Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
02/24/2025 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Fy26 Department of Fish and Game Budget | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 53
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making supplemental appropriations;
making reappropriations; making appropriations under
art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State of
Alaska, from the constitutional budget reserve fund;
and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 54
"An Act making appropriations, including capital
appropriations and other appropriations; making
reappropriations; making appropriations to capitalize
funds; and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 55
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
^OVERVIEW: FY26 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME BUDGET
1:38:14 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, remarked that legislators should be confident that
the funds being allocated to the Department of Fish and
Game (DFG) were being spent in the best interest of the
state. He introduced the PowerPoint presentation "Alaska
Department of Fish and Game FY2026 Budget Overview" dated
February 24, 2025 (copy on file). He began on slide 2 and
gave an overview of the statutory and constitutional
mandates that governed DFG. He explained that the
department was embedded in the state constitution, which
was unique for a state agency. He noted that sustainability
was also embedded in the constitution and was included in
the department's statutes. He stated that the department's
role was to manage, protect, maintain, improve, and extend
the fish, game, and aquatic plant resources of the state in
the best interest of the economy and general well-being of
the state. He relayed that the Alaska Board of Fisheries
(BOF) and Board of Game (BOG) were in place to assist the
department in balancing its goals.
Mr. Vincent-Lang continued to slide 3 and explained that
the first element of the department's mission was
management, which included providing opportunities to
utilize fish and game resources, expanding existing
programs, and developing new programs to increase harvest
opportunities. He added that the department protected and
improved habitat and access to fishing and hunting
opportunities, worked to optimize participation in the
activities, and sought to improve harvest outcomes. He
stated that the department also protected the state's
sovereignty to manage fish and wildlife resources.
Mr. Vincent-Lang added that the second part of the
department's core services was stock assessment and
research. He explained that management could not occur
without an understanding of the resources being managed.
The purpose of stock assessment and research was to ensure
sustainability and maintain harvestable surpluses of fish
and game resources. He noted that the department employed a
wide array of tools, including sonars, weirs, aerial
counts, and submersibles to assess ocean resources. He
relayed that the department remained open to new techniques
for assessing fish and wildlife resources.
Mr. Vincent-Lang shared that the final core service was
public service and public involvement. He explained that
the department worked to enhance public communication,
provide information to customers, and involve the public in
the management of fish and game resources. He noted that
other states did not have the same level of public
involvement as Alaska. There were more than 70 advisory
councils throughout the state that advised the boards on
management decisions. He stated that any person in Alaska
could submit a proposal to BOF or BOG regarding how the
individual wanted resources to be managed. He stressed that
the heightened levels of access and involvement in Alaska
were unique.
Co-Chair Josephson shared that although he had managed to
win a number of elections to become a legislator, he had
once run for his local advisory board and had not been
elected. He asked whether the local advisory boards had
rule-making authority for their respective regions and
whether the boards needed further authority to implement
rules.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the local advisory boards
had authority over a few specific areas. He explained that
the local boards could eliminate antlerless moose hunts,
could comment on any proposal submitted, and could submit
comments to BOF and BOG. He stated that the rule-making
authority of the boards was limited. He understood that Co-
Chair Josephson was likely referring to trapping
regulations, and he explained that municipalities had
recently won a court case in the Alaska Supreme Court
granting the authority to restrict trapping in certain
instances for public safety reasons. He relayed that the
department had a distinct public notice and outreach
process and it managed licensing and permitting for
participation in fishing, hunting, and trapping. He
emphasized that the department not only encouraged public
involvement in resource management but also promoted active
participation in using the resources. The department
offered loaner programs for fishing rods, crab fishing
instruction for first-time participants, and ice fishing
clinics held throughout the winter in different regions of
Alaska.
1:42:39 PM
Mr. Vincent-Lang continued on slide 4 and introduced the
department's leadership team. He stated that there were two
deputy commissioners that reported to him. He relayed that
Deputy Commissioner Rachel Baker was responsible for issues
outside of Alaska's jurisdiction, specifically the 3-to-
200-nautical-mile zone. He stated that Ms. Baker
represented him on the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council and she was currently engaged in addressing the
issue of chum salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea. He noted
that Ms. Baker had recently participated in a contentious
meeting in Anchorage related to the development of a
proposal that could restrict chum salmon bycatch in a
corridor where Western Alaska chum salmon were frequently
caught. He relayed that Deputy Commissioner Ben Mulligan
handled internal state matters, such as the department's
relationship with the Federal Subsistence Board, BOG and
BOG, and he also oversaw the Habitat Section.
Mr. Vincent-Lang relayed that Ms. Bonnie Jensen was
director of the department's Division of Administrative
Services (DAS) and Mr. Joe Felkl was the department's
legislative liaison. He also introduced Ms. Shannon Mason
as the newly hired special assistant for communications. He
stated that Mr. Forrest Bowers was the Acting Director of
the Division of Commercial Fisheries, Mr. Israel Payton was
the Director of the Division of Sport Fish (DSF), and Mr.
Ryan Scott was the director of DSF. He continued that Ms.
Kristy Tibbles served as the executive director for BOG and
Mr. Art Nelson served as the executive director for BOF. He
added that the department was close to hiring a new
director of the Subsistence Division and anticipated final
approval by the end of the week. He explained that the
Habitat Section had been downgraded from a division to a
section approximately eight years ago and that Mr. Mulligan
now oversaw the section.
Representative Jimmie asked for confirmation that there had
not been a subsistence director for the three years in a
row.
Mr. Vincent-Lang replied that when he became commissioner,
he decided not to fill the director positions for the
Habitat Section and Subsistence Division because the
positions were moved outside of the department. He stated
that if he had rehired the directors, the department would
have had to absorb the cost, which was not a good option.
He indicated that the legislature added money to the
department's budget last year to hire a subsistence
director and the department had been recruiting for the
past six months. He stated that the department was close to
hiring someone for the role.
Representative Jimmie asked what happened to the money that
was allocated for the position while it was not filed.
Mr. Vincent-Lang stated that the money was allocated to the
Subsistence Division.
Representative Jimmie asked who had been leading the
division in the absence of a director.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that he had been leading the
division.
Representative Jimmie asked how much time Mr. Vincent-Lang
had spent performing the duties of a subsistence director.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the division had a deputy
operations manager who had been responsible for the
financial duties. He stated that he had led most of the
involvement in terms of policy discussions at BOF and BOG.
Representative Jimmie asked for more information on the
active recruiting efforts. She asked how much time per week
had been spent on the efforts and what the process looked
like.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that a job offer had been made
and that the department was waiting to hear back.
Co-Chair Josephson followed up on the second part of
Representative Jimmie's question and asked how much time
Mr. Vincent-Lang had spent performing the duties of the
subsistence director.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that it was hard to estimate
because subsistence was a priority for the state. He
estimated that he had spent 30 percent of his time on
subsistence-related matters. He stressed that the
Subsistence Division was defined in statute and it was not
a management division, but was in place to collect
scientific information to be utilized by other departments.
1:47:21 PM
Representative Stapp asked if there was anything else that
the legislature had asked the department to fund that had
not been funded.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that he believed the department
was on the right course to accomplish all of its goals. He
relayed that the problem was not that the department did
not want to fill the subsistence director position, but
that it was looking for the right person. Many of the first
people he had contacted for the position had thought that
the position involved opening and closing fisheries. The
division needed a director with the knowledge and
experience to navigate the science behind customary and
traditional uses. He stated that he believed the department
had found the right person.
Representative Allard asked whether the department had
conducted interviews for the position and how many
interviews had been conducted in recent months.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that he had spoken with
approximately five to seven people. He thought that the
committee would be pleased with the person he had chosen.
Co-Chair Josephson asked whether there were funds budgeted
for a Habitat Section director in the event the department
decided to hire one.
Mr. Vincent-Lang stated that the money had been removed in
his first year as commissioner and it had never returned.
He confirmed that there was no money in the budget for a
director.
Co-Chair Josephson understood that there had been some
concern about the lack of the director but that the
commissioner was not requesting funding for the position.
Mr. Vincent-Lang confirmed that he was not asking money for
the position.
Representative Jimmie asked what the salary was for the
Subsistence Division director.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that it was about $145,000.
Representative Jimmie asked for confirmation that the
position had been vacant for about three years.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the legislature had
approved the hiring of a director in the current fiscal
year. The decision to hire a director had not been made in
the past.
Co-Chair Foster asked if the money was still in the budget
and if it accumulated over time.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the money had been in the
budget since July 1, 2024, and had not been in the budget
before that date. He explained that the department had been
unable to hire for six months, meaning that six months of
salary remained within the budget. He confirmed that the
funding was still housed within the Division of
Subsistence.
1:50:33 PM
Representative Galvin recalled seeing the director position
in the department's organizational chart three years ago
and she had inquired about it at that time. She recalled
being told that the position was not needed and that the
commissioner had been fulfilling the role himself. She
asked why the position continued to appear in
presentations. She thought that the inclusion meant it was
part of the budget.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that in the past, the department
had downgraded the Subsistence Division to a Subsistence
Section. He explained that the department still had
functional responsibilities under state statute to collect
subsistence information. He confirmed that he had fulfilled
the director role in the past and he had informed the
committee at the time that he did not want to hire a
director without funding in the budget. He explained that
hiring a director without dedicated funding would have
required the department to eliminate two subsistence
resource specialist positions due to the cost of salary and
benefits. He confirmed that he felt comfortable hiring a
director now that the legislature had provided the funding.
Representative Hannan asked when the director positions had
been eliminated.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the positions had been
removed in 2018, when the governor [Governor Mike Dunleavy]
was first elected.
Representative Hannan asked for confirmation that both the
Director of Subsistence and the Director of Habitat
positions had been vacant in 2018 and that the commissioner
had chosen to eliminate the director positions in order to
retain division staff.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded in the affirmative.
Representative Jimmie asked for a full explanation the
duties of the subsistence director. She asked what duties
the commissioner had been performing in place of the
director.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that a director typically
managed the division. He explained that the DFG's three
major divisions each had hundreds of employees, while the
habitat and subsistence divisions each had only a few
dozen. He stated that the smaller size influenced his early
decision not to fill the director position. He emphasized
that hiring a director would have necessitated the
termination of two staff members. He shared that a director
primarily served to manage the personnel within a division,
manage the functions related to research and subsistence,
and oversaw the development of comments submitted to BOF
and BOG when the boards considered regulatory proposals.
The director also answered questions related to subsistence
and the use of subsistence resources during board
deliberations. He explained that he felt comfortable
fulfilling the director's responsibilities because he
attended most of the BOF and BOG meetings. He also reviewed
the board's comments after the comments were submitted. He
added that he was less involved in conducting the actual
subsistence research, as the department employed a
subsistence research director who reviewed research plans
and surveys.
Representative Jimmie apologized for any confusion and
requested a clear explanation of the specific subsistence
duties that the commissioner had taken on when he assumed
the role of director.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the duties involved
overseeing the division, managing its finances, managing
its personnel, and managing its functions. The functions
included conducting research, securing funding for the
research, and developing regulatory comments for BOF and
BOG.
1:55:29 PM
Mr. Vincent-Lang advanced to slide 5 and relayed that when
he first became commissioner, he asked his staff whether
the department was using the state's funds wisely. He
emphasized the importance of evaluating return on
investment (ROI) and explained that the department's
analysis showed that a $250 million investment generated an
annual return of more than $14 billion. He noted that
approximately $70 million of the investment consisted of
general funds. He thought that department was successfully
turning the resources it received into significant value.
The proposed budget included new funding for fisheries and
wildlife management and included no funding reductions. The
new funding included allocations for vessel and aircraft
maintenance, restoration of commercial fisheries, and
support for surveys, assessments, and fisheries enhancement
activities. He stated that the department would have
dedicated maintenance funding for the first time, which was
an addition he had requested for several years.
Mr. Vincent-Lang advanced to slide 6 and explained that the
department was organized into seven different budget
components. He directed attention to the facilities
operation and maintenance components. He stated that the
two components were new and had been implemented across all
major divisions. He indicated that the structural change
would help the department address specific component needs
in compliance with AS 37.07.020(e), which required the
costs to be presented separately.
Mr. Vincent-Lang continued to discuss the DSF budget
component which was shown in yellow at the top left of the
slide. He stated that DSF was the third largest division in
the department. In 2024, the Anchorage Hatchery, Fairbanks
Hatchery, and Southeast Hatchery components were created
and separated from DSF, though the hatcheries remained
under the management of the division. He stated that the
division was heavily funded by U.S. Department of Fish and
Game (USDFG) funds and was responsible for managing
Alaska's recreational fisheries. He added that the division
also oversaw in-river personal use fisheries across the
state.
Mr. Vincent-Lang then described the Division of Wildlife
Conservation (DWC) component, shown on slide 6 in green. He
stated that it was the second largest division and that its
budget covered two primary elements: wildlife conservation
and hunter education public shooting ranges. He stated that
wildlife conservation was also supported by USDFG funds and
was responsible for managing and enhancing opportunities
for hunting, trapping, and wildlife viewing. He noted that
staff in DWC also managed three public shooting ranges and
provided hunter education programs throughout the state to
support the development of new hunters and promote safe and
ethical hunting practices.
Mr. Vincent-Lang continued to describe the Statewide
Support Services component, shown in gray. He stated that
the section included the Commissioner's Office, the
Division of Administrative Services (DAS), BOF, BOG,
advisory committees, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee
Council, and facility maintenance components. He explained
that each component served different functions. The
Commissioner's Office provided policy direction, budgetary
oversight, and supervision of department divisions and
programs. He relayed that DAS provided administrative
support to all divisions. He explained that BOF, BOG, and
the advisory committees supported the boards' regulatory
processes and informed the public on how to participate in
those processes.
Mr. Vincent-Lang directed attention to the Habitat Section,
shown in brown on the right side of the slide. He stated
that the section performed a variety of duties, including
the review of development projects and the issuance of
permits under Title 16 for activities affecting fish-
bearing waters.
1:59:04 PM
Mr. Vincent-Lang explained that he was the only
commissioner in the state who had Title 16 authority over
development activities in anadromous waterways. He did not
think any other commissioner in the U.S. held such
authority either. He shared that he had the significant
responsibility to ensure that any development in anadromous
waterways protected and conserved fish and game resources.
Mr. Vincent-Lang continued that the light blue section
represented the Division of Subsistence. He clarified that
it was now a division, although it had previously been a
section. He stated that the division conducted research and
was not a management division. He explained that its
mission was defined under AS 16.05.094, which directed
staff to scientifically gather, quantify, evaluate, and
report information about customary and traditional uses of
fish, game, and wildlife resources.
Representative Galvin noted that the commissioner had
mentioned federal funding several times and it appeared
that federal funds supported a significant portion of the
department's work. She asked whether there were concerns
about changes to federal investments in Alaska and whether
the commissioner anticipated needing to request additional
state funding to compensate for any reductions.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that he had concerns. He stated
that approximately one-third of the department's budget was
composed of federal funding. He explained that much of that
funding was relatively secure, such as from the Dingell-
Johnson Act and Pittman-Robertson Act. However, other
sources were being monitored closely, such as marine mammal
funding. He anticipated that federal agencies might tighten
their budgets, retain more funding internally, reduce block
grants to states, and potentially increase overhead rates.
He emphasized that the department was monitoring the
situation carefully.
Representative Hannan remarked that there was a limited
budget for invasive species and she hoped that grants were
helping. She noted that there was an increasing presence of
both aquatic and terrestrial invasive species. There were
large wild cats arriving in Alaska from Canada via major
rivers and she pointed out that cougars were not listed as
a species that could be hunted. She was concerned about the
benefits and disease risks associated with the influx of
such species. She asked where invasive species work was
being conducted within the department and if additional
resources were needed.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that most aquatic invasive
species work was conducted by DSF and was funded through a
combination of federal and Dingell-Johnson grants. He
shared that wildlife species work fell under DWC. He
explained that the department had experienced fewer issues
with terrestrial invasive species, though one example
involved mule deer entering from Canada. He stated that BOG
had authorized the harvest of mule deer as long as the
carcass was returned to Alaska. The department wanted to
improve accountability regarding the movement of the
animals and the potential introduction of ticks from
Canada. He relayed that the urgency of the threat depended
upon the animal. For example, the department was still
assessing the spread of green crab. He acknowledged that
eradication of green crab was likely unrealistic but
efforts were being made to minimize the impact of the crabs
through various strategies.
Representative Bynum expressed concern about marine mammal
predation on nearshore invertebrates in Southeast Alaska.
He asked which section of the department would be
responsible for monitoring the mammals and what funding
allocations were being dedicated to both monitoring and
studying the impacts on communities.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that marine mammals had
originally been under state control until the passage of
the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). He stated
that the state had lost management authority, although it
retained a trust responsibility. For example, the state had
full management control of sea otters prior to the passage
of MMPA and it had chosen to reestablish sea otters in
Southeast Alaska. He stated that the intention had been to
manage the otters as a functional part of the ecosystem.
However, the federal government assumed authority following
the passage of MMPA.
Mr. Vincent-Lang explained that MMPA required optimal
sustained population of sea otters and rather than the
established population of 20,000 to 40,000 sea otters
across Southeast, the MMPA called for a population closer
to 120,000. The requirement had made significant impacts on
fisheries and other resources along the southeast coast. He
explained that the department had made several unsuccessful
attempts to amend MMPA to restore the concept of managing
sea otters as a functional part of the ecosystem. He
expressed hope that the new federal administration might
provide another opportunity to address the issue. He did
not think it was effective to manage a single species at
the expense of the broader ecosystem. He emphasized that
management should encompass the entire ecosystem to support
the long-term viability of all species.
2:05:06 PM
Representative Bynum asked if the department was
independently pursuing efforts to revisit the MMPA or
whether efforts would involve collaboration with the
Department of Law (DOL).
Mr. Vincent-Lang replied that he had been reaching out to
the State of Washington, which had expressed interest in
resolving the issue due to significant marine mammal
predation on several listed salmonoid species returning to
the Columbia River. He stated that Oregon had also shown
interest. He stated that DFG was seeking partnerships to
address the issue. He agreed that DOL would play a role
because of the overlap between the Endangered Species Act
and MMPA. He relayed that DFG alone could not address the
challenges with federal agencies and was instead addressing
the challenges through the courts.
Representative Bynum indicated that he intended to follow
up offline and requested that any information that could
assist the legislature in supporting the department be
provided to the committee.
Mr. Vincent-Lang added that the last time he attempted to
revise MMPA, he received approximately 50,000 emails. He
described it as a highly sensitive subject involving a wide
range of stakeholders.
Mr. Vincent-Lang continued to the Division of Commercial
Fisheries (DCF) on slide 6, which consisted of four
regional components and one statewide component. He relayed
that the four regional components were the Director's
Office, Administrative Support Staff, Information
Technology, and all laboratories, including the Pathology
Lab and the Genetics Lab. He stated that the Genetics Lab
had been established approximately 15 years ago and had
become a world-class facility performing cutting-edge
research. He added that other states were now emulating the
work Alaska had pioneered. He acknowledged that challenges
remained in understanding chum salmon but he expressed
confidence that the department would resolve the
challenges.
Mr. Vincent-Lang relayed that the Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission (CFEC) would present its own budget and
the following budget tables would not include CFEC's
budget. He explained that the DFC managed the state's
commercial fisheries and most of its subsistence and
personal use fisheries. He turned the presentation over to
DFG's administrative service director to review the budget
details.
2:07:29 PM
BONNIE JENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF FISH AND GAME, introduced and relayed that she would
provide a department-level overview of the budget and
explain the proposed changes included in the governor's FY
26 budget request. She continued to slide 7, which compared
overall funding in the governor's proposed FY 26 budget to
prior years. She stated that the next slides would address
the details of the increases. She highlighted that there
was a notable increase from FY 25 to FY 26 because the
department received funding and authority increases in
unrestricted general funds (UGF) of approximately $1.4
million to cover salary, retirement, and health insurance
costs. She reported that federal authority increased by
about $1 million, and federal fish and game funds increased
by $750,000. She added that other funding sources also
received increases based on position budgeting, but the
aforementioned increases were the most significant.
Ms. Jensen stated that the large increase in the "other"
category was primarily due to expanded interagency
authority for new facility maintenance components within
DAS. She explained that the authority would allow DAS to
receive rental payments from all divisions and use the
funds to pay rent for both state-owned and non-state-owned
facilities.
Representative Stapp asked what the total increase in UGF
was.
Ms. Jensen responded that it was roughly $1.4 million.
Representative Stapp asked how many positions were budgeted
in the department.
Ms. Jensen responded that there were 1,140 positions.
Co-Chair Josephson asked for an explanation of the jump in
federal management and previous actuals shown on slide 7.
He assumed that it was related to wildlife conservation and
sport fisheries.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the Pittman-Robertson funds
for DWC had substantially increased because of increased
firearms sales. The department had also secured additional
federal funding for the Yukon River through earmarks
supported by U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski's office. He added
that new funding had also been received under the Pacific
Salmon Treaty to address mitigation efforts in Southeast
Alaska.
2:10:49 PM
Ms. Jensen continued to slide 8 which provided a breakdown
of allocations by line item. She stated that the column
showing the difference between FY 25 and FY 26 included the
governor's amended budget request, personal service
increases, and line item adjustments. She emphasized that
the increase in personal services was primarily due to
salary increases, while the increase in the services
category was attributed to new interagency receipt
authority for facility components.
Representative Stapp noted that the insurance adjustment
appeared to amount to approximately $1,000 per position,
assuming all positions were filled. He remarked that the
cost seemed considerably higher than what other departments
had requested for similar insurance premium adjustments. He
asked why the department's number would be substantially
higher than that of other departments.
Ms. Jensen responded that the figure was not exclusively
for insurance but also included salary and other
adjustments. She stated that she would need to review the
change records to provide additional details.
Representative Stapp requested that the department break
down the number and provide that information to the
committee.
Ms. Jensen confirmed that she would follow up with the
information.
Mr. Vincent-Lang added that most of the increase stemmed
from an 8.5 percent salary increase under the Supervisory
Unit agreement. He explained that the increase had been
included in the governor's request. He clarified that the
department was requesting only one new position and that
the remainder of the personnel budget remained status quo,
aside from the salary and union contract adjustments.
Representative Galvin understood that there was a
significant increase in the services line from FY 24 to FY
26, amounting to approximately 66 percent growth. She asked
if there had been a change in the definition of the
services category or a change in the department's
accounting practices. She also asked for clarification on
the distinction between "services" and "personal services.
Ms. Jensen responded that approximately $8 million of the
increase from FY 25 to FY 26 was due to interagency receipt
authority. She stated that other changes would require a
more detailed review.
Mr. Vincent-Lang recalled that during the transition from
FY 24 to FY 25, the legislature had an extensive discussion
about the placement of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS)
program within the department. He stated that the program
had ultimately been reabsorbed into the department. He
recalled that $20 million was distributed to various
entities conducting research. He noted that he would follow
up to confirm the accuracy of the figure but believed that
it was accurate as of three or four years ago.
2:14:36 PM
Representative Hannan asked for a summary of the guidance
provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
regarding how interagency receipts for maintenance and
operation were to be handled. She clarified that she was
not asking for the full OMB directives, only a summary that
explained why approximately $8 million now appeared in the
budget differently.
Ms. Jensen responded that the department had to present the
expenditures separately, which required the creation of a
new component. She explained that the department had
created multiple new components, some within separate
results delivery units (RDU), to account for labor, trades,
and crafts positions. She stated that the positions had to
be moved into the new components while remaining within
their respective divisions. She noted that all payments for
rental facilities could now be processed through a single
component within DAS. She explained that the process
allowed DAS to collect payments from other divisions, issue
rent payments from one component, and facilitate a more
transparent budget process.
Mr. Vincent-Lang commented that Representative Galvin's
earlier question about the difference between personal
services and services had not been answered. He explained
that personal services referred to personnel housed within
DFG, which corresponded with line 100 of the department's
budget. The services category referred to contracts issued
by the department.
Ms. Jensen continued on slide 8. She clarified that the
department was adding two positions and cutting one, which
contributed to the increase in UGF.
Ms. Jensen advanced to slide 9 which provided a visual
breakdown of the department's funding sources. She
explained that the largest funding source was federal
funding, which was shown on the left side of the slide.
Federal funding accounted for 35 percent of the overall
budget and consisted of both competitive and non-
competitive grants. The second largest funding source was
classified as other and made up approximately 33 percent of
the budget. She relayed that UFG represented 28 percent and
included general fund match. The smallest source was
designated general funds (DGF) at 4 percent, which included
commercial crew license fees and test fish revenue. She
stated that the pie chart on the right side of the slide
further detailed the breakdown of the other funding source.
She noted that fish and game funds constituted a
significantly higher share at 48 percent, followed by
interagency receipts at 31 percent. She added that
statutory designated program receipts, capital improvement
project receipts, EVOS funds, and interagency oil and
hazardous waste funds represented smaller portions of the
other category.
Mr. Vincent-Lang continued on slide 10 and explained that
the department also received federal Pittman-Robertson and
Dingell-Johnson funds generated by excise taxes on fishing
licenses, hunting gear, guns, and ammunition. He noted that
the programs had been created by the U.S. Congress
approximately 70 years ago to help rebuild fish and
wildlife populations, which had been decimated at the time.
He explained that in order for states to access the funds
collected from the excise taxes, states were required to
provide a guaranteed match of 25 percent against the 75
percent federal contribution.
Mr. Vincent-Lang stated that Alaska had chosen to meet the
requirement by dedicating the Fish and Game Fund (FGF) as
its match source. He clarified that funds for FGF were
generated through sales of hunting and fishing licenses,
tags, and related revenues. The department had utilized a
successful model since statehood in collecting fish and
game resources using FGF as a match. He stated that the
voters of Alaska had amended the state constitution to
dedicate FGF as a funding source, which made it one of the
few dedicated funds in the state. He emphasized that it had
been a successful model in terms of fish and game
management and that all 50 states benefited from it.
Mr. Vincent-Lang explained that the purpose of the Pittman-
Roberston program was to restore, conserve, manage, and
enhance wild birds and wild mammals and their habitats. He
stated that public use and access to wildlife resources was
also a goal. There was a large program that built new boat
launches, access points, and waysides to get hunters into
the field, which included hunter education development and
shooting ranges. He noted that the funds were distributed
based on apportionment and Alaska received the maximum
apportionment because it was a large state. He clarified
that although Alaska did not have as many people as other
states, it still received a 5 percent match due to its
size. He added that later slides would show that fisheries
funding had remained relatively stable, but funding for
hunting had increased substantially.
2:20:35 PM
Co-Chair Josephson asked for confirmation that Pittman-
Robertson funds could not be used for intensive management.
Mr. Vincent-Lang replied that the funds generally were not
used for intensive management because there were
significant constraints on how the funds could be used.
Co-Chair Josephson asked why the constraints were in place.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that federal agencies had
different management criteria for federal lands and
conducting intensive management on federal lands was an
entirely different process than the process for state
lands. He explained that almost all intensive management
programs were carried out on state lands under state
authority. Federal funds could be used to collect baseline
data to inform intensive management activities, but the
actual implementation of intensive management was funded
through a surcharge on hunting licenses that the
legislature had approved.
Co-Chair Josephson recalled that the surcharge had
originated from a bill by former State of Alaska
Representative Dave Talerico approximately ten years
earlier. He asked if the surcharge was the only funding
source used for intensive management.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the department could use
either the surcharge or FGF.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if the funds were considered
constitutional funds.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded in the affirmative. He explained
that the department primarily used the intensive management
surcharge for most intensive management activities.
Co-Chair Josephson understood that BOG was considering
adding sheep to the list of prey species for which an
intensive management program could be launched. He asked if
his understanding was correct.
Mr. Vincent-Lang replied that BOG was considering adding
sheep because sheep populations were in poor condition
statewide. He stated that the board was looking for ways to
rebuild sheep populations more quickly but had not yet
reached a conclusion. He noted that almost all current
intensive management programs were focused on caribou or
moose.
Mr. Vincent-Lang moved to slide 11 which detailed the
Dingell-Johnson program. He relayed that the program
focused on fish and was intended to support fish management
and restoration. He noted that the 75 percent federal and
25 percent state match applied.
Mr. Vincent-Lang proceeded to slide 12, which addressed
FGF. He stated that the department had dedicated FGF in
order to guarantee the required 5 percent match for the
federal surcharges. He asserted that the state had secured
a dedicated funding source for fish and game management and
fulfilled its constitutional responsibility for sustainable
management. There had been no costs to the state in terms
of general fund match for DWC or DSF, which he described as
an impressive success. He added that diversion of the funds
was prohibited and that doing so would result in the loss
of access to Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson funds.
2:23:40 PM
Representative Jimmie remarked that many Alaskans loved to
hunt and that she was an active hunter as well. She noted
that in her district, residents paid fees for hunting
licenses and tags but had difficulty accessing the areas
where they intended to hunt. She explained that some
residents in her district, District 38, could not afford
the expense of traveling four hours upstream by river. She
asked how the department could assist her district in
improving hunting access, especially for those living far
from hunting grounds.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that he had spoken with the
president of the Calista Corporation earlier that morning
and many of the same issues had come up, including
competition for resources near communities. He could not
close areas around communities, as that was a BOG decision.
However, he had discussed with the Calista Corporation how
to develop a proposal for BOG that would allow for
preferential access for Alaska residents versus non-
residents in certain waterways. He noted that the proposal
had already been implemented in the Togiak area and that
the department would assist Togiak through the process. He
reiterated that he could not take such actions unilaterally
but noted that he could close other hunts to provide for
the subsistence priority when it was not being met. He
clarified that it depended on whether the area in question
was federal or state land. For example, some of the land in
the Kuskokwim region was in the Yukon Delta.
Representative Jimmie relayed that in her district, when
hunting was not permitted there were problems with moose
populations growing and entering villages, which put
residents at risk. She emphasized that Alaska Native
residents should have the right to hunt when possible,
especially when nothing would be wasted. She asked how the
department could help.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the department maintained
open and closed seasons for moose hunting. He stated that
moose hunting was typically closed during calving periods
and reopened after mating had concluded. Hunts were
sometimes opened outside of normal seasons for ceremonial
purposes. He emphasized that the department was cautious
about not overharvesting the moose population. If an
extended season was requested for a specific purpose, the
request would have to go through the BOG process.
Representative Jimmie asked for clarification that if a
moose entered a village and appeared to be a threat,
residents could not take action and shoot the moose. She
asked if the only option was to call DFG and ask what to
do.
Mr. Vincent-Lang replied that an animal could always be
killed in defense of life and property. He stated that if
an individual were threatened, the individual had the right
to take the animal. However, he explained that the animal
could not be kept for personal use and had to be
surrendered to the state.
Representative Jimmie asked for confirmation that meat
could not be kept by the individual who shot the animal,
even if the animal had posed an immediate threat in the
village. She asked whether the meat had to be sent into the
department, despite the high cost of air freight and time.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the meat had to be
surrendered to the nearest DFG office or protection office.
He stated that the meat would most likely be donated to a
local food pantry.
Representative Jimmie asked why Alaska Native people could
not keep the meat.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that he understood the concern
and stated that the law had been written to prevent
individuals from claiming they had taken an animal in
defense of life and property as a pretext for hunting out
of season. He affirmed that the state prioritized
protecting life and property and that animals taken under
such circumstances were typically redirected for public
benefit through local food pantries to avoid waste.
Representative Jimmie relayed that she had more questions
but appreciated the response.
Mr. Vincent-Lang commented that the department wanted to
avoid people in Anchorage shooting moose in defense of life
and property and then keeping the moose.
2:28:18 PM
Representative Stapp thought that Representative Jimmie had
made a good point. He stated that residents in communities
such as Quinhagak or Tuluksak had to travel several hours
upriver to get to a DFG office or freight office. He stated
that although he lived in Fairbanks and understood there
was nuance to the situation, it seemed unreasonable to tell
someone in Quinhagak that they had to wrap up the meat and
air freight it to Bethel, where it might go to a pantry. He
asked if the policy should be reconsidered or refined.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that he had never experienced a
situation where an enforcement officer required an
individual to air freight meat to Fairbanks or another
distant location to surrender it. He stated that officers
would work with local residents to facilitate surrender of
the meat within the local community.
Representative Stapp stated that although a situation had
never occurred, that did not mean it could not happen. He
asked for confirmation that such a situation was possible,
even though it had never occurred.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Schrage stated that a constituent had expressed
concern to him about the price of hunting tags for out-of-
state residents who wanted to hunt in Alaska. He asked for
an explanation of how the pricing structure was determined
for out-of-state hunting licenses and tags for various
hunts. He asked whether the department attempted to remain
competitive, whether auction values were considered, and
how he could justify the current rates to his constituent.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the rates were set by the
legislature and were codified in statute. He explained that
the department reviewed the rates routinely. Under the
Commerce Clause, the department was required to ensure that
any increased rates for non-residents could be justified by
the expenses incurred in managing the resource. He
explained that the department typically reviewed the rates
every two or three years and would return to the
legislature with suggested adjustments as necessary.
However, setting the rates was ultimately the legislature's
responsibility.
Co-Chair Schrage asked for more information about the
department's recommendations to the legislature and if the
recommendations were provided in a report. He asked if the
department thought that there was room to increase the
rates and whether the costs justified a substantially
increased rate for some tags.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the last time the
department reviewed the rates, the differential between
resident and non-resident fees was aligned with the costs
associated with managing the resource. He stated that he
could not recall the exact date of the review but believed
it had occurred one or two years ago. He would provide the
report to Co-Chair Schrage.
Representative Allard stated that she wanted to return to
the discussion of subsistence and the importance of not
abusing the system. She wanted to ensure that when an
animal was taken in defense of life or property, the law
would not be exploited. She asked whether the department
had observed abuse of the law in any part of Alaska.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the Alaska State Troopers
(AST) always investigated when an animal was taken out of
season to determine whether it had been taken in defense of
life or property. He stated that if an individual could
prove that the animal was killed in defense, the meat was
usually surrendered and taken into possession by the
troopers. He added that the troopers did not want to handle
the meat any more than anyone else and would look for the
nearest available distribution point. He indicated that the
meat was typically distributed to the community through a
church or similar organization when possible.
Representative Allard asked if there had been a situation
in a remote area where the troopers had coordinated with
the village to decide what to do with the animal.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that there had been an incident
involving muskox in Nome. He stated that a muskox had
killed an individual who was defending his dog team and
that some residents now lived in fear of muskox in certain
areas. The department had worked with the local police
department to establish a process that allowed residents to
take an animal and then surrender it if the residents felt
threatened. The meat would then be distributed to the local
community. He emphasized that the goal was to ensure people
were not living in fear of wildlife, while also preventing
abuse of the defense of life and property justification. He
stated that the department expected individuals to follow
state laws and regulations for the sake of sustainability,
but an individual could take the animal to protect their
life and property.
Representative Allard stated that she wanted to ensure that
there was some flexibility with the law in some
communities. She clarified that she did not mean more
lenient enforcement, but rather context-specific
application.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the department typically
tried to return the meat to the community and often
extended hunting seasons when there was a harvestable
surplus. He explained that in the current year, the
department had extended two to four hunting seasons for
moose in villages where the harvestable surplus had not
been met. He stated that the department received requests
to extend seasons due to factors such as poor snow
conditions.
2:35:07 PM
Ms. Jensen continued on slide 13 which summarized similar
information presented in earlier slides and provided a
further breakdown of each funding source that made up the
department's funding categories. She noted that the slide
showed an $8 million increase for facilities maintenance
and rental payments. She clarified that she had not
included the changes in the upcoming slides that displayed
the department's change records.
Co-Chair Josephson asked Ms. Jensen to repeat her last
point.
Ms. Jensen repeated that the $8 million increase would not
be reflected in the change record slides that would be
shown later.
Ms. Jensen continued to slide 14, which provided a
breakdown of the department's budget for each division and
section. She stated that the largest division was DCF with
a total budget of $88 million. The next largest was DWC at
$71 million, followed by DSF at $55 million, and then
Statewide Support Services at $34 million. She relayed that
the Habitat Section and the Division of Subsistence
Research were relatively small in comparison to the others.
Ms. Jensen advanced to slide 15, which showed a historical
overview of budgeted positions over the past decade. She
explained that the department's position count had declined
steadily but there was a recent increase in the past few
years. However, the department's budget had grown during
the same period, resulting in remaining staff taking on
additional responsibilities. She noted that staff were at
capacity and that additional positions had been added in
recent years to help address the workload and provide
support for the department's ongoing work.
Ms. Jensen moved to slide 16, which displayed the
department's position vacancy history. She reminded the
committee that the department operated with field seasons,
which varied depending on the assessments and field work
being conducted. She stated that roughly half the workforce
for DCF and DSF consisted of permanent part-time seasonal
employees. Seasonal employees peaked during the field
season, resulting in low vacancy rates, and vacancy rates
rose during the off-season. Approximately 74 percent of the
vacancies in the two divisions were part-time seasonal
positions. She added that recruitments were underway and
she encouraged members to refer any interested individuals.
The department also faced challenges in filling information
technology (IT) positions and similar roles in rural areas
due to housing and connectivity issues. The graph on the
slide showed a large dip in the vacancy percentage between
FY 17 and FY 19. She explained that during that time, 91
positions had been deleted, leading to a decrease in the
overall vacancy percentage.
2:38:37 PM
Representative Tomaszewski asked how many of the
department's 1,440 employees currently worked remotely or
teleworked from home.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that during the COVID-19
pandemic, the department had been flexible with allowing
employees to work from home. The department had since been
working to return employees to the office. He stated that a
vast majority of employees had returned to the office but
there were several hard to fill, high demand positions
where individuals often preferred to work independently,
such as analyst programmers. The department was more
flexible with such positions because it would be difficult
to replace the workers. He shared that the only time he
would agree to sign a telework agreement was if there was a
personal issue, such as someone had a sick family member
who required care. He reiterated that the department was
trying to bring all other workers back into the office.
Representative Tomaszewski asked if Mr. Vincent-Lang could
follow up with the exact number of remote workers.
Mr. Vincent-Lang asked if Representative Tomaszewski was
interested in part-time workers or full-time workers.
Representative Tomaszewski did not have a preference.
Mr. Vincent-Lang would follow up with the numbers for both.
Co-Chair Schrage asked for more information about recent
reports indicating that 25 percent of the state workforce
consisted of out-of-state employees. He acknowledged that
the individuals performed good work but stated that he
would prefer to see the jobs filled by Alaskans. He asked
to what extent DFG experienced a similar reliance on out-
of-state workers to fill its positions.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the only circumstances
under which he currently signed out-of-state telework
agreements were for family or medical issues that required
care. He added that in some cases, he might allow it for
schooling if the department needed someone with specialized
training. He emphasized that almost all of the department's
employees were now located in-state unless there was a
compelling family or medical reason.
Representative Allard understood that the commissioner was
no longer approving out-of-state telework agreements unless
there was a medical emergency, family circumstance, or
specialized requirement. She stated that she disagreed with
much of what the commissioner had said and asked whether
the employees already working out of state were being
brought back. She also asked whether employees currently
teleworking from home were being required to return to the
office part-time or full-time. She pointed out that he had
used the word "trying" and she remarked that he was in a
position to compel action.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that nearly all of the telework
agreements that had been signed early during the COVID-19
pandemic had been short-term. He acknowledged that some
individuals wanted to work from home for a variety of
reasons and that the department wanted to retain good
employees. However, he stated that the department needed
connectivity between management and research staff. The
department was working to bring people back into the office
and to reestablish a routine of in-person work. He added
that the department was being somewhat flexible and was not
necessarily requiring five days per week in the office, but
it did require that employees be present and performing
their work functions. He stated that telework agreements
were now tied to performance. If employees were not meeting
performance expectations, they were required to work in the
office. If employees were performing well, they were
permitted to work outside the office one or two days per
week. He reiterated that the department's goal was to bring
people back into the office.
Representative Allard relayed that she was focusing on the
use of the word "trying" and asked whether employees were
being told to return to the office but were refusing, or if
it meant something else. She asked for clarification on
what was meant by "trying."
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that employees were returning to
the office.
2:43:01 PM
Ms. Jensen continued to slide 17 which showed highlights
for the FY 26 budgetary changes for DCF. She explained that
the department was requesting a one-time increment in the
Fisheries Management component in Southeast to maintain
groundfish projects for assessment and management
obligations in order to maintain current operations. She
clarified that groundfish included species such as
rockfish, pollock, and cod, which were non-salmon species.
Ms. Jensen continued that in the central region for the
same component, the department was requesting funding to
add a full-time Boat Officer III position to serve as
second-in-command on a newly acquired research vessel. She
relayed that Trident had donated a vessel to the department
the previous year and it was currently being retrofitted
for use in the upcoming season.
Representative Galvin asked if the department could provide
a ballpark estimate on the cost of a fisheries management
survey. She noted that the slide showed a general fund
authority for surveys and assessments and that the figure
appeared to be $716,000. She asked whether the amount
covered one survey or multiple surveys.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that in the final hours of the
previous legislative session, the department had lost
funding for CFEC. He explained that the funds had supported
a variety of stock assessment programs across the state and
that some of the programs cost approximately $100,000,
while others were closer to $60,000. He relayed that the
governor had included general fund monies in the current
year's budget to reverse the unanticipated $716,000 cut. As
a result, the department would be able to restore the
research programs that had been cut. He clarified that the
$716,000 figure did not represent a single program but
instead encompassed a series of different programs. He
reiterated that the previous year's funding cut had
resulted in the loss of research programs throughout the
state, and the governor had restored funding in recognition
of the importance of the work.
Representative Galvin understood that the cost of a single
survey could vary but was generally between $60,000 and
$100,000. She understood that several surveys needed to be
conducted and that the department was now trying to catch
up. She asked if her understanding was correct.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded in the affirmative. He added
that some marine assessment programs could cost $100,000 to
$200,000 each.
Co-Chair Josephson shared that he had received a visit from
a representative of the Bristol Bay Economic Development
Corporation regarding a depleted capital budget item for
chum assessments. He relayed that the organization was
seeking to move the item into the operating budget as a
$500,000 base item to continue work conducted out of Dutch
Harbor that also impacted Bristol Bay. He asked whether the
commissioner was familiar with the item.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that he was familiar with the
item and presumed that the visitor had likely been Mr.
Michael Link. He explained that the research in question
aimed to assess the intercept of chum salmon returning to
Western Alaska. He stated that genetic samples were being
taken in the trawl fishery to determine the proportion of
Western Alaskan chum versus Asian chum being intercepted.
He reported that a test program conducted the previous year
had shown promise. Although the program was still some time
away from full implementation, it was providing valuable
insights into the spatial distribution and timing of the
intercept. The results had laid the groundwork for a
proposal before the council to establish a conservation
corridor to help Western Alaskan chum migrate through the
B-season trawl fishery.
Co-Chair Josephson understood that the item was not funded
in the budget. He asked whether it was concerning that it
had not been included in the budget.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the research was still
ongoing at the time the budget had been prepared. He stated
that the department was only now receiving briefings on the
results of the work. He noted that the project had been
funded as a capital item for several years.
2:48:02 PM
Ms. Jensen continued on slide 17 and detailed the statewide
fisheries management component. She explained that three
changes were being requested. First, the department was
requesting $450,000 in UGF for the state vessel, vehicle,
and aircraft maintenance project. The division operated six
research vessels and five aircrafts and it was necessary to
contract out maintenance work for the assets. Secondly, the
department was requesting $716,000 to support survey and
assessment projects across the state.
Ms. Jensen warned that if the division did not receive the
increment, the following projects would be eliminated: the
Judd Lake Weir, the Togiak Herring Assessment, the Prince
William Sound Trawl Survey, the Chelatna Lake Weir, the
Lower Yukon Test Fishery, Kobuk River Test Fishery, the
Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim (AYK) Sonar Funding, and the Sandy
River Weir. She noted that the division would also exit its
Craig office and the Kuskokwim Area Bethel Test Fishery
would be reduced. She added that the Craig office had
multiple divisions housed in it and the office would not be
completely closed. The last item on the slide was a one-
time increment to replace equipment in the genetics
conservation laboratory. She explained that the equipment
supported in-season genetic stock identification used to
inform fisheries management and it had exceeded its useful
life. She reported that the department was requesting
$175,000 from FGF to replace the equipment.
Ms. Jensen moved to slide 18 which detailed the request for
DSF. She stated that the Anchorage and Fairbanks hatcheries
were requesting $100,000 in federal authority and $100,000
in FGF authority to maintain enhancement activities. She
noted that the RDU did not currently have any FGF
authority, which was necessary to match federal funds.
Representative Allard asked whether the reference to
Anchorage also included the Chugiak and Eagle River area.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the Anchorage hatchery
served all of Anchorage and Southcentral Alaska.
Co-Chair Josephson asked Ms. Jensen to repeat the last part
of her earlier statement regarding the absence of something
in the budget.
Ms. Jensen repeated that RDU did not currently have any FGF
authority in FY 25. She explained that the department was
requesting the authority in FY 26 to match federal funds.
Ms. Jensen moved to slide 19 and stated that the Division
of Subsistence was requesting $100,000 in statutory
designated program receipt authority to support current and
future mission-critical projects. She noted that two
projects would be located in the Yukon and Prince William
Sound regions and would involve collaboration with the
North Pacific Research Board (NPRB).
Ms. Jensen proceeded to slide 20 and reported that there
was a request for the Habitat component of $100,000 in
federal authority to support the pursuit of federal funding
opportunities. She explained that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) award had obligated a majority of
the current federal authority, and the additional request
would allow the Habitat component to apply for and accept
federal opportunities as they arose.
2:52:27 PM
Ms. Jensen advanced to slide 21 and stated that DWC was
requesting $217,000 in FGF authority to maintain its fleet
of ten aircrafts and various other vehicles, including snow
machines and four-wheelers. She added that the division was
also requesting $112,000 in UGF to fund a biologist
position associated with the guide concession permit and SB
189 [passed in 2024 by the Thirty-Third Alaska State
Legislature].
Representative Hannan shared that she understood the need
for initial funding for the guide concession permit
program, but she thought that the implementation of SB 189
was intended to create a program that would eventually be
self-supporting. She asked whether the intention for the
program to be self-sustaining applied only to licensure or
also to management.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the intention was for the
program to become self-supporting over time, but
establishing the program would require upfront funding and
dedicated resources. He explained that SB 189 had passed
after midnight on the last day of the previous session, and
the department was waiting to see how the courts would
address the legality of the legislation. He stated that the
bill had passed previously without a fiscal note and that
the current version aimed to incorporate the funding
component from the outset. He agreed that the program would
likely evolve to become self-funded through fees, but
initial implementation would require financial support from
both DFG and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Representative Hannan asked if there was an estimate on how
long it would take for the guide concession program to
become self-sustaining. She asked whether it would take
five years, ten years, or some other amount of time.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that he recalled that the
program was intended to be piloted in one area first. He
stated he believed that Unit 19 was the initial area
targeted for implementation and that the program would
gradually expand. He agreed that most of the work would be
front-end loaded and estimated that five years would likely
be a reasonable timeframe for the program to become self-
supporting.
Co-Chair Josephson asked where Unit 19 was located.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that Unit 19 was located near
the upper Kuskokwim River and next to Denali. He stated
that it was an area where there had been significant
unguided hunting conflicts and where unguided hunting had
already been closed. He explained that the department was
working to find a path forward and it was likely to be the
first location considered for the guide concession program.
Ms. Jensen proceeded to slide 22, which reflected changes
in statewide support services. She reported that the
department was requesting the deletion of a full-time
administrative officer position within DAS. She explained
that the reduction represented a $28,000 UGF cut. The
position had been funded with 25 percent UGF and 75 percent
interagency authority. The remaining funding would be
redirected to support department-wide operational expenses,
including rental costs. Additionally, BOG and BOF were
requesting a $14,000 increase in UGF to support the guide
concession permit program to cover increased expenses
related to upcoming meetings. She reported that the
department was also requesting a multi-year operating
appropriation unit to allow it to accept fishery disaster
funds from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.
She clarified that the zero-dollar amount listed for the
request indicated that it was an unlimited appropriation.
2:56:52 PM
Ms. Jensen moved to slide 23 and relayed that the Division
of Subsistence had submitted one FY 25 supplemental request
to support a partnership with the Chugach Regional
Resources Commission. The request was to gather mission-
critical subsistence resource use data in Prince William
Sound.
Mr. Vincent-Lang advanced to slide 24 and detailed the
capital budget requests. He explained that when he became
commissioner approximately seven or eight years ago, he had
identified that the department had a solid understanding of
freshwater systems but lacked information on marine
conditions. The department had since established a growing
Marine Science Program (MSP). The department expected to
request that the program be incorporated into the base
budget the following year but would seek one additional
year of capital funding in the current request. The program
had made significant progress in understanding what
occurred during the first year of salmon life in the ocean.
Mr. Vincent-Lang noted that the Equinox vessel was now
funded and that the department would potentially fund a
second position to support the vessel's use. He described
the Equinox as a key tool in conducting marine science
research. He relayed that MSP began its work in the area
just north of the Yukon River and early findings showed the
department could begin to predict salmon returns three to
four years in advance by studying the survival of juvenile
chum and Chinook salmon in nearshore waters. He explained
that the department had since expanded the work to areas
south of the Yukon and was now extending the research into
the Gulf of Alaska. He expressed that the program was
yielding positive results and he hoped that the committee
would continue to support it.
Mr. Vincent-Lang relayed that there was a petition for
Chinook salmon in the Gulf of Alaska to be covered under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). He reiterated that the
department had a solid understanding of freshwater
conditions but limited knowledge of marine environments. He
stated that questions remained about stock interception and
genetic composition in marine waters. He explained that the
department intended to begin addressing the questions over
the next three to five years. He reported that
approximately 100,000 Chinook salmon were still harvested
in marine fisheries. Nearly all freshwater fisheries in the
Cook Inlet, Kodiak, and the Alaska Peninsula had been
closed. He emphasized the importance of understanding the
stock composition of the remaining marine fisheries.
Representative Galvin asked for more information the $5.6
million UGF request. She noted that the presentation did
not indicate a defined time period and it appeared to be
indefinite. She asked whether capital budget appropriations
typically allowed up to five years to expend the funds.
Ms. Jensen responded that capital budgets generally allowed
five years for expenditures. The request represented the
largest funding year and the amounts were anticipated to
decrease in subsequent years. She reported that the total
capital budget request was just under $22 million.
Mr. Vincent-Lang added that it was important to understand
the composition of stocks harvested in marine fisheries. He
noted that many of the stocks were potentially not Alaskan
in origin but may instead be from the Columbia River and
other regions. He stated that the department needed to
begin piecing the information together. He noted that the
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund had received a
significant funding increase in recent years due to the
federal Build Back Better infrastructure initiative. He
stated that the department used the funding for a variety
of purposes, including subsistence research, stock
rebuilding assessments, culvert replacements, and other
statewide activities. He explained that the program
operated as a grant administered by the department and
consisted entirely of federal receipts.
Mr. Vincent-Lang continued on slide 24 and detailed the
Pacific Salmon Treaty fishery mitigation. He stated that
approximately four to eight years ago, Alaska had agreed to
a reduction in allowable salmon harvests under treaty as
part of a negotiated settlement. In exchange, the federal
government provided funding to offset lost revenue to
fishers. The department used mitigation funds in Southeast
Alaska to produce chum salmon at private nonprofit
hatcheries, which created additional harvest opportunities
that did not count against the state's treaty allocation.
He added that the proceeds from the sale of state-owned
vessels and aircraft were typically returned to the general
fund, but the department preferred to retain the funds for
reinvestment.
3:01:30 PM
Mr. Vincent-Lang continued on slide 25 and reported that
the department was requesting $150,000 in FGF authority and
$100,000 related to the conservation program to reinvest
proceeds into new equipment as the existing equipment aged.
Mr. Vincent-Lang continued to slide 26 and stated that the
department wanted to ensure proceeds from federal purchases
were returned to FGF. He explained that DOL had advised
that any equipment originally purchased using FGF revenue
must have its resale proceeds returned to the fund. He
explained that the department was also requesting Pittman-
Robertson and Dingell-Johnson funds. He stated that federal
law required the department to invest a specific amount
each year in angler access, which was matched by FGF
dollars. He relayed that such projects included the
construction of boat launches across the state, such as the
North Douglas boat launch in Juneau.
Mr. Vincent-Lang expressed that there was a $500,000
mission-critical replacement request for outboard motors
and skiffs that had exceeded their useful life. He stated
that 95 percent of the department's inventory required
replacement, and the request was intended to begin
addressing the backlog.
Representative Tomaszewski noted that there was mention on
slide 5 about turning a $250 million investment into an
annual return of over $14 billion. He remarked that such a
return would be impressive even for the Permanent Fund. He
asked for more information about the $14 billion figure.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the $14 billion included
returns generated by the commercial fisheries sector and
the associated employment across the state. The total for
sport fish included both charter and non-charter sport
fishing activities. The wildlife figure included hunting
and wildlife viewing, tag receipts, and the overall
economic contributions of visiting hunters. He stated that
the department had compiled specific data but had removed
it from the presentation due to time constraints. He would
follow up with a breakdown of the figure.
Representative Jimmie asked for clarification on how DFG
used subsistence research and monitoring to inform BOF in
its decision-making. She noted that the number of
management plans incorporating subsistence information had
decreased significantly, from 180 in the year 2000 to only
75 in 2025. She asked if there was less subsistence
information available. She asked for an explanation of the
"failure."
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that he did not believe the
department was failing. He relayed that the department used
its available funding to inform decisions. He acknowledged
that the department did not update subsistence use surveys
annually in every area, but it was currently conducting
more surveys than it had in the past four or five years. He
reported that the department had pursued funding through
NPRB and federal subsistence programs. He noted that a
significant survey effort was underway in the Yukon and
expressed pride in the department's progress over the last
few years in securing additional federal funding for
subsistence.
3:05:11 PM
Representative Jimmie opined that the department did not
appear to be catching up because her district had recently
experienced poor subsistence seasons that had left many
families with empty freezers and unfilled storage sheds.
She asserted that the department should not claim to be
making progress but instead should express a willingness to
try.
Representative Galvin asked for more information about
equipment listed on slide 26. She noted that the slide
listed skiffs and outboard motors under the capital budget
as mission-critical equipment. She understood that slide 21
included a request for aircraft and four-wheelers. She
asked whether the request was for repairs or purchases. She
requested clarification as to why one category was included
in the operating budget and the other in the capital
budget.
Ms. Jensen responded that the requests fell under different
divisions and served different purposes. She stated that
the capital budget request was intended to replace
equipment that had reached the end of its useful life,
whereas the request in DWC was to maintain the department's
current inventory.
Mr. Vincent-Lang stated that when he became commissioner,
he had not realized that he would be overseeing an Army, an
Air Force, a Marine Corps, and a Navy. He explained that
each entity's equipment required significant maintenance.
He expressed surprise at the high cost of dry-docking one
of the department's major research vessels to make it
seaworthy again.
Representative Stapp shared that based on his experiences
in interior communities such as Galena, Koyukuk, Ruby, and
Newtok, many residents perceived the state's management of
fish as a failure due to the lack of available fish. He
asked for clarification that the department's intent was to
protect and support subsistence fishing and hunting rights
and to ensure adequate subsistence harvests for residents
of areas such as the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. He stressed the
importance of ensuring a plentiful subsistence season and
he thought everyone shared in that goal.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that he fully agreed with
Representative Stapp. During the recent agreement with
Canada regarding the settlement on the Yukon, the
department had sought to rebuild salmon runs to support
both subsistence harvests and, eventually, harvestable
surpluses for commercial fisheries. He stated that the
department planned to allow limited fishing opportunities
for cultural purposes going forward. He noted that
regulations were currently out for review that would enable
the department to issue educational permits to allow fish
to be distributed to Alaskans in order to preserve cultural
practices, even when escapement goals were not met.
3:09:10 PM
Representative Jimmie relayed that her comments were not
intended to be unkind, but she had genuine concern. She
asserted that management decisions made by BOF were
negatively impacting her district. She explained that the
fishing schedule was unpredictable and that short openings
made it difficult for residents to access their fish camps.
She noted that the cost of fishing was high, such as buying
the necessary gear and gas. She explained that much of the
harvest on the Kuskokwim River went to waste because
fishing occurred during the rainy season instead of the dry
season. Residents in the community of Chevak were unable to
fill their freezers because the designated fishing area was
too far from the river.
Representative Jimmie emphasized that summer was meant to
be a time when families gathered to work together,
reinforcing bonds across generations. She expressed concern
that current management practices were undermining
tradition, leading to family disconnection and a loss of
cultural continuity. She had passed on the knowledge she
had learned from her grandmother to her daughter and hoped
to do the same with her grandson. She asked why the
department had failed to build a subsistence calendar that
aligned with the needs of her district, noting that July
was typically rainy while June was dry and more suitable
for fishing. She argued that the issue persisted even when
fish were accounted for and asserted that elders in the
area held valuable knowledge. She recommended that the
department connect traditional knowledge with scientific
data to create more effective solutions.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that he was restricted from
managing fisheries in the Kuskokwim River because the area
fell under the authority of the Federal Subsistence Board.
He noted that he was sensitive to the issue and expressed
regret that he could not manage subsistence fisheries in
the region. He shared that he had attempted to open a
sockeye fishery on the Kuskokwim River for subsistence
purposes but the effort was met with a restraining order.
He expressed hope that management could be unified under a
single authority in the future. He shared that he had
recently visited an individual in the lower Yukon area
where the department had had allowed dip net fisheries as a
way to protect king salmon migrating into the Yukon
territories of Canada. He had spoken with a resident who
used a dip net to teach his son how to fish, even though it
was not a traditional gillnet. He thought that such efforts
aimed to preserve cultural practices while rebuilding fish
runs and ensuring long-term sustainability.
Co-Chair Josephson asked whether BOF had any authority over
the seasonality of fishing related to the rainy season.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the state was currently
banned from managing fisheries within the refuge in the
Kuskokwim River area.
Representative Jimmie asked who had the management
authority.
Mr. Vincent-Lang responded that the Federal Subsistence
Board currently held management authority and that the
state was challenging the matter in court in hopes of
returning to a single management system.
Co-Chair Josephson thanked Representative Jimmie and stated
that he appreciated her remarks and that her comments had
been heard.
HB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 54 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Josephson reviewed the agenda for the following
day's meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HFIN ADFG FY26 Budget Overview 02.24.25.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 53 |