Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/19/2024 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 | |
| HB125 | |
| SB207 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 125 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 207 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 125(RES)
"An Act relating to trapping cabins on state land; and
relating to trapping cabin permit fees."
9:07:56 AM
Co-Chair Olson relayed that it was the first hearing for
CSHB 125(RES).
9:08:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TOM MCKAY, SPONSOR, introduced himself and
thanked the co-chairs for hearing the bill. He relayed that
he was the chair of the House Resources Committee and the
bill was sponsored by the committee. The legislation was a
product of work with his office, the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), and the Alaska Trappers Association. He
proposed that the bill would help trappers and help the
trapping industry grow and be accessible to future
generations.
Representative McKay recounted that the state had a rich
history in trapping, and that for some, trapping had been a
way of life for generations. He explained that trap lines
that were long and desolate were hazardous unless there was
shelter in the form of a small basic domicile known as a
trapping cabin. He noted that it had been almost 40 years
since the trapping cabin statutes had been change. The bill
would update outdated statutes associated with receiving a
trapping cabin construction permit, and incorporated
permits for the use of existing trapping cabins on state
lands. He cited that current statute did now allow for the
department to issue permits for existing trapping cabins.
The bill would close the gap so all permits would be issued
under a single trapping cabin permit statute. The statute
would cover both the construction of a new cabin and the
use of an existing cabin. He asserted that the bill would
provide common sense reforms to the current trapping cabin
permit statutes.
9:11:05 AM
AT EASE
9:22:48 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Olson asked the bill was directed towards cabins
that were built for trappers, or people other than
trappers.
Representative McKay relayed that the cabins referenced
were for all kinds of trapping, and were typically very
remote. A person must establish having a trapline. He noted
that the bill addressed existing cabins or cabins to be
constructed.
Co-Chair Olson asked if there was a specificity to the
types of traps used.
Representative McKay answered no.
Co-Chair Olson asked who owned the cabins in question.
Representative McKay relayed that the trappers themselves
would own the buildings.
Co-Chair Olson asked who paid for construction of the
buildings.
Representative McKay answered that the trappers themselves
paid for the construction.
Co-Chair Olson asked who owned the land.
Representative McKay answered that the state owned the
land.
Co-Chair Olson asked if there was a lease hold on the
lands.
Representative McKay relayed that there was a permit, which
he thought would take the place of a lease.
9:24:27 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wondered about a revocation or termination
of permits, and what assurances the state might have that a
cabin site would be cleaned up and the cabin removed.
Representative McKay relayed that there was a possibility
that if a permit was revoked, another individual could
apply and be awarded a permit for the structure.
Co-Chair Stedman wondered what insurance the state (as
landowner) would have that a site would be cleaned up and
the cabin removed if there was a revocation of the permit.
He thought the transfer mentioned by Representative McKay
was another issue. He asked about the owner of the building
and being forced to transfer ownership.
9:25:36 AM
TREVOR JEPSEN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TOM MCKAY, thought the
department could address the question about the end-of-life
disposal of trapping cabins.
Co-Chair Olson considered the possibility of hazardous
materials such as batteries being disposed of at the sites
and wondered about liability.
Representative McKay deferred the question to DNR.
Mr. Jepsen discussed a presentation entitled "HB 125 -
Trapping Cabin Construction Permit Reform," (copy on file).
He spoke to slide 2, "Trapping Cabin Permit Process":
Trapping cabin permits currently issued under two
statutes
AS 38.95.075 Permits for the Use of Trapping Cabins
AS 38.95.080 Trapping Cabin Construction Permits
Statutes create unnecessary confusion in permitting
process and restricts DNR from permitting cabins under
certain scenarios
Mr. Jepsen reiterated that trapping cabins were small basic
domiciles along trap lines that were used for temporary
shelter.
Mr. Jepsen reviewed slide 3, "AS 38.95.075 Permits for
the Use of Trapping Cabins":
• AS 38.95.075 states how the DNR issues permits for
cabins that already exist
• Issue arises with cabins that have lapsed in
ownership/use or have been abandoned
• DNR unable to issues new trapping cabin permits in
these scenarios
Mr. Jepsen referenced slide 4, "AS 38.95.080 Trapping
Cabin Construction Permits":
• AS 38.95.080 authorizes the DNR issues permits for
the construction of new trapping cabins
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
• 38.95.080 also outlines responsibilities of the
department and additional requirements and
restrictions for trapping cabin construction permits
Mr. Jepsen listed an active trapping license and pictures
of furs, receipts, or tax returns as examples for
established traplines with proof of regular use. He noted
that sufficient length had been established on a case-by-
case basis, and often related to a variety of factors
including length of the trapline, weather, and geography.
Mr. Jepsen addressed slide 5, "HB 125 Highlights":
• HB 125 revises AS 38.95.080 (Trapping Cabin
Construction Permits) to include all trapping cabin
permit situations and repeals AS 38.95.075 (Permits
for the Use of Trapping Cabins)
• Allows the DNR to permit existing cabins on state
lands
• Updates application fee schedule and sets all
related fees in statute
• Provides further clarity than current statute for
issuing trapping cabin permits
• HB 125 was the result of the House Resources
Committee working with DNR and the Alaska Trappers
Association
9:30:57 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wanted to discuss non-exclusive use. He
knew that Senator Bishop was a trapper. He pondered whether
non-owners of cabins could use existing trappers cabins.
Representative McKay understood that a person could use a
cabin if one was in fear for their health or safety and
could seek shelter if one was in need of refuge.
Mr. Jepsen noted that the non-exclusive permits were for
existing cabins that were not currently owned. He continued
that DNR could issue multiple permits for existing cabins
that were not owned. If a person was issued a building
permit for a trapping cabin, a second permit could be
issued for the cabin with the permission of the owner.
Co-Chair Olson asked if the permit would be for the use of
the cabin rather than the construction.
Mr. Jepsen affirmed that if a person constructed and owned
a cabin, DNR would have to seek permission to issue an
additional user permit for the cabin.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the information was clear, and
thought generally people did not have a problem giving use
to facilities when people were in a position of need.
Senator Kiehl thought one underlying issue was that DNR had
been looking at land leases for trapping cabins. He asked
if the bill would prohibit DNR from seeking a land lease
where there was a trapping cabin.
Representative McKay understood that all that was needed
was a permit for the structure.
Mr. Jepsen relayed that the use of leases was not a concern
of the bill, and that the primary point of the bill was to
address existing cabins that DNR could not permit for use
by Alaskans for trapping.
Senator Kiehl referenced FN2 from DNR, which referenced
foregone revenue from cabin permits, but did not speak to
the potential loss from lease revenue. He considered that
DNR could address whether it had been seeking leases, if
the bill allowed it to continue, and what the revenue
impact would be.
Co-Chair Olson asked if individuals were allowed to lock
the cabins against those who might need access for
emergency use. He asked if the cabins were normally locked.
Representative McKay answered affirmatively.
Co-Chair Olson asked how one could get a key to access a
cabin in an emergency.
Representative McKay presumed a person would have to break
the lock.
Co-Chair Olson wondered how a person could break a lock in
adverse conditions.
Representative McKay thought the department might be able
to address Co-Chair Olson's questions.
Co-Chair Stedman thought Co-Chair Olson had made a good
point. He thought many cabins were not locked so that there
was no reason to break a door or window.
Co-Chair Olson thought people or bears would access a
building whether there was a lock or not.
9:35:55 AM
RANDY ZARNKE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION (via
teleconference), expressed his full support for the bill.
He thought that the sponsor had done a good job in
providing the background for the bill. He relayed that the
current system DNR used to manage trapping cabin permits
was developed in the 1980s, and was developed with the
legislature, DNR, and the Alaska Trappers Association. He
recounted that there had been reports from members that
they were unable to renew permits. It was found that there
was a new interpretation within DNR related to the renewal
of permits.
Mr. Zarnke continued that that association had attempted to
resolve the issue without luck. Two years previously the
association began collaborating with DNR. He pointed out
that some people had expressed concern that the permit
procedure was made easier, there would be a proliferation
of cabins. He contended that not every trapper needed a
cabin and such an endeavor required a great deal of work.
He estimated that there could be ten to twenty new
applications in the first on to two years of implementation
of the legislation. He expressed full support in the bill,
and encouraged the committee to support the legislation.
Co-Chair Stedman was curious about the eventuality of DNR
finding a pirate cabin. He asked about DNR's reaction to
a pirate cabin, compared to the federal governments
reaction of burning the cabins down.
Mr. Zarnke referenced the Bureau of Land Managements
history of destroying pirate cabins. He was not aware that
DNR actively destroyed cabins. He relayed that part of the
association's position on the issue was to seek individuals
to take over the purview of cabins that were no longer in
use. Additionally, the association was willing to send
people on location for site clean-up if necessary.
9:40:29 AM
Co-Chair Olson relayed that before he was a legislator, he
had considered the BLMs practice of destroying cabins to
be abhorrent, particularly when the structures could be
necessary in an emergency. He had taken great offense to
the practice. He asked about the number of members in the
association.
Mr. Zarnke noted that the total Alaska Trappers
Association membership was 1,200, 85 percent of which were
in the state.
Co-Chair Olson asked if the members were qualified as
outlined int the proposed legislation.
Mr. Zarnke relayed that the vast majority of the membership
were active trappers. He noted that the association put out
magazines and books, and some members belonged because they
supported the trapping lifestyle.
Co-Chair Stedman was curious about the restrictions on
using the cabins as a residence. He asked how the statute
addressed the issue.
Mr. Zarnke deferred the question to the sponsor or DNR.
Mr. Jepsen relayed that statute barred the use of the
cabins as a primary residence. He did not believe that DNR
had a way to determine the status. He thought the
department could provide more information.
9:43:23 AM
DIANNA LEINBERGER, NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGER, DIVISION OF
MINING, LAND, AND WATER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
(via teleconference), explained that the proposed statute
would primarily provide a way to authorize existing cabins
after the original statute had become problematic over
time. She noted that DNR could currently issue permits for
new construction, but permit reissuance currently required
that the applicant have been trapping since 1984.
Ms. Leinberger addressed removal of a cabin, and noted that
there was a provision in the permit that stipulated that
the permittee was responsible and shall remove all
improvements, personal property, and return the permitted
area to clean and safe condition. In the event that the
grantee failed to comply with the requirement, the person
could be held liable for any and all costs incurred by the
state to return the area to a clean and safe condition. If
the cabin was abandoned, DNR could authorize a new trapper.
She explained that most of the time, since the cabins were
remote and along traplines, there was a new trapper that
would seek authorization for the cabin. She relayed that
there was not a significant issue of sites being left in
poor condition.
Ms. Leinberger spoke to the issue of potential
contamination of cabin sites, and relayed that the state
would be the state would potentially be the responsible
party since it was the underlying landowner and land
manager. She noted that there was typically not a concern
with contamination. She relayed that DNR did not often see
the cabins used as a primary residence. She thought it
would be difficult for DNR to enforce if a person was using
a trapping cabin as a primary residence but would reach out
to the individual. She mentioned concern that the cabins
might be used for recreational purposes but emphasized that
the cabins were trapping cabins mostly used for trapping
purposes.
9:46:54 AM
Senator Kiehl referenced additional land use permits, and
made note of several references in the backup related to
trappers objecting to needing a land use permit in addition
to a cabin permit. He asked if the bill effectively barred
DNR from seeking a land permit in addition to a cabin
permit.
Ms. Leinberger answered "no," and relayed that the purpose
of the proposed statute was simply to allow DNR to issue
permits for existing cabins. She continued that the
department did not specifically issue leases for trapping
cabins. While leases provided an interest in the land, it
came with other requirements so permits had worked well for
trapping cabins. She added that DNR issued permits for the
use of state land. If a cabin were abandoned, it
essentially would become the property of the state.
Senator Kiehl looked at page 4, line 20, which he thought
prohibited a land use fee in addition to the trapping cabin
permit. He wondered if an additional land use fee was
standard for existing trapping cabins or not, and whether
it was reflected in DNRs fiscal note.
Ms. Leinberger relayed that the provision was in statute
due to a fee regulations that outlined fees for a variety
of authorizations. There was concern in the trapping
community that the fees were prohibited. The legislation
would update the fee and ensured it was controlled by
statute and not changed by fee regulations.
Senator Kiehl asked if DNR currently charge land use fees
as a standard practice along with the trapping cabin.
Ms. Leinberger explained that there was one land use fee
for the trapping cabin.
9:50:11 AM
Co-Chair Olson queried the length of the permit extension.
Ms. Leinberger answered that the permits were good for ten
years.
Co-Chair Olson asked if there was a definition in place for
abandoned cabins.
Ms. Leinberger relayed that DNR did not have a written
definition for abandoned cabins in regulation. She
explained that DNR would consider a cabin to be abandoned
if it could not locate the owner.
Senator Wilson observed that the bill allowed for a person
to have a 400 square foot cabin with a 90-foot garage. //
He asked if there was a radius within which another permit
holder could not build a cabin.
Ms. Leinberger stated that DNR typically used two miles as
a boundary so that there was not multiple trapping cabins
on the same trap line.
Senator Wilson asked if trappers were building cabins to be
able to have ownership of trap lines without encroachment.
Ms. Leinberger relayed that the issue described by Senator
Wilson had not come up.
9:52:10 AM
AT EASE
9:52:40 AM
RECONVENED
HB 125 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 125 Sectional Analysis ver N 2.23.24.pdf |
SFIN 3/19/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 125 |
| HB 125 Sponsor Statement 2.23.24.pdf |
SFIN 3/19/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 125 |
| HB125 Summary of Changes (R to N) 2.23.24.pdf |
SFIN 3/19/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 125 |
| SB 207 Sectional.pdf |
SCRA 2/15/2024 1:30:00 PM SFIN 3/19/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 207 |
| SB 207 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SCRA 2/15/2024 1:30:00 PM SFIN 3/19/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 207 |
| SB 207.pdf |
SCRA 2/15/2024 1:30:00 PM SFIN 3/19/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 207 |
| SB 207 Letter of Support Tammie Perreault.pdf |
SFIN 3/19/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 207 |
| HB 125 Decision for DNR Permit_ ADL 206546 - Doug Carney - Deliverables Required.pdf |
SFIN 3/19/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 125 |
| SB 207 Comment on SB207 - please consider adding food security.pdf |
SFIN 3/19/2024 9:00:00 AM |
SB 207 |
| HB125 Presentation.pdf |
SFIN 3/19/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 125 |