Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/10/2015 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 | |
| HB123 | |
| HB176 | |
| HB15 | |
| HB137 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 137
"An Act raising certain fees related to sport fishing,
hunting, and trapping; raising the age of eligibility
for a sport fishing, hunting, or trapping license
exemption for state residents to 65 years of age;
requiring state residents to purchase big game tags to
take certain species; and providing for an effective
date."
2:52:13 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 137, Work Draft 29-LS0625\G (Bullard,
4/9/15). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
discussed the changes in the CS. She highlighted the first
change that appeared in the bill title (page 1, lines 2
through 5) and read a segment of the title: "...the fish
and game fund; providing for the repeal of the sport
fishing surcharge and sport fishing facility revenue bonds;
replacing the permanent sport fishing, hunting, or
trapping..." The language meant that the $9 surcharge for
hatcheries in Anchorage and Fairbanks, which was due to
expire around 2021, would go directly on top of fishing
licenses. The impact of the language change appeared in
Sections 4, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 32. She directed attention
to Section 34 and explained that the revisors of statute
would be notified when the bond was paid off; the sections
[Sections 4, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 32] were conditional and
would only take effect when the bonds were paid off as
shown in Section 35.
Ms. Pierson pointed to lines 3 through 5 (page 1) related
to replacing the permanent sport fishing, hunting, or
trapping identification card for certain residents with an
identification card that would be valid for three years.
She explained that the senior card (for ages 62 and older)
that was currently good for life, would require renewal
every three years; the card would remain free of charge.
Ms. Pierson moved to page 5, lines 1 through 4 and
addressed language related to the low income license. She
detailed there was a slightly different way for accounting
for the specific license, which would be based on the most
recent poverty guidelines set by the U.S. Department of
Health and Social Services (instead of a set number) for
the previous year. The next change was also on page 5 and
related to the surcharge increase. The following change
appeared on page 5, line 31 and related to nonresident
hunting and fishing licenses. She stated that "there was
now a 75 percent raise" in the licenses. She pointed to the
difference shown on the entire page.
Ms. Pierson addressed a change on page 6 associated with
nonresident big game tags, which would receive a fee
increase of 100 percent. She moved to a change on page 9
related to the fish and game conservation decal. She read
from lines 15 through 19 on page 6:
Subject to appropriation by the legislature, money
received under this section may be used by the
department to fund programs benefiting fish and
wildlife conservation. Those programs may include fish
and wildlife viewing, fish and wildlife education, and
programs relating to fish and wildlife diversity.
2:57:24 PM
Ms. Pierson continued to address the changes in the CS. She
highlighted language on page 9 (lines 21 through 31)
related to the renewal of free licenses for seniors.
Co-Chair Thompson asked the bill sponsor to address the
committee. He noted that public testimony would be heard at
9:00 a.m. the following Monday if it was not completed
during the current meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, SPONSOR, explained that he
had been inspired to offer the legislation because it was
about the opportunity for Alaska residents to continue to
enjoy the state's resources and to have the ability to
participate in its hunting and fishing activities. He
supported the changes made to the legislation and was happy
with the CS.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that there were multiple people
from the department available to answer questions.
Representative Kawasaki requested an updated fee
spreadsheet showing current statute compared to different
versions of the bill.
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony.
3:01:09 PM
MIKE PETERSON, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in opposition to
pages 4 through 6 of the CS pertaining to resident and
nonresident fees. He believed the resident and nonresident
fees could be doubled across the board. He shared that he
hunted in Oregon and paid $148.50 for a nonresident hunting
fee. He did not "blink an eye" at the charge because the
money went towards keeping game up. He stated that it had
been 20 years since the fees had been raised in Alaska and
surmised that it could be another 20 years.
3:03:05 PM
MITCH FALK, SELF, JUNEAU, supported the bill's premise, but
opposed the recent CS. He agreed that the state needed to
start raising money for its fish and game efforts. He
believed residents should be included. He stated that there
was a lot of money left on the table through the federal
Pittman Robertson funds. He detailed that everyone
throughout the U.S. paid the taxes on all sporting goods.
He stressed that other states would use the funds if Alaska
did not. He relayed that the federal money was a three to
one matching fund. He stated that the $10 would bring in
$30. He spoke to the lifetime licenses. He stated that most
people in their 60s had much more money than people in
their 20s. He thought the time may have come to sunset the
free licenses for seniors. He had been told there had been
87,000 of the free licenses issued. He surmised that if a
$10 renewal fee was charged every few years it was not too
much to ask, especially given that residents received the
annual Permanent Fund Dividend.
3:05:25 PM
EDDY GRASSER, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL - ALASKA CHAPTER,
JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to the current version of the
bill. He relayed that a broad coalition of outdoor groups
throughout the state had come together in support of an
increase for fish and game licenses and tags. He
appreciated the bill and Representative Talerico's efforts.
He discussed that America had one of the best wildlife
conservation programs in the world called the North
American Model for Wildlife Conservation. He shared that
the program had been instituted by various people including
Teddy Roosevelt and others. He explained that a user-pay
system had been created. He relayed that users had come
before the legislature in the past to ask for an increase
or to institute a license fee. He shared that sportsmen had
talked Congress into creating the Pittman Robertson Act in
1937. He stressed that the act was passed during the Great
Depression and individuals had much less money than people
did in present times. He agreed with the prior testifiers
that the fees in the CS were not high enough to capture
federal Pittman Robertson funds. He believed the bill left
significant money on the table in Pittman Robertson funds.
He recommended increasing the fees.
3:08:49 PM
RON SOMERVILLE, TERRITORIAL SPORTSMAN, JUNEAU, discussed
that there had been two different proposals during the
current session that both looked for a certain amount of
money to match general fund money that may disappear from
sport fish and wildlife. He stated that there were
currently $12 million to $13 million in general funds in
the two divisions. He shared that he had been the deputy
commissioner for the Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
under the Walter Hickel Administration and had been
responsible for the budget. He discussed that the divisions
competed with others and had lost all of their general
funding during his time with the department. He explained
that the sportsmen wanted the programs to continue and were
willing to pay for them. He explained that one of the
proposals had included resident tag fees; however,
sportsmen believed it was more workable to move forward
with a fairly sizable increase in license fees for
residents and nonresidents in addition to an intensive
management surcharge of $10 for all hunting licenses, which
would sunset in three years. He shared two graphs with the
committee (copy on file). He explained that the first graph
showed Pittman Robertson money that was available at a
ratio of 3 to 1 for wildlife. He detailed that the
obligated money for fish and game was not sufficient to
match the federal money (there was about $10 million in
federal funds remaining on the table). He stated that there
was a good chance a similar amount would remain in the
current year.
Mr. Somerville respected the bill sponsor's option, but he
felt it was necessary to increase fees even more. He stated
that the Territorial Sportsmen had consistently
communicated the amount of money they wanted to generate
and how to achieve the goal. He stated that there were many
things that federal aid was not capable of funding, such as
predator control. He discussed that the legislature had
passed a law called intensive management requiring the
department, where possible, to control predators to produce
more game (particularly moose and caribou) for harvest by
Alaskans. He highlighted the second graph relating to the
current predator control program. Additionally, federal aid
would not fund conflicts related to endangered species. He
stated that endangered species conflicts related to much of
the economic development concerns the state had about the
expansion of the listing of endangered species in the
state. He stressed that the regulatory process was
complicated in Alaska and most of the Board of Fish and
Board of Game processes; information and education
programs; and the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA) implementation program could not
be funded by federal aid. He spoke to federal overreach in
the state. He stressed that it was important to generate
enough fish and game money in order to pick up some of the
critical programs. He emphasized that the contents of the
current legislation was not sufficient.
Mr. Somerville stated that the issue was not about urban
versus rural areas. He stated that the predator control
programs had been very successful in some areas. He used
Unit 9 as a successful area where a decline in the caribou
population had been stopped. He wanted the legislature to
tell the departments which one of the programs it would
like to see disappear if the funds could not be generated.
He stressed that the programs were currently funded with
general funds; it was necessary to generate additional fish
and game funds to pick the programs up.
3:15:11 PM
Representative Kawasaki referred to Mr. Grasser's comment
about raising the non-resident fees. He observed that the
original outdoor caucus's suggestions had been much higher.
He referred to case law in the bill packet addressing that
it was legal to charge nonresidents higher fees than
residents. He specifically spoke to elk hunting and noted
that nonresidents paid 25 times more than a resident. He
wondered if the numbers were similar or in line with those
in other states.
Mr. Grasser replied that the organization he represented
[Safari Club International] had offices nationwide. He
relayed that there were states where the
resident/nonresident ratio was far greater than 25 to 1.
For example, a nonresident mule deer hunting tag in Arizona
was $2,500.
Representative Kawasaki stated that in version P [House
Judiciary Committee CS] the suggestion was to increase the
resident hunting fee to $40 and the nonresident fee to
$125, which was roughly 3.5 to 4 times more. He believed
the idea may be something to consider. He wondered if there
were groups who thought that adding to the nonresident fees
would reduce the number of out of state hunters in Alaska.
Mr. Grasser answered that as long as raises for
nonresidents were reasonable he did not see it as a road
block to participation in hunting activities in Alaska. He
noted that another member of the public signed up to
testify may have a better answer as he was currently a
hunting guide.
Representative Gara spoke to the nonresident fees that
seemed low. He asked if the group had a proposal on how
much to increase the nonresident fees that would act as a
disincentive to nonresident sportspersons.
Mr. Grasser answered that the coalition had suggested a 100
percent increase in nonresident tag fees, rather than the
75 percent in the CS. For example, a brown bear tag would
increase from $500 to $1000. He surmised that it could
probably be even higher for brown bear tags, but not for
all species. He noted there were other destinations people
could hunt in North America; therefore, if the fee was
increased too high, hunters would go to other locations.
For example, hunting was available in British Columbia and
Yukon Territories for Alaska Yukon moose, caribou, grizzly
bear, Dall sheep, and mountain goat.
3:19:20 PM
MATT ROBUS, SELF, JUNEAU, relayed that he was a board
member of Territorial Sportsmen Inc., which was a local
group; additionally, previously he served as the director
of the Division of Wildlife with DFG. He believed the bill
did not increase fees enough. He opined that at a minimum,
the increases in the bill needed to account for inflation
that had occurred since the last license fee increase 1993,
which amounted to a 63 percent correction. He detailed that
a $25 resident hunting license in 1993 was worth $41 at
present; however, the state was still only collecting $25.
He stated that the proposed increases in the CS and in the
prior bill version were well below that level. He believed
it was true that there would not be another chance to
increase revenue to the Fish and Game Fund for another
decade or two. He felt it was a substantial problem to not
even catch up with inflation. He pointed out that the
department needed to have sufficient money in the fund to
match all of the federal Pittman Robertson and Dingle
Johnson funds (wildlife and sport fish funds respectively)
in order to maintain the heart of the survey and inventory
programs that allowed the department to recommend to the
boards how to set seasons and bag limits and to preserve as
much opportunity as possible for Alaskans and nonresidents.
He stated that if the federal money (that had increased
radically in the past several years) was left on the table,
the state would lose out on funds paid by sportspersons.
The money was administered by the federal government, but
it was generated by users. He reasoned that at a time when
the state was having financial problems, the federal aid
money would be a boon to the state. He believed the bill
should be set at a level that would enable the state to
take advantage of all of the federal money available.
Mr. Robus shared that in the early 2000s the Wildlife
Division had been depleted of all general funds; however,
currently 13 percent of the wildlife and sport fish budgets
were composed of general funds. He believed the general
fund money would probably disappear; however, the jobs
mandated by the legislature, such as intensive management,
would not be possible without funding. He addressed the
ability of the state to deal with endangered species
initiatives or petitions (some of which he believed to be
frivolous or mischievous) represented a real cost to the
state. He detailed that it was difficult for the state to
defend against them without the ability to do research to
prove its side of the argument. He believed it was a unique
moment, where an unprecedented coalition of outdoor
oriented people were all asking to have the license and tag
fees increased to the level shown in a coalition letter
(copy on file). He noted that the coalition had included
the fee level it believed was appropriate in order for the
department to properly do its job and provide wildlife and
fisheries opportunity to Alaskans and nonresident visitors.
Co-Chair Thompson gave the gavel to Vice-Chair Saddler.
3:25:07 PM
DOUG LARSEN, SELF, JUNEAU, believed the fees in the
existing bill were not sufficient. He relayed that he had
served as the director of the Division of Wildlife
Conservation with DFG in the past. He relayed that based on
his past work he had a good understanding of the budget
challenges the division faced.
I support the coalition's proposed rates and feel that
the amounts in the existing bill are insufficient as
others have testified to. I've heard there may be
concerns among legislators about not wanting to raise
resident fees too much. As a resident I appreciate
that. However, if you look at the resident and
nonresident fees and contributions, nonresident
hunters have historically made up about 20 percent of
the hunters that come to Alaska each year; however,
they contribute about 75 percent of the funds to the
Fish and Game Fund. Residents on the other hand, make
up about 80 percent of the hunters in Alaska each
year, but they contribute about 25 percent of the
funds to the Fish and Game Fund. A similar
relationship exists with the sports fishing fees. This
isn't so much a reflection of inappropriately high
nonresident fees, in fact as you heard from Mr.
Grasser and others, compared to other states, Alaska
was pretty reasonable in that regard. Rather, it's a
reflection of inappropriately low resident fees.
That's why I'm supporting the fee increases proposed
by the coalition.
I retired last October from the Department of Fish and
Game and my income is now less than it was while I was
working. Nonetheless, like many other Alaskans, I'm
willing and prepared to dig deeper into my pocket to
pay a higher amount to ensure that programs like
surveying inventory, intensive management, ESA, and
access defense remain viable. This is not the first
time, I think it's important to note, that this fee
increase idea has come forward. Efforts were
contemplated during Mr. Robus's tenure and during
mine, and more recently during Doug Vincent-Lang's
tenure as director. However, as has been noted, up
until now we couldn't find agreement among the user
groups. At this point, there is strong support for
higher both resident and nonresident fees. In my mind,
as Mr. Robus said, this is a huge difference from what
we've faced in the past.
I think it's important to make a quick note about the
IM surcharge concept. I'm not sure whether IM
surcharge is the correct terminology to use, quite
frankly I know that some people get very anxious when
they hear the term intensive management. Just like
others get anxious when they hear the term
conservation pass or decal. The reality is that funds
that go into the Fish and Game Fund will and should be
used for surveying inventory, intensive management,
and wildlife diversity. Intensive management was a
broader application than just predator control; it
involves habitat assessment, predator/prey assessments
to determine whether in fact predator control would
even be a useful way to increase populations as Mr.
Somerville related earlier. The state receives $2
million to $3 million annually from federal state
wildlife grants funds. Those funds, like Pittman
Robertson must be matched by state funds. Absent
sufficient GF or CIPs that means a need for more GF
funds, which means sufficient increases in the fees.
Money deposited into the Fish and Game Fund from a
conservation pass or decal can be used to match state
wildlife grants (SWG) dollars. In the past SWG dollars
were matched by state funds to conduct research on a
variety of un-hunted species and has been successful
at preempting ESA listings. Examples include, yellow-
billed loons, black oyster catchers, bats,
[indecipherable], murrelets, stellar sea lions. More
recently funds are being used to study Southeast
Alaska wolves to inform a petition to list a species
as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act. Listings of game or non-game species have
huge implications for hunting and trapping as well as
for mineral and well exploration and extraction and
timber harvesting. Obviously huge economic
implications.
Mr. Chairman, the last thing I want to highlight is, I
had the privilege a few months ago to serve on the
governor's transition team for wildlife. While we had
a number of individuals that came to the table with
very different opinions about things and backgrounds,
the thing was that there were several points that
there was consensus and agreement on. That included
the need to increase and diversify revenue to the
Division of Wildlife Conservation specifically (it was
a wildlife committee). The conservation pass that has
been contemplated is a way to do that; to diversify
and bring other users into fold to help with the
funding. Also, the group said that there was a need to
expand and enhance intensive management. Specifically,
expand intensive management aspects not just for
predator control, but for habitat assessment and to
look at the predator/prey relationships that are so
important to that whole program. That's what intensive
management entails. That's where the concept of an IM
surcharge, or a wildlife conservation surcharge, or
something to that effect could be very valuable.
That's the reason for its inclusion in some of the
discussions that have occurred relative to the fee
increases. Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank
you for the opportunity to offer testimony.
3:31:12 PM
THOR STACEY, ALASKA PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS' ASSOCIATION,
JUNEAU, shared information about the association that
represented hunting guides in Alaska. He communicated that
the state's hunting guiding industry brought in
approximately $80 million per year; half of the economic
effects were felt in rural Alaska. He relayed that
according to a recent McDowell Group report, 89 percent of
Alaska's active hunting guides were Alaska residents;
however, 95-plus percent of clients were nonresidents. He
stated that as part of the coalition of sporting groups,
the association was comfortable supporting a 100 percent
increase in nonresident hunter license and tags.
Additionally, the association was comfortable supporting or
slightly exceeding the inflation rate from 1993 until
present. He explained that guides had to buy a resident
hunting and professional hunting license biannually. There
were two primary concepts at the core that the association
participated in continuously, including federal overreach.
He stated that without an adequately funded DFG and without
the ability to exert the association's role as stewards of
Alaska's resources, land, and animals, the state fell
victim to federal encroachment. He addressed that without
the ability to self-fund wildlife programs, the guides were
at the mercy of other factors that contribute to the
general fund, such as oil taxation. The association wanted
good, sound wildlife management to continue regardless of
oil flow and pricing. He stated that by increasing the fees
to the higher amount, sportsmen had the ability to isolate
the state's programs from the vagaries of oil production
and price.
3:33:56 PM
AL BARRETT, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified
in opposition to the current version of the bill. He
addressed what had been communicated about the CS earlier.
He had heard that page 4, Section 10 would be the current
proposal; however, page 5 included language about gross
income of less than $29,800. He stated that it had been put
on the record that some of the language would be removed
from the bill. He asked if his assessment was correct.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for Mr. Barrett to repeat the
question. Mr. Barrett believed it had been put on the
record that Section 10 would be amended by Section 11.
JOSHUA BANKS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, believed
there may have been a drafting error. He relayed the
sponsor's intent to use the language under Section 10. He
thought a conceptual amendment may be necessary.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification that the
sponsor's intent was to have the language in Section 10
remain. Mr. Banks replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Barrett was glad the issue had been cleared up. He
shared that he had only hunted outside of Alaska once;
therefore, he did not know about the affordability of
hunting in other locations. He shared that his income was
very limited, but he had looked at the concept of
increasing licensing fees for the past couple of years. He
believed many nongovernmental organizations and legislators
had looked at the 50 or so licenses sold in the state with
blinders on. He discussed that there were many licenses
sold for $5 or less (e.g. waterfowl, low income, and
drawing hunts). He continued that it cost the department
approximately $2 just to issue and produce the licenses,
which was only a net of $3. He communicated that the cost
of most drawing hunts was between $5 and $10. He stressed
that licenses were too cheap. He provided examples about
how to increase funds by almost $1 million. He suggested
combining the 3, 7, and 14-day nonresident licenses. He
believed revenue could be increased by $513,000. He
discussed a similar strategy with the king salmon stamp
that could generate $465,000. He believed the low income
should be reconsidered; it was a $5 that cost $2 to
produce. He believed a $10 to $20 increase in the specific
license would be feasible.
3:40:23 PM
MIKE TINKER, SELF, ESTHER (via teleconference), shared that
he had retired from a 25-year guiding career in 2000 and
had been a member of the Fairbanks Advisory Committee for
over 25 years. He relayed that he and most of his
colleagues supported raising license and tag fees. However,
he believed there were some black holes. He recommended
using it as an opportunity for other changes and looking at
the whole picture. He applauded Representative Talerico's
efforts; however, he believed there were some important
focus issues. For example, he stated a change would be
needed in AS 16.05.130(d) in order to keep the concepts
that Mr. Somerville and Mr. Larson discussed. He explained
that currently there was a requirement that license fees
directly benefitted the user. The legislation impacted over
250,000 Alaskan license purchasers and the coalition
represented approximately 4 percent of that number. He
implored the committee to make some room for the other 96
percent of users. For example, many of the advisory
committees had been waiting for the bill to settle. He
spoke to the concept of making DFG healthy. He reasoned
that a nonresident musk ox tag could be increased to
$35,000 because the state had not sold one in eight years.
He continued that there were many other types of licenses
or tags that the state only sold 10 to 20 per year. He
believed it was important to determine how many of each
license sold before increasing a fee by 100 percent or
other. He believed the bill should provide the starting
point for the discussion. He noted that there were many
other ways to raise money without making huge increases to
fees. He stated that currently most of the trapping
licenses sold were sold as part of combinations. He stated
that when the combination tag fee was increased to the
point where a person could save the money they would have
put into supporting trapping by paying for hunting and
fishing, the state would lose the money. He appreciated
Representatives Talerico, Munoz, and Keller for putting the
bill forward.
3:45:04 PM
WAYNE KUBAT, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. He read from a statement:
I have lived year-round in Alaska for 39 years, 31 in
the Mat-Su Valley. I became a registered guide in 1986
and started my own guide business that same year.
Almost all of the money my clients pay for their hunts
is new money to Alaska and stays here. License fee
increases will always be a tough sell, but with
falling oil revenues I hope you will move this bill on
with sufficient increases to adequately fund Alaska's
wildlife management into the future. The $10 intensive
management surcharge is a great idea. I'm disappointed
not to see it in this final draft. The wildlife
initiatives of the 90s stop same-day airborne wolf
hunting and moose populations plummeted throughout the
state. General moose seasons where I guide closed for
several years. Rural residents of Skwentna had to eat
black bear meat instead of moose. I'm a resident
hunter too. Even if resident licenses double a 12-
month license to hunt multiple species of some of the
world premiere big game animals will still cost less
than a 20 count box of 338 Winchester Magnum
ammunition. What a bargain. As a longtime Alaskan
guide I support the concept of a minor percentage of
nonresident hunters paying the bulk of our wildlife
management. I think Alaska's wildlife and residents
benefit from this arrangement. I can live with
increasing nonresident tag fees even up to 100 percent
if it results in effective game management. Thank you.
3:46:48 PM
GARY MCCARTHY, SELF, CHUGIAK (via teleconference), shared
that he had moved to Alaska in 1972 in pursuit of hunting
and fishing. He supported increasing the fees above the
figures in the CS. As a sheep hunter, he was saddened to
see the number and quality of the sheep declining over the
years. He stated that the department was reluctant to act
on many proposals put forward in the past year because
there was not adequate scientific data to support what was
occurring with the state's sheep populations. He stated
that following the crash in oil prices in the late 1980s
almost all sheep studies had been eliminated. He continued
that fortunately because of federal Pittman Robertson funds
the studies had picked up in the past several years. He
hated to see the money go away and to have inadequate
wildlife management just because the information was not
available.
3:48:31 PM
DICK ROHRER, SELF, KODIAK (via teleconference), shared that
he had moved to Alaska 50 years earlier. He spoke in
support of the previous testimony provided to the committee
by coalition members. He believed resident fees should be
higher than those listed in the current CS. He had no
hesitation to pay higher fees. He thought it was good idea
to look at the senior license every three years. He noted
that if the legislature chose to eliminate the free senior
license he would not be concerned. His greatest concern was
federal overreach. He stated that if there was not enough
money to properly fund management statewide he could assure
that federal agencies would take over management.
3:50:25 PM
SAM ROHRER, SELF, KODIAK (via teleconference), shared that
he had a guiding license and was president of the Alaska
Professional Hunters' Association. He agreed with most of
the testimony provided during the present meeting. He
stated that there had not been an increase to the licensing
fee since 1993, which he believed was long overdue. He did
not believe the current CS increased the fees sufficiently.
He strongly encouraged the idea of the $10 intensive
management surcharge on all hunting licenses sold. He
stressed that the current $5 increase for resident hunting
licenses was insufficient. He believed a substantive
increase was needed and recommended an increase of at least
$15. He stated that a resident license for $40 was still
less than a box of ammunition; it was affordable.
3:52:16 PM
MIKE CRAWFORD, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL, SOLDOTNA (via
teleconference), believed the license fees in the CS should
be increased. He agreed with testimony provided by Mr.
Somerville and Mr. Grasser. He opined that the Pittman
Robertson funds should not be left on the table. He spoke
against federal overreach. He believed DFG needed to be
kept informed. He thought that most hunters and fishermen
in the state were more than willing to pay their way. He
communicated that a goat, sheep, or moose tag for
nonresidents in Washington State was $1,652, a deer tag was
$531, a small game tag was $183, a freshwater fishing
license was $84.50, a saltwater license was $35, and so on.
He noted that Montana and Idaho also had much higher fees.
He believed nonresident hunters should help to pay for the
management of Alaska's wildlife and fish resources.
3:54:23 PM
KEITH BAXTER, KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ADVISORY
BOARD, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), encouraged the
committee to include a sockeye stamp in the bill. He stated
that currently the bill proposed prudent increases to
existing license fees and the board believed the inclusion
of a sockeye stamp would also be a prudent measure. He
shared that in recent years many anglers who had previously
targeted king salmon on the Kenai River had shifted their
focus to sockeye. He stated that the growing interest in
the sockeye fishery presented management, habitat, and
enforcement challenges that required funding to address. He
reasoned that a statewide sockeye stamp would go a long way
towards providing the needed funding to address the
challenges. The board believed that adequate funding for
the rehabilitation, enhancement, and development of
Alaska's sport and personal-use fisheries were essential to
ensure their sustained health going forward. He believed it
was imperative that the vitality of Alaska's fisheries was
not jeopardized by fiscal uncertainty in its state
government. The board hoped that a statewide sockeye stamp
modeled closely after the existing chinook stamp would
provide a secure source of funding for the essential
fisheries programs well into the future.
3:55:40 PM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), shared
that she was the owner of a seafood processing plant in
Homer; the business had been a fisheries corporation for 51
years and it paid into the federal Dingle Johnson and
Pittman Robertson funds. She relayed that she did not
harvest wildlife or fish. She proposed a license for people
not harvesting wildlife of around $5. She explained that it
was a matter of trying to bring in funds from out of state
visitors and for Alaskan wildlife viewers. She discussed
that viewers brought $231 million in tax revenue to the
state, representing double the amount brought in by
harvesters. She supported bringing in the group of people
to diversify and help to match the Pittman Robertson funds.
She believed the state was missing a huge segment of income
derived from people that utilize wildlife, but did not
harvest them. She continued that individuals who
photographed animals, made money, and guided people to view
wildlife did not pay anything into the coffers. She stated
that there were 12,000 non-game species. She elaborated
that the wildlife action plans and state wildlife grants
needed matching funds. She stated that if there was some
way to keep common species common and prevent animals from
reaching endangered status, the state would prevent federal
oversight. She relayed that there were 18 million birders
in the U.S. who traveled. She stated that wildlife viewers
brought $2.7 billion in spending to Alaska. She reasoned
the visitors could pay a $5 license fee. She did not
believe wildlife viewers understood how it worked because
they had never been given the opportunity to contribute to
wildlife management. She did not believe the license would
cost the department anything. She reiterated her support
for a viewer license and a wildlife conservation decal. She
agreed that the state currently had "bargain basement"
license fees that needed to be increased. She supported the
idea of the inclusion of a sockeye stamp in the bill.
Representative Wilson queried how to charge a tax for
animal viewing. She wondered if it would include a tour-
type setting. She asked if any other states had a similar
tax.
Ms. Hillstrand replied that many other states had different
programs such as license plates, badges, licenses, and
decals. She stated that the primary point was her belief
that the state should market to the individuals. She
believed the state could figure out a way to attach some
sort of fee to the numerous viewers brought to Alaska by
the cruise ship industry.
Vice-Chair Saddler relayed that public testimony on the
bill would be continued on April 13, 2015. He discussed the
schedule for the following day.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Workdraft CSHB15 4-8-2015.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 137 CS WORKDRAFT FIN G Version.PDF |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 176 CS WORKDRAFT E version.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 176 |
| HB 176 Legal Opinion.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 176 |
| HB 176 Letters.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 176 |
| HB 176 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 176 |
| HB 137 Support letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 15 Amendment #1.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 137 Additional Info Sommerville.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 137 |