Legislature(2025 - 2026)GRUENBERG 120
02/18/2025 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
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 | |
| HB93 | |
| HB33 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 93-RESIDENCY REQ: HUNTING, TRAPPING, FISHING
10:04:35 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 93, "An Act changing the residency requirements
for hunting, trapping, and sport fishing privileges; and
providing for an effective date."
10:04:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT, as prime sponsor, introduced HB 93.
She remarked that the genesis of HB 93 is from community
members, and law enforcement has confirmed that this issue
exists and needs a solution. She remarked on work with
Legislative Legal Services, Alaska Wildlife State Troopers, and
community members to make the best possible bill to support
Alaska Communities. She stated that HB 93 would align hunting
and fishing resident licensure requirements with the
requirements of the permanent fund dividend (PFD). She remarked
that currently, the enforcement of residency is difficult, and
residency definitions are not standardized throughout the state.
She said the goal is to protect Alaska resources for local
families and simplify the job for law enforcement groups. She
explained that current requirements for resident licensure are
that you must be in the state and must remain indefinitely,
which is difficult to enforce. Additionally, someone must have
a domicile in the state for 12 consecutive months prior to
licensure and the definition of "domiciled" is prone to various
interpretations. Lastly, someone cannot claim residency or
benefits in another state or country. She said HB 93 would add
an additional standard to the residency definition and would
require physical presence in the state for 12 months preceding
the application for resident hunting and fishing licensure. She
explained that this follows the same standard as the PFD,
including any exemptions and allowances. She said that this
would require Alaska residents to be physically present in the
state for a minimum of 6 months and 1 day during a calendar
year. She remarked that the bill does not require someone to
apply for the dividend nor receive it to receive resident
licensure but only have the qualifications to receive it. This
will allow law enforcement some certainty with regards to timing
of residency. She provided some examples of impacts it could
have, including no changes to personal use fisheries, and some
bag limits for fish species such as Chinook would remain the
same. She explained that some bag limits pertaining to hunting
would change depending on residency status. Additionally, she
said that the cost of resident tags is different from that of
non-residents. She remarked that this bill had support in the
Thirty-Third Alaska State Legislature from various entities and
mentioned a few of these groups. In summary she said that the
residency requirements for hunting and fishing should be
clearer, and this bill would support both local resources and
law enforcement.
10:11:30 AM
THATCHER BROUWER, Staff, Representative Rebecca Himschoot,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Himschoot,
prime sponsor, gave the sectional analysis for HB 93 [included
in the committee file], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided.]:
Section 1 amends AS 16.05.400 by adding a new
subsection that requires a permanent identification
card holder to meet the updated residency requirements
in the bill.
Section 2 amends AS 16.05.415(a) bringing up to date
the requirements for an individual to qualify for a
resident sport fishing, hunting, or trapping license.
A new subsection, AS 16.05.415(a)(3), is added which
stipulates an individual must be physically present at
all times in Alaska during the 12 months preceding the
application for a resident license, or if absent, only
absent as allowed for someone who is eligible for a
permanent fund dividend (AS 43.23.008).
Section 3 amends AS 16.05.415(e) specifying an alien
must meet the same residency requirements in section 2
of the bill to qualify for a resident sport fishing,
hunting or trapping license.
Section 4 adds a new subsection to AS 16.05.415
directing the commissioner to adopt regulations under
AS 44.62 for determining eligibility of a person to
receive a resident sport fishing, hunting or trapping
license.
Section 5 establishes a delayed effective date of
January 1, 2027, for the bill.
10:13:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Representative Himschoot about what
the conversations with constituents were who wanted the bill and
what the impetus was.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that the Fish and Game
Advisory Committees stated that this is an issue throughout the
state. She said that the term domicile is open to
interpretation and could include a dry cabin or even a boat on a
trailer. She said that there are a lot of ways to claim a
domicile while living out of state. She said this is an issue
on Prince of Wales Island and troopers there have had trouble
enforcing residency requirements. She said that being absent
from Alaska longer than 6 months while maintaining residency is
problematic.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE spoke about inconsistencies across statute
regarding the term domiciled. She noted Section 4 of the bill
and inquired whether discussions were made regarding what proof
of eligibility could look like.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that previous discussions
were been made regarding proof of eligibility. She said this
could be a 1099 or a receipt from myAlaska, which would be the
easiest, but there is other paperwork that could validate
residency. She said that documentation is simplified when
someone receives the PFD.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that there has been consternation
around this bill regarding providing proof of eligibility and if
there was an easier way to enforce it for the troopers then it
might be more doable. She said that she was open to trooper
insights and felt it would be helpful for the discussion.
10:17:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELAM asked how HB 93 would impact seniors who
have perpetual licenses and how these licenses would be impacted
if those seniors don't meet PFD requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that seniors would maintain
their lifetime license but in order to use it, they would need
to be in state for a minimum of 6 months and 1 day. She added
that this is a reason for the extended effective date; it would
allow an additional year for people to come into compliance.
10:18:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE remarked on issues he had with the bill,
both last year's concept and the current. He said that elders
are being treated differently than Merchant Marine seaman. He
said that these mariners do not need a residence in Alaska and
could be at sea for 10 months, rent for those remaining 2 months
to qualify for the PFD and then receive resident benefits. He
remarked that a Native who was born here, lived in Alaska their
whole life, and had a permanent fishing license, couldn't leave
more than six months, and retain residency. He said this really
bothers him and he wasn't sure whether it would fit under the
Equal Protection Clause. He thought that treatment for those
born and raised in Alaska was different than someone who may
move up to Alaska and utilize loopholes for resident hunting and
fishing access.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that Merchant Marines are
listed in the allowable absences for the PFD. She said if there
are other career paths that take people out of state then they
can be added to the list. She remarked that some species could
be hunted with a relative as an accompanying guide. She said
that two different timelines were being looked at, a lifetime
perspective and the earned right versus the annual perspectives
of families trying to fill the freezer. She said that if
someone has the means to live out of state then they are
enjoying a lower cost of living.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that he doesn't disagree with what
was said other than the allowable absences under the PFD with
Merchant Marines because they had no freezers to fill. He
reiterated that someone born and raised in Alaska would now face
a dilemma when going out of state. He said that he would be
more supportive of the bill if this could be fixed and there are
other career paths that could be discussed for allowable
absences.
10:23:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said that the cohort of people that would
be impacted would be small since there is a zero fiscal note
associated with the bill. He asked if this was a safe
assumption.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that she was working to try
to get a more concrete number. She said that troopers are doing
the work now, but they cannot enforce it. She reiterated that
HB 93 would help support enforcement efforts.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON remarked that the court is overburdened
now and there would likely be costs associated with
prosecutions. He asked if tribal cards could be used and what
role that might play. He acknowledged the issue of residency
and domicile definitions for the state.
10:25:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked if it was Representative Himschoot's
intent to use the absences as identified in Alaska Statute to
simply align the allowable absences with what is allowable under
the PFD.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that this is exactly what the
bill is trying to do. She also responded that this would allow
the courts to move faster and easier with facilitated
enforcement for officers.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked if the intent was not to endorse all
the allowable absences as bill sponsor but to only align them
with PFD requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT responded that this is correct.
10:27:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that his issue with the
discussion is not about money and remarked on land ownership
dilemmas associated with the proposal. He said this could
easily be solved with an amendment to the proposed bill. He
noted that with last year's bill concept there was a lot of
resistance to the idea.
10:29:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked about the fiscal note and inquired
how enforceability would work in the field.
10:31:35 AM
MAJOR FRENZEL, Deputy Director, Alaska Wildlife Troopers,
Department of Public Safety, responded that residency cases
differ across the state. Last year he estimated that about 75%
percent of cases were Wildlife Troopers doing proactive work by
conducting contact investigations and another 25% percent of
cases were reports from concerned citizens. He said that it is
a different process than PFD verification. He described the
process of getting a hunting and fishing license compared to a
PFD. He said that investigations occur after the benefits had
been obtained and this can cause enforcement issues. He said
that difficult cases typically refuse to help investigators, and
this prompts a more detailed investigation. He remarked that
officers will often look for what benefits are being received
out of state during the residency investigation. He said that
in the 12-month period prior to receiving licenses there cannot
be any out-of-state benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what is the first form of proof that
is requested by enforcement when conducting residency
investigations.
MAJOR FRENZEL responded that often it may be a driver's license
followed by a series of questions. Using the responses,
investigators can get a generally good idea about residency
qualification.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether HB 93, if passed, would
create inconsistencies with a driver's license because someone
can be in the state 30 days and receive a driver's license. She
further inquired how enforcement would be implemented under the
changed residency requirement.
MAJOR FRENZEL responded that someone would need to be a resident
for 12 months prior to receiving a resident hunting or fishing
license and hopefully they would have obtained a driver's
license in that period.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she was trying to get the full grasp
of how this bill would be walked out in the field and that
maintaining the trust of Alaskans was imperative.
10:35:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said that this appears as a clean-up bill
because so many of the statutes in Alaska are antiquated. He
discussed the dates in which some bills were formed. He asked
if enforcement views HB 93 as a clean-up bill.
MAJOR FRENZEL responded that residency cases are very difficult
cases as written currently. He said that many times enforcement
needs to go off intent and this can be difficult to prove in
court. He said that some prosecutors have remarked that
residency violation cases can require more paperwork than some
homicides. He said that this bill would provide an exact
timeline for law enforcement and mentioned the different records
pertinent to residency cases.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said that some people would be called into
question if HB 93 were to become law. He said that from
personal experience this group of violators seems small. He
said the bill is important, but it applies to a small subset of
people in the field.
MAJOR FRENZEL said that HB 93 would restrict Alaska residency
and that some out-of-state people would lose residency. He said
it would tighten things up.
10:39:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELAM asked about senior snowbirds living on the
Kenai Peninsula with a lifetime license and how enforcement
would validate residency while on a riverbank.
MAJOR FRENZEL responded that investigations would be the same as
any other residency investigation. He said that routine contact
questions would be conducted and if questions seem out of the
ordinary then enforcement would dig a little deeper. In that
situation they may not be a resident after investigation.
10:41:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE mentioned that there may be a statute that
states that if someone establishes residency in Alaska, they
have 90 days to get a driver's license.
MAJOR FRENZEL responded that this is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said it is pretty much the same as other
states. He said last year he heard that some people on Prince
of Wales Island were moving to Washington; keeping their Alaska
driver's license; then coming back for the summer and using that
Alaska driver's license to hunt and fish as a resident. He said
this is a problem and they are breaking their individual state
laws to maintain an Alaska License.
MAJOR FRENZEL responded that this was a fair statement. He
remarked that it is something that is not well enforced across
the country. He mentioned that when enforcement officers stop
someone with an out-of-state license and ask questions, it can
be difficult to ascertain the correct information.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that he was aware of the issue and
wondered if there were a better way to enforce it. He said it
seems like it would take a lot of time to enforce these things
on the back end and asked if this was a fair statement.
MAJOR FRENZEL responded that he doesn't believe any more
investigative time would be spent than what current
investigations entail. He said it may broaden the pool of whom
enforcement officers are looking for as opposed to before
because there would be a strict timeline. He said that some
people will start getting nonresident licenses because they
would not want to take the risk of legal repercussions.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked about having to carry papers while
going fishing and needing to have residency information
available for enforcement. He asked if there was an easy way to
prove residency for enforcement.
MAJOR FRENZEL said a lot of investigations don't initially
require paperwork but issue a series of questions. He said
enforcement won't end a trip on the spot unless warranted and
these investigations would have follow-ups.
10:45:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE echoed one of the concerns that
Representative McCabe had regarding the proposed bill and,
people who suddenly become in violation of the law. She asked
what the difference between hunting and fishing rights were for
a resident as opposed to a non-resident.
MAJOR FRENZEL answered that this can include different seasons,
bag limits, what species are available, and some animals require
a guide for nonresidents. He discussed a few differences
between a non-resident and resident tag. He opined that he
never felt like residency was a financial thing, but it has to
do with taking the resource.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she has been looking at domiciled
residency in other areas such as voting and asked what the
impact would be to flip it and first approve residency prior to
resident licensure.
MAJOR FRENZEL responded that it is a lengthy process and the
delay in time between a PFD application and received PFD
benefits was considerable.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that the timeline is an issue. She
said that from a public perspective, people don't want to see
wasted resources on investigations and there is a need for
balance. She asked if new technology could be utilized and
whether any other concerns should be considered other than the
timeline.
MAJOR FRENZEL said that when someone applies for the PFD the
cost for violation is very clear. He said that the risk to
reward for the PFD is not there and if felony level crime is
placed on resident hunting and fishing access then it will deter
violators. He said that there are lots of licenses sold in
Alaska and they don't typically investigate residents. He
explained the types of people that these investigations pertain
to.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how many investigations are conducted
in a year and what the penalty is for violations.
MAJOR FRENZEL remarked that if it is a misdemeanor it can cost
up to $25,000 and one year in jail. He said a $200-350 fine is
on the lower end for citations. He said that Big Game animals
are different and typically prosecuted more heavily. He said
that he could get those figures to Representative Vance in a
follow-up regarding the number of investigations and said that
there a lot of undocumented cases as well.
10:53:28 AM
JOE FELKL, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, said that there is a zero fiscal note. He said the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game has had many conversations with the
bill sponsor and the intent of the proposed bill is not to
change the way licenses are issued and that's why it is zero.
He noted that when completing online license purchases,
applicants certify that they meet residency requirements. He
reiterated that nothing in the bill would change the way that
licenses are issued.
10:54:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE remarked on the bill and mentioned Page 2
Paragraph 21. He asked if regulations could get developed to
support life-long Alaskans when they don't meet PFD
requirements.
MR. FELKL replied that he did not believe so. He said the
commissioner could not establish regulation that is inconsistent
with the statute. He said a tribal identification could be
taken as a government document, but it would not create any
exemptions.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked about the backend and mentioned that
intent was hard to prove. He asked whether, if a violator could
prove that their intent was to be a lifelong resident, but they
didn't get a PFD, there could be an appeals process.
MR. FELKL said it would not be possible with this bill as it is
currently written.
10:57:27 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced the committee would hear invited
testimony on HB 93.
10:57:44 AM
PAUL JOHNSON, Co-Owner, Gull Cove Lodge, gave invited testimony
in support of HB 93. He appreciated the fact that nothing is
perfect, but resources were limited. He said statehood was a
big deal and the state was set-up to protect the resources for
the residents of the state and asked members how wide the door
should be open. He remarked that the Board of Fisheries is
backed up and resident allowances are going down. He said most
of the small communities around have people that buy real estate
and claim residency. He said in additional to taking resident
benefits they also become federally subsistence qualified. He
mentioned that most residents can't hunt in federal subsistence
qualified activities, but those people do. He also said these
people can federally fish subsistence for halibut too and even
bring up their friends to abuse the system. He said this is not
about money, but something much more precious. He opined that
it has been made clear that the long-term benefit to the state
is fish and game. He said this bill is important for a lot of
reasons and making it easier for troopers is just one. He said
90 percent of the people will be easily checked with the PFD.
He appreciated that "this pair of pants won't fit everybody
perfectly, but something needs to give." He echoed
Representative Edgmon's comment that current definitions are
antiquated.
11:01:31 AM
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony on HB 93.
11:01:56 AM
GARY HOLLIER, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
93. He said he is a 71-year resident of Alaska and has received
every PFD. He said he doesn't get benefits from any other
state. He said under this bill, if he is gone more than 180-
days then he can't qualify for residency. He said he had many
friends who would like to have these licenses even if they were
gone for 185-days. He said even if gone from Alaska then he
still wouldn't get out-of-state benefits. He said HB 93 is
almost unconstitutional.
11:04:09 AM
CHAIR STUTES, after ascertaining there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 93.
11:04:52 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced HB 93 was held over.