Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/27/2023 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 | |
| HB26 | |
| SB87 | |
| SB25 | |
| HB125 | |
| HB178 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 125 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 178 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 125
"An Act relating to trapping cabins on state land; and
relating to trapping cabin permit fees."
2:29:04 PM
Co-Chair Foster noted that the committee would be hearing
HB 125 and invited the sponsor to introduce the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM MCKAY, SPONSOR, introduced HB 125. He
read the sponsor statement (copy on file):
Alaska has a rich history of trapping which far pre-
dates the founding of our state. Trappers who run long
lines in remote areas need cabins for shelter. These
cabins are small, basic domiciles which serve as
shelter in Alaska's harsh weather conditions. Roughly
three decades ago, trapper advocates worked with the
legislature to implement a program which allowed for
the construction of trapper cabins on state lands (AS
38.95.075 AS 38.95.085). Over the years, issues have
been identified with that program which require
statutory amendments. This bill would address several
problems relating to Trapping Cabin Construction
Permits (TCCP).
HB 125 updates the outdated statutes associated with
receiving a TCCP and incorporates the use of existing
trapping cabins on State lands. Current Statute does
not allow the Department to issue permits for already
constructed cabins. This bill would close that gap so
all permits will be issued as Trapping Cabin Permits,
covering both construction of a new cabin and allowing
the continued use for an existing cabin.
As Alaskans, we have a unique respect for traditional
ways of life, such as trapping. I urge my fellow
colleagues of the 33rd legislature to support this
legislation to help Alaskan trappers.
2:32:19 PM
TREVOR JEPSEN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TOM MCKAY, introduced
the PowerPoint presentation "HB 125 Trapping Cabin
Construction Permit Reform" dated April 27, 2023 (copy on
file). He began on slide 2 and defined trapping cabins as
small and basic domiciles along trap lines that were used
for temporary shelter. The necessity of the cabins had to
be proven before the cabins would be permitted to be built
on state lands. Trapping cabin permits were currently
issued under AS 38.95.075 and AS 38.95.080. The statutes
were crafted over 40 years ago. He argued that statutes
created unnecessary confusion in permitting process and
restricted the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from
permitting cabins under certain scenarios.
Mr. Jepsen continued to slide 3 to expand upon AS
38.95.075. He explained that the statute demonstrated the
process for DNR to issue permits for cabins that were
already in existence. The individual seeking the permit had
to prove that the cabin had been in regular use before
August 1, 1984. Issues would arise when cabins had lapsed
in ownership, use, or were abandoned. He explained that DNR
had seen a pattern wherein individuals wanted to utilize
trapping cabins, but DNR was not able to issue permits due
to the limitations of the statute.
Mr. Jepsen advanced to slide 4 to further detail AS
38.95.080, which authorized DNR to issue permits for the
construction of new trapping cabins. He read the
requirements for a permit for a new trapping cabin:
1. The person must have an established trapline with
proof of regular use;
2. The person must have a trapline of sufficient
length to justify the need for cabin construction
Mr. Jepsen continued that AS 38.95.080 also outlined the
responsibility of the department as well as other
requirements and restrictions for trapping cabin
construction permits.
Mr. Jepsen moved to slide 5 and explained the ways in which
HB 125 would address the problem. The bill would revise AS
38.95.080 to include all trapping cabin permit situations
and repeal AS 38.95.075. It would allow DNR to permit
existing cabins on state lands. It would also update the
application fee schedule and set all related fees in
statute and provide additional clarity on the permitting
process. He noted that the bill was the result of a
collaboration between the House Resources Committee, DNR,
and the Alaska Trappers Association (ATA).
2:36:05 PM
Co-Chair Foster suggested that Mr. Jepsen provide the
sectional analysis.
Mr. Jepsen read through the sectional (copy on file):
Sec. 1 Conforming change to incorporate the new AS
38.95.080(g) (section 6 of this bill) into the fee
schedule regulations under AS 38.05.850(a).
Sec. 2 & 3 Restructures the existing AS 38.05.080(a)
and (b), which authorize the commissioner to issue
trapping cabin permits. Also clarifies who is entitled
to a permit for existing cabins on state lands.
Sec. 4 Clarifies the conditions for a permit that must
be included in regulations. This clarification
includes:
1. Providing more guidance on permit renewals
2. Detailing the process for multiple cabins
under the same permit
3. Specifying a procedure for unowned cabins
4. Setting statutory fee limits for the permits
5. Making several technical drafting changes
Sec. 5 Provides more explicit language to ensure that
a use permit cannot be misinterpreted as providing
ownership rights or preference rights to future
ownership.
Sec. 6 Creates two new subsections, which:
1. Further define the nonexclusive nature of the
permit by stating that the director may issue
multiple trapping cabin permits for the use of
the same cabin.
2. Bars the department from charging additional
land use fees for the use or construction of a
trapping cabin.
Sec. 7 Conforming and technical changes to the
definitions section.
Sec. 8 Repeals AS 38.95.075 (permits for the use of
trapping cabins) to conform to the changes made in
this bill and to remove the outdated August 1, 1984,
reference point.
Co-Chair Foster added that there was a representative from
ATA online for questions. He asked if the individual had
any comments.
2:38:50 PM
RANDALL ZARNKE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), relayed that the process by
which trapping cabins were permitted was created by ATA and
DNR and it seemed to have worked well for nearly 40 years.
He recently started to hear complaints from ATA members who
were unable to get their permits renewed. He relayed that
DNR staff reported that the original legislation did not
authorize the department to renew permits. The association
worked in collaboration with DNR to craft HB 125 to solve
the problem. The bill would bring stability back to the
process as well as increase the original permit fee, which
ATA supported. He emphasized that not all trappers needed a
cabin, but cabins were essential for trappers in remote
locations. The bill would benefit both urban and rural
trappers. He warned that if the bill did not pass, trappers
with existing cabins would be left "in limbo" and without a
process by which cabin permits could be renewed.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Mr. Zarnke. He added that there
were other testifiers available if members had additional
questions.
2:42:04 PM
Representative Hannan noted that Section 1 of the bill
would incorporate the new AS 38.95.080(g) into the existing
AS 38.05.850(a). She understood that most of the existing
statute related to permitting new trapping cabins for use.
The current statute gave permit preference for use to
uplands users on the track of tidelands. She was curious
how the statutory preference would intersect with the new
proposed statute relating to trapping cabins. She was under
the impression that the cabins in question were trapping
cabins, not tideland cabins or duck hunting cabins. There
had been some conflicts about duck hunting cabins
encroaching on state tidelands and she wanted to ensure
that the bill focused purely on trapping cabins.
Mr. Jepsen responded that the only change made by HB 125 in
Section 1 was adding AS 38.95.080(g), which were the
stipulations listed in Section 6 relating to permit fees
and allowing multiple permits to be issued for the same
cabin. The bill did not change any other language in AS
38.05.850(a).
Representative Stapp referred to language on page 3 of the
bill disallowing shelters exceeding 400 square feet to be
built without authorization. He asked Mr. Jepsen if there
were existing structures that could theoretically be used
as trapping cabins but could not be permitted because the
cabins were built without prior authorization.
Mr. Jepsen responded that the issue mentioned by
Representative Stapp was one of the reasons for the bill.
There were cabins on state lands that trappers would like
to use but were unable to due to the current statute. The
bill would allow previously built cabins that exceeded 400
square feet to be permitted for trapping as long as the
individual applying for the permit did not build the cabin
without prior authorization. He added that unutilized
trespassing cabins that could be a liability for DNR could
be eligible for trapping cabin permits.
Representative Stapp understood that if a person
constructed a cabin without authorization prior to the
bill, there was no way the cabin could be permitted.
Mr. Jepsen responded in the affirmative. He clarified that
if an individual built a cabin without authorization, the
individual could not get a trapping cabin permit.
Representative Cronk asked Mr. Jepsen for a description of
"proof of regular use."
Mr. Jepsen responded that there were multiple ways to
provide proof of regular use, such as a verified trapping
license issued by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG),
fur receipts, or proof of income related to trapping
activities.
Representative Cronk thanked the sponsor for bringing forth
the legislation.
2:47:22 PM
Representative Josephson understood that if there was a
trespassing cabin constructed on state land that was
greater than 400 square feet, the cabin would be
permittable under the bill. He asked Mr. Jepsen if his
understanding was correct. He recalled that DFG was
previously involved in trying to eliminate shoreline cabins
on hazardous sites and all of the cabins that were not
eliminated were grandfathered in to permitting in 2022. He
understood that HB 125 would take similar actions, but the
cabins would not be privately held. He thought the bill
would "bless" some cabins that would not have been
previously authorized in the past.
Mr. Jepsen responded in the affirmative. If the cabin was
built without authorization and was abandoned or there was
a lapse in ownership, the cabin would be permittable under
the bill. He understood that DNR would like there to be a
party responsible for some of the cabins. He asked a
representative from DNR to confirm his understanding.
MEGAN HILLGARTNER, DIVISION OF MINING LAND AND WATER,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via teleconference),
responded that Mr. Jepsen was correct and DNR would prefer
that any existing and unauthorized cabins be captured under
a permit. The bill would give the department the ability to
ensure that existing cabins would be accounted for through
an authorization.
Representative Josephson asked Ms. Hillgartner what the
department was doing to address future unauthorized cabins.
Ms. Hillgartner responded that the department did its best
to work with trappers that had interest in utilizing
existing cabins or seeking authorization for unauthorized
cabins. For example, other entities such as DFG had sought
use of existing trespass cabins on state lands. There were
also other ways in which a cabin could be permitted under a
different authority, such as a guide program. The
department made efforts to permit the cabins under existing
authorizations, but it had removed some of the cabins that
were not permittable. It would be helpful to the department
to have the ability to permit cabins for the use of
trapping.
2:50:56 PM
Representative Hannan relayed that the bill referenced
"regular use" and on page 3, line 5, the term "periodic
use" was used. She wanted to ensure that an individual with
a ten-year trapping cabin permit would not be required to
use the cabin every year in order to prove it was being
utilized on a regular or periodic basis. She asked Ms.
Hillgartner to provide DNR's definition of regular use and
periodic use. She asked how many trapping cabins currently
existed.
Ms. Hillgartner replied that there were currently 83
existing trapping cabins on state lands. She relayed that
regular use required that there be evidence that a trapper
was using the cabin in association with trapping
activities. If an individual was issued a ten-year trapping
cabin permit, the department would determine regular use by
examining elements such as proof of income as a result of
the trapping. The department would not necessarily mandate
that there be proof of annual use of a cabin, but for a
trapper to provide proof that the cabin was being used in
association with trapping activities during the term of the
permit.
Representative Hannan asked for clarification that to prove
regular use, there would need to be evidence that an
individual used the cabin throughout the permit period, but
there did not need to be evidence of selling furs. She
shared that the trapper she worked with would hold furs for
several years if the price of fur declined and would sell
the furs again once the price increased.
Ms. Hillgartner would verify the information and follow up.
Representative Cronk commented that he had a personal
conflict because he held a permit. He shared that he
submitted ceilings receipts to DFG as proof that he was
using the cabin. Many cabins were in remote locations: one
of his cabins was 14 miles off the road and another was 26
miles off the road. It could become a safety issue when
trappers were in remote locations and the temperatures
dropped and individuals had nowhere to go to seek shelter.
He relayed that the cabins could also be for survival
purposes.
2:55:21 PM
Representative Tomaszewski asked about the requirement for
a trap line to be sufficient length to justify the need for
the cabin. He asked Mr. Jepsen for more information on
sufficient length.
Mr. Jepsen responded that sufficient length was generally
regarded as any length that would be hazardous to run the
trapline without the presence of a nearby shelter.
Sufficient length was subjective and dependent upon each
trapper's individual circumstances, topography, and
weather. The main deciding factor was whether it would be
hazardous to run the trapline without the availability of a
shelter.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the meeting was intended to be
an introduction of the bill. He asked if the bill sponsor
had any closing comments.
Representative McKay thanked the committee for its time.
HB 125 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.