak road system. He opined that
the problem wasn't too many guides overall because the industry
shrank by about one-third since 2005 due to retirements and
tougher entry requirements, high-quality areas still generate
heavy competition and conflict. He praised SB 97 for its
extensive public input and expert involvement, expressing
confidence that it would provide an effective, balanced
solution.
3:54:23 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked whether the prices for and quality of guide
services was affected by guide concession programs.
3:54:53 PM
MR. BLOOMQUIST explained that in sheep hunting, his area of
expertise, clients preferred guides who held federal concessions
because they associated them with higher-quality, conflict-free
hunts. He said prices were not always higher, but concessions
provided a strong marketing advantage. He said many hunters
viewed federal concessions in Alaska or exclusive concessions in
Canada as the best options, since those systems guaranteed
exclusive operating areas. As a result, he said having a
concession offered a clear business and marketing benefit for
guides.
3:56:18 PM
SENATOR MYERS noted that when legislation granted a monopoly,
for example in the case of a utility, there would be heavy
regulation of the prices. He asked whether similar price
controls were intended to be included in SB 97, like other
economic monopolies in the state.
3:57:08 PM
MR. BLOOMQUIST argued that guide concessions would not create a
monopoly, noting that Alaska had 220250 registered guides, each
operating as an independent business. He said about half already
worked in exclusive federal concessions, where competition
remained strong and market forces controlled pricing. He
emphasized that recent price increases, such as the 3040
percent rise in sheep hunt prices after severe winters in 2019
2020, were driven by supply and demand across North America, not
by concessions. He maintained that the industry would remain
market driven and would not require price controls.
3:58:32 PM
SENATOR MYERS noted recent concern over transferability of
exclusive fishing licenses, suggesting that a power imbalance
and unequal access resulted. He asked whether transferability
provisions of SB 97 were likely to be problematic.
3:59:13 PM
MR. BLOOMQUIST compared transferability rules across agencies.
He said National Park Service concessions could generally be
bought and sold if the buyer was a qualified, licensed guide.
Fish and Wildlife Service concessions were also transferable but
only after the holder operated them for more than a decade. He
noted concerns that transferable rights in commercial fisheries
were sometimes sold out of state, but emphasized that in guiding
most federal concessions, about 89 percent in past analyses,
were owned by Alaskans, partly because running remote operations
from outside the state was difficult. He argued that allowing
transferability in guide concessions would help maintain long-
term, family-run businesses.
4:01:38 PM
SENATOR MYERS raised a concern about the "power of the default"
regarding the 10-year permit system proposed by SB 97. He
acknowledged that permits couldn't be renewed without a new
open, competitive process, but wondered whether incumbents might
retain their permits simply because no one challenged them. He
noted that a lack of competing applications or limited public
comment, unless a major violation occurred, could allow the
existing permit holder to keep the concession by default,
potentially enabling an informal "good old boy" dynamic.
4:02:36 PM
MR. BLOOMQUIST noted similar provisions in the federal programs.
He said the National Park Service offered operators an "earned
renewal" option that allowed them to match a competing proposal.
He said this reflected the Park Service's preference for long-
term operators who met performance standards. In contrast, he
said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concessions often
changed hands and said a recent reallocation allowed many new
entrants to successfully gain areas. He noted that SB 97
included provisions that support opportunities for new entrants
and allowed applicants to demonstrate they can provide better
stewardship. He observed that the details of the program were
yet to be crafted and emphasized that periodic competition for
state lands and wildlife, both public trust resources, ensured
that the best-qualified operators were selected.
4:05:15 PM
MARK RICHARDS, Executive Director, Resident Hunters of Alaska,
Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 97. He said SB
97 attempted to limit guide numbers on state lands and address a
long-standing problem that has caused conflicts among hunters
and biological strain on wildlife. He noted that warnings about
overcrowding date back at least 17 years but said neither the
Big Game Commercial Services Board nor the Board of Game had
taken meaningful action. Instead, he said both boards relied
solely on a guide concession program as the solution and have
refused to limit either guides or nonresident hunters. He argued
that the real issue was the Board of Game allowing unlimited
opportunities for nonresident hunters who must hire guides,
which in turn drives up guide numbers. He criticized the Big
Game Commercial Services Board for continuing to test and add
new guides despite known problems, and for refusing to restrict
guides to fewer guide use areas, which, he argued, could have
been done decades ago after the Owsichek decision. He claimed SB
97 had serious flaws, which he said must be fixed:
• DNR should not regulate guides.
• The transferability clause was illegal because the Owsichek
decision prohibited treating exclusive guide areas as private
property that can be sold.
• A change inherited from Senate Bill 253 would allow guides to
hold three regular guide use areas plus three concession
areas.
MR. RICHARDS concluded by expressing deep frustration with
apparent inaction and urged meaningful changes.
4:10:16 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL closed public testimony on SB 97.
4:10:35 PM
MR. HARBISON summarized the sectional analysis for SB 97.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sectional Analysis SB 97
"An Act establishing a big game guide concession area
permit program on land in the state; relating to the
duties of the Big Game Commercial Services Board, the
Board of Game, the Department of Fish and Game, and
the Department of Natural Resources; requiring the
Board of Game to establish an initial big game guide
concession area; and providing for an effective date"
Section 1: Amends the duties of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board (BGCSB) in AS 08.54.600(a)
to authorize their role in the establishment of big
game guide concession areas.
4:10:55 PM
MR. HARBISON continued to summarize the sectional analysis for
SB 97:
Section 2: Creates new section AS 16.05.262 empowering
the Board of Game (BOG) to oversee the process of
determining which game management units or subunits
will adopt a big game guide concession area permit
program.
Requires a proposal be first submitted to the BOG
nominating a game management unit or subunit for the
guide concession program. After a public comment
period, the BOG in consultation with the BGCSB,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Department
of Fish and Game (DF&G), may approve that proposal.
Their approval process must take into consideration
that establishing the area supports the conservation
and management of the state's land and big game
resources, aides the enforcement of big game hunting
laws, and is in the public interest. If the BOG
approves an application, they will determine the
number of full and limited concession area permits
that will be granted in a given big game guide
concession area.
Further, section 2 prohibits the combination of more
than three existing guide use areas into a single big
game guide concession area and includes definition
references.
4:11:12 PM
MR. HARBISON continued to summarize the sectional analysis for
SB 97:
Section 3: Creates new section AS 38.05.022 empowering
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to
administer the implementation of the big game guide
concession area permit program on land approved by the
BOG.
Outlines that the overarching goals of the guide
concession program are to encourage long-term minded
conservation, enhance customer experience, reduce user
conflicts, and ensure responsible, professional,
economically guiding industry.
Establishes the features of the guide concession
program permits:
1. All permits are awarded an open, public, and
competitive process.
2. A guide may not hold more than three concession
permits at a time.
3. Permits are valid for 10 years.
4. Permits may not be extended or renewed without the
same open, public, and competitive process.
5. Permits may be transferred to another individual
based on conditions set in regulation that are
consistent with the overarching goals of the guide
concession program.
6. If the terms of statute or regulation are violated,
permit may be suspended or revoked after the permit
holder has been given written notice and
opportunity to be heard.
Section 3 further empowers the DNR, in consultation
with the BOG, DF&G, and BGCSB, to adopt the necessary
regulations including the qualifications for full and
limited concession permits, process for issuing the
permits, and the collection of fees; grants DNR or
their designee the authority to enforce the terms of
this program; allows DNR to keep confidential any
proprietary, commercial, and financial information
provided by concession permit applicants; and includes
definitions.
4:11:31 PM
MR. HARBISON continued to summarize the sectional analysis for
SB 97:
Section 4, Uncodified Law: In order to establish the
first big game guide concession area and permit
program, the BOG will select one game management unit
or subunit that would most benefit from the
implementation of the guide concession program.
Section 5, Uncodified Law: Transitional language
allowing the guide concession program to extend to new
game management units and subunits after the first one
has been implemented for at least three (3) years.
Section 6: Sets an immediate effective date.
4:12:41 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL held SB 97 in committee.
SB 108-FINFISH FARMS AND PRODUCTS
4:12:50 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 108
"An Act relating to finfish farms and finfish farm products; and
providing for an effective date."
4:13:34 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), Juneau, Alaska, presented SB 108, sponsored by the
Rules Committee by request of the governor.
4:13:45 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to and narrated slide 2:
[Original punctuation provided.]
History of Finfish Farming in Alaska
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, salmon farming in
other parts of the world was done almost exclusively
offshore in large net pens.
Given Alaska's strong wild salmon stocks, concerns
were raised over farmed salmon competing for market
share with wild salmon fisheries.
In 1990, the Alaska Legislature preemptively passed a
ban on commercial salmon and other finfish farming
under AS 16.40.210.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG noted that this ban was the reason
salmon was not included in SB 108.
[Slide 2 includes a photo with the caption: A
pioneering Norwegian fish farm in 1972/Wikimedia
Commons]
4:14:31 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to and narrated slide 3. He said
the main advantage of on-shore aquaculture was isolation from
wild stocks. He said Norway was the global leader in farmed fish
technology and production and that the industry was growing
rapidly. He said there were already many on-shore fish farms
under consideration, under construction or already producing in
the United States:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Present Day &
New Technology
Today, technology has rapidly advanced to the point
where companies are now raising and harvesting
commercial quantities of fish in large shore-based
facilities.
Fish farms moving onshore
Land-based fish farming offers many benefits to both
the fish and the environment. In traditional offshore
farms, the fish are vulnerable to sea lice infestation
and infectious diseases. Modern land-based aquaculture
systems are able to offer local fish products in
landlocked countries.
Article published on Phys.org
The Future of Aquaculture: How Sustainable Fish
Farming is Transforming the Seafood Industry
August 26, 2024
Article published on Global Seafoods North America
Analytics, genetics tech chart new direction for
aquaculture
February 16, 2022 By Nestor Arellano
Article published on Aquaculture North America
4:15:17 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to and narrated slide 4. He said
the system on the slide provided continuously recircled and
filtered water within the facility, reducing water usage and
minimizing discharge. He said the technology allowed for precise
control over the water quality parameters, providing optimal
conditions for fish growth:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Present Day &
New Technology
Technological advancements are transforming onshore
fish farming into a more efficient, sustainable, and
humane industry.
[Slide 4 includes a conceptual diagram and description
of: Digital Twin, a breakthrough for intensive
aquaculture, by Davide Ciravolo - April 24, 2024 in
Innovation News]
Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS)
Advanced Sensor Technologies
Digital Twin Technology
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG explained that Digital Twin systems
and advanced fish-monitoring sensors enabled real-time oversight
of fish farms, early detection of health issues, and more
efficient operations. He said these technologies could create
new opportunities for Alaska.
4:16:38 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to and narrated slide 5:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Overview of SB 108
What does the bill do?
• Authorizes onshore farming of non-salmon finfish in
approved land-based facilities in Alaska
• Limited to inland, closed-system water body enclosed
within a natural or artificial escape-proof barrier
• Allows for a wide range of possible farming
opportunities for different fish species such as
trout, char, and grayling
• ADF&G Commissioner has the authority to determine
what finfish can and cannot be farmed in Alaska and
may add additional permitting restrictions for
certain species
[Slide 5 includes a photo with the caption: Indoor
fish farm facility. Credit: Shutterstock/Anirut
Krisanakul]
4:17:19 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to and narrated slide 6:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 108 Additional Safeguards
• Offshore fish farming will continue to be banned to
prevent any potential impacts on Alaska's wild fish
and fisheries
• All fish kept at or sold from a finfish farm must be
triploid (sterile)
• Fish farming activities must meet all existing
policies, including Fish Transport Permits and Fish
Health policies
• Facilities and products are subject to Department of
Environmental Conservation regulations and
permitting
[Slide 6 includes photos with the caption: Icy Waters
Arctic Charr Fish Farm in Whitehorse. Pictures
courtesy of DCCED Deputy Commissioner Anna Latham]
4:18:00 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to and narrated slide 7:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Benefits of Finfish Farming
• Food Security: continuation of Alaska's efforts to
enhance food security for residents.
• Fishing Opportunity: stocking activities would
encourage Alaskans to engage in additional
recreational fishing.
• Economic Growth: introduces a new industry to
Alaska, creating jobs and diversifying our economy.
[Slide 7 includes a photo with the caption: Icy Waters
Arctic Charr Fish Farm in Whitehorse. Pictures
courtesy of DCCED Deputy Commissioner Anna Latham]
4:18:47 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to and narrated slide 8:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Considerations
Some Alaskans have reservations about farmed fish, a
perspective rooted in our culture
• Farmed fish products are increasing outside of
Alaska, presenting a challenge to our fisheries
• The key question is whether we choose to engage this
development or continue to overlook these products
that already exist in Alaska's markets
• If we address this issue, we must do so thoughtfully
and safely in a manner that ensures Alaska's wild
stock fisheries remain viable in the marketplace
• This legislation is a starting point to begin these
discussions
[Slide 8 includes a photo with the caption: Icy Waters
Arctic Charr Fish Farm in Whitehorse. Pictures
courtesy of DCCED Deputy Commissioner Anna Latham]
4:19:46 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to slide 9, Questions?,
concluding the presentation on SB 108. Before taking questions,
he emphasized that Alaska already practiced forms of aquatic
farming like fish farming and had the expertise to expand. He
said the current cost to produce hatchery rainbow trout was
about $4.50 each, but current laws prevented exploring fish
farming's feasibility. He advocated for lifting the ban and
allowing Alaska to assess viable species and methods,
participate in a growing multibillion-dollar industry, boost
food security, and support the economy while protecting wild
fish.
4:21:02 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked to return to slide 7. He noted confusion
about terminology and said earlier legislation used the term
"salmon" legally applied to all salmonids, including trout and
char. He noted that SB 108 also banned farming of "salmon," yet
the presentation featured an Arctic char farm in Whitehorse. He
asked whether char was considered a salmonid under SB 108,
whether the ban was intended to include char, and why a char
farm was highlightedwhether because char was biologically a
salmonid or simply because char farming was more practical in
the Yukon Territory.
4:22:56 PM
Joseph Felkl, Legislative Liaison, Commissioner's Office, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Juneau, Alaska, answered
that salmon would normally be included among bony fish species.
He emphasized that Pink Salmon, Chum salmon, Sockeye salmon,
Coho salmon, Chinook salmon or Atlantic salmon were all excluded
by statute, [AS 16.40.230 (1)].
4:23:35 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked whether the photo [slide 7] of a char was
an Atlantic salmon.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that it was not.
4:23:43 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR said it was his understanding that char farming
was closely related to salmon farming and asked whether char
farming would be allowed by SB 108.
4:23:49 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said it would up to the [Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)] commissioner to determine
whether char farming would be permitted.
4:24:05 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted all pictures were indoors. He asked
whether SB 108 would also apply to ponds, rivers, etc. that
don't connect to salmon bearing streams.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG affirmed that the facility would have
to be enclosed and unavailable to connect to an anadromous
waterway.
4:24:39 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said it would be possible for a
hydroponic facility with an adjacent pond to use the pond [for
fish farming] as long as [the pond] was enclosed.
4:24:49 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed concern and pointed to numerous
examples of ecological harm from invasive or escaped species in
U.S. waters, such as sea lampreys and Asian carp in the Great
Lakes and escaped farmed rainbow trout from net-pen aquaculture
in Lake Huron competing with wild trout. He questioned the
reliability of using sterile triploid fish in aquaculture,
noting studies showing that triploids were not always 100
percent sterile and that some had successfully reproduced.
4:25:44 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG acknowledged instances of tilapia or
catfish escaping and reproducing. He said, as commissioner, he
would exercise extreme caution about allowing [tilapia and
catfish] in outdoor ponds in Alaska.
4:26:02 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted mention of tilapia by the governor
and expressed concern about reports of parasites and disease
that could potentially pose a risk to native species. He also
mentioned that antibiotics were used to treat [tilapia]. He
asked whether SB 108 addressed the use of antibiotics for farmed
fish.
4:26:34 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said there was not anything [about
antibiotics in SB 108. He emphasized that any fish sold would
have to be certified healthy by the Department of Environmental
Conservation. He recounted an example of an aquaponics operator
in the Mat-Su Valley who was allowed to keep tilapia in a fully
enclosed Conex system but was prohibited from selling them. He
explained that, even in highly secure indoor facilities with
minimal escape risk, regulations restrict the sale of fish.
4:27:36 PM
SENATOR MYERS noted the mention of farmed fish currently being
sold in Alaska stores. He asked which species were coming in to
the state to be sold and whether an annual estimate of the value
of those sales was available.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said he did not have a list of the
species coming in to the state for sale but had seen a video by
the governor which mentioned several. He said the question was
whether the preference was to continue importing fish to Alaska
or grow them in state. He said he did not know the value of the
market.
4:28:31 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked about the value of shellfish sold in Alaska
and what percentage of the shellfish sold in the state was
farmed in-state.
4:28:54 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said he did not know but would provide
the percentage and value of in-state shellfish to the committee.
4:28:58 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR argued that while SB 108 specifically [banned
salmonids from farming], many other fish that resemble salmon
would still be allowed. He suggested that if the intent was to
prevent farming of salmon or salmon-like species, it may need a
broader exception or ban like the legislation passed in 2024.
4:29:49 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG observed a quandary - that Alaska's
fish-growing experience was mostly with salmon and trout through
sport-fish hatchery programs, but other species that pose less
environmental risklike catfish or tilapiawould likely be grown
in enclosed hydroponic systems, where escapees wouldn't survive
or reproduce. However, Alaska had little experience with these
species, and it was unclear whether raising them would be
economically viable. He emphasized that the bans prevented
testing economic feasibility. He said SB 108 would simply create
an opportunity for Alaskans to try. He advocated for safe,
contained aquaculture and opposition to offshore fish farming,
and noted that salmon farming remained excluded to avoid
competition with wild salmon, while farming trout would be
allowed because Alaska already had experience raising them and
they were available in the market.
4:31:29 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI observed that there were almost 29,000 species
in the Osteichthyes class of finfish. He asked how ADF&G would
examine requests for a particular species in relation to where
it would be contained, for example in a lake or in a private
holding situation.
4:32:01 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG explained that regulators would treat
farmed fish similarly to how they evaluate fish stocked in
private ponds under the fish transport permit (FTP) process:
they assess whether fish could escape, require triploid
(sterile) fish if there is any risk, and block permits if fish
show signs of disease. He said species like tilapia wouldn't
survive in Alaska outdoors and would need indoor hydroponic
systems. He said the viability of growing such species depended
on energy, feed, and labor costs.
4:32:58 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that SB 108 specified that all finfish
acquired, purchased, offered to purchase, transferred, or
possessed would be triploid. He asked for clarification.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG concurred that SB 108 required that
all species be triploid. He said he was referring to legislation
passed in 2024 that allowed residents to keep fish in a private
pond for their own purposes. He emphasized that they would not
be able to sell those fish but could have them for food
security.
4:33:33 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how regulators would determine whether a
site had adequate positive control or natural or artificial
barriers to prevent fish escapes. He raised the example of lakes
in flood zones, noting that species such as pike likely spread
during flooding. He asked how regulations would address
situations where flooding could connect isolated waters to
rivers and allow fish to escape.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said escape prevention would likely
mirror the containment methods used for sewage treatment ponds:
engineered dike systems with double barriers so that if one
fails, another remains. He emphasized that SB 108 was not
intended to threaten wild fisheries or compete with Alaska's
wild seafood industry. He suggested that effective containment
designs, drawn from water-treatment facilities and fish farming
facilities in other countries, would guide permitting decisions.
He said he expected most new operations to begin as enclosed
hydroponic systems.
4:34:57 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether the administration would be
amenable to establishing sideboards that specifically define and
address positive control.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said SB 108 was intended to open the
discussion [about finfish farming in Alaska]. He said the
administration would certainly welcome any insights or thoughts.
4:35:19 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that there was a current steelhead
population in Alaska and that steelhead were known to mix
interspecies with other types of trout. He asked how that would
be prevented and noted the value of preserving the natural
steelhead population.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG concurred. He noted that steelhead in
Alaska likely escaped from farm pens in river systems or
offshore, which were not supported by SB 108. He explained that
growing steelhead to a catchable size in Alaska required heated
water and likely an indoor environment. He suggested that
offshore farming could significantly reduce costs for a
statewide hatchery.
4:36:39 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether businesses had asked for
legislation like SB 108 or if ADF&G was promoting it in hopes of
attracting commercial interest.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that aside from the case of
a man raising tilapia in a hydroponic facility, which he said
the state had to shut down, there had not been anyone actively
seeking immediate approval to start such operations. However, he
noted increasing interest related to food security, especially
after COVID-19, and a broader global trend toward expanding
farmed fish production. He emphasized that aquaculture is
growing worldwide and competing with Alaska's wild fisheries,
and the state must decide whether to continue prohibiting it or
open the door to using Alaska's clean water and workforce to
participate in that market.
4:38:04 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN recent legislation to allow limited stocking of
lakes with fish. He asked whether anyone had done any of the
stocking authorized by that legislation.
4:38:25 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said there was interest from people
who want to buy fish for stocking, but private nonprofit (PNP)
hatcheries hadn't created a way to sell fish to them. He said
the Kodiak hatchery was exploring whether producing extra fish
for sale could be economically viable, but currently no PNP
hatchery has stepped forward to meet the demand.
4:38:59 PM
SENATOR MYERS noted ban on farming fish for food. He asked
whether someone could sell fish as pets, for example, the person
who raised goldfish in his hydroponic system.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that the current ban
prohibited the sale of farmed fish.
4:39:40 PM
SENATOR HUGHES appreciated innovative ideas that could improve
Alaska's food security. She acknowledged that many Alaskans
naturally preferred wild fish and were culturally resistant to
fish farming. She shared anecdotes about how common fish farming
was in other states, like Arkansas and South Carolina, though
she personally did not prefer farmed fish. She pointed to
Alaska's current challenges with salmon shortages and the
importance of preventing the spread of disease or interactions
with wild stocks if aquaculture were allowed. She asked how fish
were made triploid (sterile) and what processes and oversight
would ensure they remained sterile, given concerns that, in
other states, sterility requirements weren't always achieved.
4:42:15 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG recalled from a hatchery tour that
sterility was created by temperature-shocking the eggs,
producing triploid (sterile) fish. Afterward, hatcheries tested
samples to confirm they were fully triploid. He said the
sterility rate must be 100 percent for the fish to be released.
He said this method was used in Anchorage and Fairbanks
hatcheries, where nearly all fish stocked in local lakes for
recreation are triploid.
4:42:53 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked the commissioner for the SB 108
presentation.
4:43:17 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony on SB 108.
4:43:47 PM
JOHNNY FISHMONGER, Executive Director, Wild Salmon Nation, King
Salmon, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 108. He said he
had been fishing in Alaska since 1981 and emphasized that
Alaska's waters remain among the last pristine places for wild
fish. He warned that multinational aquaculture companies were
eager to expand into Alaska and was grateful the state had
prevented offshore finfish farming. He argued that the core
issue was economic: Alaska fisheries faced historically low
prices, and introducing more farmed fish would further harm
small, family-run wild fisheries. He noted that when global
farmed salmon production surpassed wild salmon in 1993, it dealt
a major blow to Alaska's jobs, tax revenue, and fisheries.
4:46:26 PM
JILL WEITZ, Government Affairs Liaison, Central Council of
Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska,
testified in opposition to SB108. She argued that SB 108
introduced unnecessary risks to water and air quality from
waste, feed, antibiotics, and pesticides used in fish farming.
She expressed concern that SB 108 could allow non-native species
to be farmed, strain already limited regulatory resources,
undermine local fishing families and traditional ways of life,
and open the door to salmon farming. She cited harms from fish
farming to salmon and ecosystems in Canada. She emphasized
Tlingit and Haida's commitment to supporting sustainable wild
fisheries with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and urged
the committee to reject SB 108.
4:48:53 PM
MELANIE BROWN, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 108. She said she operated a set-net site in
Bristol Bay since 1979. She recalled that finfish farming
previously undercut the earnings of independent fishermen just
as they were beginning to make a living wage. Allowing fish
farming in Alaska felt insulting to her and she said it would
further damage the economics of the fishing profession as well
as weaken the Alaska brand of "wild, natural, sustainable"
seafood as it was promoted by the Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute (ASMI). She noted that Alaska lacked the processing
capacity to fully process its wild catch; most Bristol Bay
salmon were only headed and gutted before being shipped
overseas. She raised doubts that the state could process farmed
fish and argued that if processing capacity existed for farmed
fish, it should instead be used to process Alaska's existing
wild stocks, improving food security and supporting the wild
fish industry.
4:51:16 PM
ADAM CUTHRIELL, representing self, Girdwood, Alaska, testified
in opposition to SB 108. He said he was a fly-fishing guide who
worked across Alaska. He argued that fish farming was contrary
to Alaska's identity and would endanger native wild fish, which
he said were the reason people traveled to Alaska. He emphasized
that strong Fish & Game management and healthy wild stocks made
Alaska fishing destinations globally unique. He pointed out that
sport fishing and recreational tourism generated billions of
dollars and supported many jobs in Alaska. He urged the
committee to oppose SB 108.
4:52:45 PM
SUSAN GEORGINA STEVENS, representing self, Wrangell, Alaska,
testified in opposition to SB 108. She cited an article by Jay
Bergquist and S. Gunnarsson on the environmental and ethical
impacts of finfish aquaculture. According to the article,
numerous studies showed that fish farming harmed both the
environment and the farmed fish themselves. The research
identified five major areas of negative impact: declines in wild
fish populations, waste and chemical pollution, habitat loss,
disease transmission, and the introduction of exotic species.
She argued that these well-documented harms provided strong
reasons for the committee to reject SB 108.
4:54:50 PM
MATTHEW JONES, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition to SB 108. He said salmon farming contradicted the
values and policies that make Alaska unique. He noted that no
members of the public testified in favor of SB 108 and stressed
that while fish farming may create some jobs, it could also
threaten many existing ones if farmed fish escape or spread
disease, especially given Alaska's already stressed wild stocks.
He pointed out that tourism alone supported about 48,000 jobs,
many tied to healthy wild fisheries. He argued that policymakers
should focus on urgent issues like bycatch, which was killing
large numbers of salmon, rather than pursuing fish farming. He
urged the committee to consider the severe risks and restore
public trust by prioritizing the protection of Alaska's native
fish.
4:57:11 PM
NORMAN PILLEN, President, Seafood Producers Cooperative, Sitka,
Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 108. He said members of
the cooperative processed all five species of Pacific salmon and
argued that global fish farming already dominated the market,
with farmed salmon making up over 90 percent of world
production. He said large volumes were imported into the U.S.
and said this competition depressed prices. Although SB 108
excluded salmon farming, he opined that allowing farming of
species like steelhead or trout would still compete with wild
salmon and eventually lead to pressure to allow farmed salmon.
He argued that this would harm Alaska's wild fisheries, which
the state has long supported.
4:59:41 PM
JUDITH PHILLIPS, representing self, Kodiak, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 108. She acknowledged the commissioner's
argument that fish farming was expanding globally, but
maintained that SB 108 posed serious risks to Alaska's wild fish
stocks and that fish farming was simply too dangerous to pursue,
even with proposed enforcement measures. She cautioned against
opening the door to future salmon farming. She thanked the
committee for their careful consideration and urged them to
reject SB 108.
5:01:15 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL held SB 108 in committee.
5:01:43 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Giessel adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 5:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB0097A.pdf |
SRES 3/10/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |
| SB 97 Fiscal Note ADFG Support.pdf |
SRES 3/10/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |
| SB 97 Fiscal Note ADFG.pdf |
SRES 3/10/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |
| SB 97 Fiscal Note DNR.pdf |
SRES 3/10/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |
| Explanation of Changes SB 97-SSSB253.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2025 9:00:00 AM SRES 3/10/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 97 SB 253 |
| SB 97 Combined Historical Documents Provided by (S)RES 2.26.25.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2025 9:00:00 AM SRES 3/10/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |
| SB 97 Committee Sectional Anlysis.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2025 9:00:00 AM SRES 3/10/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |
| SB 97 Comments Resident Hunters of Alaska.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2025 9:00:00 AM SRES 3/10/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |
| SB 108 Fiscal Note ADFG.pdf |
SRES 3/10/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 108 |
| SB 108 Fiscal Note DEC.pdf |
SRES 3/10/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 108 |
| SB0108A.pdf |
SRES 3/10/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 108 |
| SB108 Sectional Analysis Version A 02.25.25.pdf |
SRES 3/10/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 108 |
| SB108 Transmittal Letter Version A 02.20.25.pdf |
SRES 3/10/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 108 |
| ADFG SB108 Overview Presentation 03.10.25.pdf |
SRES 3/10/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 108 |
| SB 97 Committee Sponsor Statement .pdf |
SRES 3/10/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |