Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/07/2024 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| SB189 | |
| HB120 | |
| SCR10 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 189 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 120
"An Act relating to hunting, trapping, and fishing
licenses for certain nonresident postsecondary
students; and providing for an effective date."
9:39:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FRANK TOMASZEWSKI, SPONSOR, explained that
HB 120 related to non-resident hunting, fishing, and
trapping licenses. He read from a Sponsor Statement (copy
on file):
House Bill 120 adds a new non-resident student
hunting, fishing, and trapping license. Upon passage
of this legislation, a non-resident student enrolled
in classes full or half time, as determined by their
school, can purchase a license at resident cost. This
does not change any regulations or the cost of tags.
Research shows hunting and fishing have declined since
the 1960s. As the percentage of the population that
hunts, fishes, and traps declines, so does our
conservation funding. Conservation funding by federal
statutes (Pittman-Robertson Act, Dingell-Johnson Act,
Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, etc.) is directly
tied to excise taxes on things like ammunition,
firearms, archery, and fishing equipment. These taxes
are then distributed to the states' fish and game
departments for conservation and management efforts.
To access these federal dollars, the states must match
the funding, Alaska does so by utilizing the revenue
from hunting and fishing licenses. The direct
correlation between our hunters and our conservation
ability cannot be overlooked. It is critical that we
encourage younger generations to participate in these
wonderful outdoor activities.
Though hunting and fishing may not be easy hobbies to
pick up, an additional financial burden may make it
even harder. Many younger students who might be
interested in learning how to hunt and fish are also
trying to pay for college life. Lowering the license
cost non-resident students pay may encourage them to
go hunting, fishing, or trapping with their fellow
students.
Representative Tomaszewski commented that part of the bill
concentrated on two other issues not included in the
sponsor statement. He mentioned recruitment and retention,
and thought the bill was a way for the University of Alaska
to recruit new students. He thought the bill would serve as
a marketing tool to attract students to the state for
higher education. He thought hunting and fishing created
connection with nature and would encourage students to stay
in the state. He spoke to the mental health benefits of
being in nature while hunting and fishing. He discussed his
personal enjoyment of being in nature.
9:44:17 AM
ZACH YOUNG, STAFF FOR REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI, addressed
a Sectional Analysis (copy on file).
Section 1: Amends the section to include the new
nonresident postsecondary student license.
Section 2: Adds a new subsection allowing for
nonresident students who are enrolled half-time or
part-time in postsecondary education to purchase a
special nonresident postsecondary student license for
sport fishing, hunting, or trapping at the same cost
as a resident license.
Section 3: Provides uncodified law that allows the
Department of Fish and Game to adopt regulations to
implement to the new license.
Section 4: Provides for an effective date.
Section 5: Provides for an effective date.
Mr. Young commented that the bill was an opportunity to
encourage and incentivize students to come to the state and
stay in the state. He thought many people loved the state
because of outdoor recreation opportunities. He proposed
that students were often in a difficult financial position
and were away from their families. He thought the bulk of
the recreation season took place outside the academic
sessions of UA. He thought recreation would incentivize
people to stay during the summer. He emphasized that the
government should incentivize staying in the state.
9:46:44 AM
Senator Kiehl thanked the sponsor for bringing the bill
forward, and thought it was a worthwhile step in
recruitment and retention. He asked if the bill proposed
any change to who would need a harvest ticket versus a
locking-tag for certain big game animals.
Mr. Young understood that hunters would still need to
purchase a non-resident tag for any big game animal and the
requirement would not be changed under the bill.
Senator Kiehl understood that under the bill, out-of-state
students would still the pay non-resident locking-tag
price.
Mr. Young answered yes.
Senator Kiehl noted that the intensive management fee
differed by resident and non-resident. He asked if the bill
proposed that non-resident students would pay the non-
resident intensive management fee for a hunting license.
Mr. Young explained that under the bill, the intensive
management fee would be adjusted down to the resident rate.
He noted that the intensive management fee only applied to
fishing licenses. Under the provisions of the bill, the
total cost of a hunting license for a non-resident student
would be $45 (including a $10 management fee), as it was
for an Alaskan. For a non-resident, the total was $160
(including a $30 management fee).
Senator Kiehl thought the bill indicated something
different. He asked for more details on the mechanics of
the provision in the meeting or at a later time.
Co-Chair Olson asked the sponsor's preference.
Representative Tomaszewski indicated he would gladly meet
with Senator Kiehl to discuss the provision in more detail.
Senator Bishop asked if students over the age of 60 would
get a hunting license at no cost.
Mr. Young relayed that the bill did not allow for any other
exemptions. He noted that there was an exemption in statute
for $5 hunting and fishing licenses for people under the
poverty line. He thought the senior discount would not be
applicable.
Senator Bishop asked if there was anyone from the
Department of Fish and Game that could address his
question.
9:50:33 AM
JOE FELKL, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, introduced himself and asked Senator Bishop to repeat
his question.
Senator Bishop relayed that at age 60, Alaska residents
could receive a lifetime hunting license. He asked if the
opportunity would apply to part-time or full-time students
as the bill was written.
Mr. Felkl answered no, and continued that the bill would
create a special non-resident license, which would still be
subject to all the requirements of non-residents, thus
would not qualify for the disabled veteran liscense.
Senator Bishop pondered whether a senior citizen that was a
part-time or full-time student would have a case for a
lawsuit.
Mr. Felkl explained that the way the bill was drafted, it
did not give non-resident postsecondary students any rights
in law that were for residents, including the disabled
veteran license. He could not speak to a possible lawsuit.
Co-Chair Stedman was curious about how the bill would
pertain to graduate students and students in training
programs such as at the Alaska Vocational Technical Center
(AVTEC).
Mr. Felkl explained that the bill sited a list of
postsecondary institutions in the state, including AVTEC.
Mr. Felkl clarified that the non-resident intensive
management surcharge would apply to the new license, as
would all other non-resident requirements such as bag
limits. The post-secondary students would not be able to
participate in personal use or subsistence hunts and
fisheries.
Co-Chair Olson asked Mr. Felkl to comment on the fiscal
note.
Mr. Felkl noted that there was three fiscal notes attached
to the bill. He commented on a new zero fiscal note from
ADFG, OMB Component 479. The fiscal note was for statewide
support services and focused on potential operating costs
for the Division of Administrative Services and Licensing.
He discussed the creation of a new license in the system
with supplemental questions. He discussed details of
potentially licensing changes. The department anticipated
additional applications if the bill was implemented, but
did not anticipate that the increase would require
additional staffing of create a substantively increased
workload.
Mr. Felkl commented two additional new fiscal notes from
ADFG, for the Division of Wildlife Conservation (OMB
Component 473) and the Division of Sport Fisheries (OMB
Component 464). He explained that the two notes focused on
potential revenue impacts to the Fish and Game Fund. The
fiscal note analysis showed recognition that there could be
a slight decrease in revenue, but the department agreed
with the sponsor that the new license would encourage more
postsecondary students that would not otherwise participate
in hunting and fishing. The department thought any
difference, positive or negative, would be minimal and both
notes were submitted as zero fiscal notes. He reiterated
that the holders of the new license type would still be
subject to all other non-resident requirements including
the intensive management and tag fees.
Senator Bishop asked how the bill would apply to non-
resident aliens that were part-time or full-time students
at the University of Alaska.
Mr. Felkl understood that the bill would also apply to non-
resident aliens.
Senator Bishop asked for Mr. Felkls response in writing.
9:56:44 AM
JENNIFER YUHAS, PRESIDENT, OUTDOOR HERITAGE FOUNDATION OF
ALASKA, spoke in support of the bill. She noted that
funding for conservation and management of the states
living resources was dependent upon license holders that
hunted, fished, and trapped. She thought recruitment of new
license holders was critical. She expected that the
legislation would generate revenue into the future as
people were recruited to the state. She mentioned students
at UAF that engaged in weekend activities. She suggested
that non-resident students could be recruited to hunting
and fishing activities that would create interest for
future participation and license purchasing.
9:59:45 AM
CHAD HUTCHISON, STATE DIRECTOR FOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, explained that the University of
Alaska (UA) supported the bill. He thought the bill aligned
well with the conversation the UA president was having with
the governor regarding using UA to boost the working-age
population of the state. He thought the bill was a step
towards helping students live the Alaskan dream.
Co-Chair Olson OPENED public testimony.
10:01:10 AM
ED MARTIN, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), spoke in favor
of the bill. He thought the bill seemed to apply to a
special interest group that may come to UA to study. He
thought the bill should have a caveat that once the student
because a resident they would need a resident license. He
thought the sponsor was trying to tap into federal dollars.
He did not think the Senate realized that the country was
paying interest on a huge debt. He emphasized that the
resources in question belonged to Alaskans. He stressed the
importance of fiscal responsibility. He agreed that the
state needed to bring students into the UA system.
Co-Chair Olson asked if Mr. Martin was against the bill.
Mr. Martin relayed that he was against the bill unless
there was a provision that only allowed the special license
for one year until residency was established.
Senator Merrick understood that some of the federal dollars
were directly tied to excise taxes on things like firearms,
ammunition, and archery and fishing equipment.
Senator Wilson mentioned excise taxes and discussed student
residency conditions. He understood that the premise of the
bill was to offer benefits to students from out of state
and help them enjoy the Alaskan lifestyle.
10:06:02 AM
Co-Chair Olson thought there was an issue that needed to be
clarified regarding non-resident alien students.
Mr. Felkl relayed that under AS 16.05.14 (h), the statute
separated a non-resident person from a non-resident alien
for the purposes of fishing and hunting licenses and
permits. The bill would not include non-resident alien
students to qualify for the reduced license fee.
Co-Chair Olson CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Tomaszewski thanked the committee and
relayed that he would get back to the committee with the
requested information.
Co-Chair Olson relayed that his office had received phone
calls from rural areas regarding limits on moose and
salmon. He mentioned a bill related to purchasing permits.
He asked why the bill proposed to give out-of-state
residents access at a reduced rate when there was a
shortage of some of the states resources.
Representative Tomaszewski explained that the non-resident
students would still have to abide by the restrictions and
regulations that were imposed on all residents of the
state. He thought Co-Chair Olson had posed a great question
that was a philosophical debate that was hard to get to the
bottom of.
Co-Chair Olson mentioned a moratorium between the state and
Canada that had to do with numbers of fish in trans-
boundary waters. He was interested in the sponsors
thoughts.
Mr. Young relayed that the previous year there had been
332,000 non-resident fishing licenses sold the previous
year. The UA student population of non-resident students
was around 3,200; and if 20 percent of the students
purchased the new license type it would be only 1 percent
of the total. He thought that while the concerns were
clear, the bill was geared at getting non-resident students
to engage in mostly Southcentral and Interior fisheries,
which were not as strongly impacted.
HB 120 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.