Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
02/19/2020 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
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 | |
| HB203 | |
| HB137 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 203 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 137-LIMIT NONRESIDENT TAKING OF BIG GAME
1:46:00 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced the final order of business would be HOUSE
BILL NO. 137, "An Act relating to the taking of big game by
nonresidents; and providing for an effective date."
1:46:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, speaking as the sponsor of HB 137, paraphrased
from the following written sponsor statement [original punctuation
provided]:
House Bill 137: Limit Nonresident Taking of Big Game
Sponsor Statement
House Bill 137 makes a simple one-word change to state law
to help ensure that Alaska residents are given a
preference to hunt big game over nonresidents during times
of shortages. By approving the bill, the Alaska
Legislature would mandate that Alaskans be first in line
for the opportunity to hunt big game while still allowing
nonresident hunters the opportunity to participate in a
permit system for hunting opportunities.
Under current law, when game populations decline and
restrictions to resident hunters are necessary, the Alaska
Board of Game may limit the taking of big game by
nonresidents so that resident needs are met. HB 137
changes the more permissive word "may" to the more
stringent word "shall," so that the Board of Game would be
required to place the burden of new hunting restrictions
on nonresidents when faced with a shortage of game.
HB 137 does not change the authority of the Board of Game
to make wildlife allocation decisions, and the bill would
leave in place the current allocation of nonresident
hunting opportunities available for all big game hunts
across Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADFG) has attached an indeterminate fiscal note [Identifier:
HB173-DFG-DWC-2-14-20] and a zero fiscal note [Identifier: HB137-
DFG-BBS-2-14-20]. He said the issue is whether the state should
have a policy to provide a preference to Alaska residents for
hunting opportunities when there is a shortage of game.
1:49:03 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB
137, labeled 31-LS0879\M, Klein, 2/12/20 [Version M], as the working
document.
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained Version M changed the effective date
[from 1/1/20 to 1/1/21].
1:49:27 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection, and there being no further
objection, Version M was before the committee.
1:51:08 PM
MARK RICHARDS, executive director, Resident Hunters of Alaska
(RHAK), informed the committee RHAK represents over 2,300 members
who are in support of HB 137 and [Alaskas] constitutional mandate
for a resident hunting priority. Mr. Richards said the primary
example of why HB 137 is needed is related to the decline of the
Central Arctic Caribou herd, which was followed by restrictions
placed by the Board of Game (BOG), ADFG, on resident and nonresident
hunters. In 2017, ADFG reported the Central Arctic Caribou herd, an
intensive management (IM) prey population, declined from 52,000
animals to 22,000, thus falling below the IM population objective of
28,000 and restrictions were placed on hunting to sustain and re-
grow the herd. The Board of Game took action based on bag limits
from ADFG and set limits allocating a projected 43 percent of the
harvest to nonresident hunters and 57 percent by resident hunters.
However, the projections were off and in the following year
nonresidents harvested 55 percent, and in [2018 and 2019]
nonresidents took one-half of the Central Arctic Caribou herd
harvest. Mr. Richards pointed out BOG was not following the intent
of AS 16.05.256 or of Alaskas IM law, AS 16.05.255 (f), which read:
(f) The Board of Game may not significantly reduce the
taking of an identified big game prey population by
adopting regulations relating to restrictions on harvest
or access to the population, or to management of the
population by customary adjustments in seasons, bag
limits, open and closed areas, methods and means, or by
other customary means authorized under (a) of this
section, unless the board has adopted regulations, or has
scheduled for adoption at the next regularly scheduled
meeting of the board regulations, that provide for
intensive management to increase the take of the
population for human harvest consistent with (e) of this
section ...
1:55:54 PM
MR. RICHARDS pointed out BOG did not adopt regulations nor schedule
a meeting to adopt regulations that would provide IM of the Central
Arctic Caribou herd. Thus HB 137 is necessary because, with the
Central Arctic Caribou herd far below its intensive management
objective, BOG severely restricted resident hunting opportunities
for hunters who depend on the herd to feed their families, but
allocated nearly one-half of the harvest to nonresidents. He
restated this example is why HB 137 is needed. He directed
attention to the [2019-2020 Alaska Hunting Regulations], on page 7,
which read [in part][original punctuation provided]:
Nonresidents are allowed to hunt when there is enough game
to allow everyone to participate. When there isnt enough
game, nonresident hunters are restricted or eliminated
first. If more restrictions are necessary, seasons and bag
limits may be reduced or eliminated for some residents.
MR. RICHARDS stated BOG often does not abide by the aforementioned
statement, and HB 137 would require BOG to do so. He expressed
surprise by the opposition to the bill from the hunting guide
industry, noting opponents mistakenly state the bill would end the
guiding industry and would severely decrease revenue to the Division
of Wildlife Conservation (DWC), ADFG, because the bill seeks to
limit nonresident hunters who provide funding to DWC; however, he
offered to propose many ways to recover any funding shortfall.
Mr. Richards opined the bill should have a zero fiscal note because
BOGs task is When there isnt enough game for everyone,
nonresidents are restricted or eliminated first, as stated in the
hunting regulations. He said Alaskas wildlife cannot be managed
based on special interests, but instead on doing what is right and
what is in the constitution. Returning attention to the Central
Arctic Caribou herd, Mr. Richards stated had HB 137 been in effect
in 2017, approximately 100 nonresident hunters would have been
affected, and would have had the opportunity to hunt elsewhere in
the state. A differing example is of the Nelchina caribou herd,
also an IM population, for which BOG has adopted regulations that
there shall be no nonresident hunting unless the herd population is
above the IM population objective. He stated RHAK is in agreement
with this decision and questioned why the Central Arctic Caribou
herd is different. He stressed HB 137 would not require draw
permits for nonresidents in certain circumstances, but refers to a
permit system, which could be a registration permit for a limited
number of animals, by the discretion of BOG. In conclusion, Mr.
Richards said HB 137 is prospective in nature and would apply when
game populations decline or restrictions on all hunters are needed,
and nonresidents bear the brunt of the restrictions; not affected
are current hunts, hunt structures, Kodiak brown bear permits, moose
permits, nonresident sheep hunters, and bag limits. He urged the
committee to review the state constitution and pointed out there is
support for resident fishing preference.
2:00:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for the hunting ratios in the Central
Arctic Caribou herd prior to the decline in 2017.
MR. RICHARDS explained prior to 2017, there were twice the number of
residents as nonresident hunters; resident hunters were allowed five
caribou, which was about 25 percent of the harvest. Residents had
an unlimited cow harvest, which was lost after the decline, and the
season was shortened, thus residents lost about 75 percent of their
opportunity and nonresidents lost to a lesser degree.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted RHAK supports other BOG decisions and
questioned whether RHAKs only concern is BOG inaction, since 2017,
regarding the Central Arctic Caribou herd.
MR. RICHARDS said no. Another example of RHAK's concern is a
proposal put before BOG related to brown bear hunting; 80 percent of
trophy brown bears on the Alaska Peninsula are taken by nonresident
guided hunters, and after complaints by members, RHAK proposed an
early hunt for residents to provide more opportunity for residents.
However, due to conservation concerns, biologists recommended season
restrictions and closures. Even though 80 percent of the harvest
was by nonresidents, BOG restricted hunting seasons for everybody.
Mr. Richards said resident hunters did not need to be restricted and
BOG should have limited only nonresidents. In response to
conservation concerns, RHAK wants BOG to restrict nonresident
hunters first.
2:05:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised BOG holds broad authority to regulate
- with direction from agencies - to prevent allocations from
becoming political decisions; however, there will always be some
unhappiness with BOG decisions. She asked whether the problem is
with one allocative decision or with BOGs overreaching authority.
MR. RICHARDS agreed the Board of Fisheries and BOG should have broad
authority to regulate and allocate, as board members are
knowledgeable and trusted; however, during the last 15 years, BOG
has not followed the constitution and the hunting regulations. For
another example of RHAK's concern, he said BOG created new must-be-
guided species, which are in conflict with AS 16.05.407-408, to
benefit guides regarding moose draw permits, that resulted in a 50
percent moose allocation to nonresident hunters. He strongly urged
the committee to closely review decisions made by BOG that are
detrimental to resident hunters.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked for the ratio of the number of
licensed guides who are Alaskans.
2:09:01 PM
MR. RICHARDS said 88 percent of contracting guides in Alaska are
residents.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked for clarification of the IM target population
for the Central Arctic Caribou herd.
MR. RICHARDS said the IM target population is 28,000 to 32,000
animals and the population dropped to 22,000. In further response
to Co-Chair Lincoln, he said the herd was never part of the IM
program because BOG was supposed to direct ADFG to recommend an IM
plan but failed to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether there is still a subsistence
preference after an IM population drops and a management policy is
recommended for a herd.
MR. RICHARDS said yes. The IM law is specifically designed for
subsistence; in fact, all Alaskans are subsistence users. He
remarked:
The way it works is that there is a hierarchy where
subsistence comes first, sport recreational, which is
considered us, even though were subsistence, and then
nonresidents. Thats supposed to be the hierarchy where
the board regulates hunters. Look out for subsistence
first, sport recreational next, nonresident after that.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS observed within fishing regulations and
limits there are personal use areas specifically for Alaska
residents, but not for game, thus game populations and fish
populations are managed differently regarding access for Alaskans.
MR. RICHARDS said article 8 of the Alaska State Constitution is
supposed to mandate a preference, but [hunting] preference is not in
statute. He said, Many of you here who support a resident fishing
priority, but its something else to me why you dont support a
resident hunting priority. It doesnt seem to make sense, its the
same thing, we depend on those animals to feed our families. In
further response to Representative Hopkins, Mr. Richards said the
bag limit on the Nelchina caribou herd is one [caribou].
2:13:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS surmised guides and residents follow all the
same rules and currently there is no separate access for residents.
MR. RICHARDS said correct and pointed out caribou is not a must-be-
guided species.
CO-CHAIR TARR noted some members of the public believe BOG is
influenced by the guiding industry; however, some controversial
decisions made by BOG are unanimous.
MR. RICHARDS reported the decision in 2017 was 5-2; he gave an
example of a decision made for the benefit of a BOG board member.
CO-CHAIR TARR questioned whether BOG actions are appropriate.
MR. RICHARDS said RHAK agrees it is important to have a guide
serving on BOG because guides are knowledgeable and provide valuable
information; however, guides should not show bias towards decisions
that hurt resident hunters. Another problem occurs in national
refuge areas such as Kodiak: nonresident hunters are not required
to use the permit system that is required of residents; residents
must apply for a permit in November or December, but a guide on
refuge land is allocated certain permits for client hunters. He
characterized this process as a 100 percent guarantee of a hunt for
nonresidents and a 2-3 percent chance for residents.
CO-CHAIR TARR surmised the aforementioned circumstances apply to
federally managed refuges.
MR. RICHARDS stressed BOG has management authority throughout Alaska
and allocates permits on refuge land.
CO-CHAIR TARR questioned whether the issue relates to guide
concessions on federal land.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN observed BOG has supported reestablishment of state
managed guide concessions for over 10 years. He asked:
Whats your perspective on a concession program on state
lands that, rather than trying to inaccurately manage take
by season and bag limit, having some more precise control
in the form of, like, permits that would go to guides as
part of a concession area?
MR. RICHARDS provided a brief history of the problems with sheep
hunters in ADFG Game Management Unit 20A. Over ten years ago RHAK
proposed before BOG a request that all nonresident sheep hunters
receive draw permits; BOG refused, stating that the problem is not
too many nonresident hunters, but too many guides. Mr. Richards
disagreed, noting that the Big Game Commercial Services Board
(BGCSB), Division of Corporations, Business and Professional
Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development, regulates guides, and BOG regulates hunters. The
problem is not too many guides but unlimited hunting opportunities
for nonresident hunters who are required to hire a guide.
Furthermore, RHAK did not believe the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) was capable of successfully managing a concession
program.
2:20:57 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN advised there are negative aspects regarding draw
permits in terms of advance planning [for guides and clients]. He
asked whether a permit system, such as a concession program, could
more accurately control nonresident hunters in certain areas.
MR. RICHARDS has been told guides would accept draw permits for
exclusive guide-use areas. He described problematic aspects of a
draw permit system pointing out BOG has instituted draw permits in
certain areas of the state and affected guides are still in business
and further described successful aspects of a draw permit process.
2:25:09 PM
ROD ARNO, executive director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), stated
AOC has informed the regulatory process of game management since
before statehood and speaking from his personal experience, total
happiness does not equate with the allocation of public resources.
The Alaska Outdoor Council has 10,000 members who, along with the
Alaska Safari Club International, oppose HB 137. Although some
hunters want more, BOG was tasked by the legislature to decide
allocations of fish and game. He spoke of his personal
participation in the election of state officials and the
confirmation of appointees, which are matters of a working public
process. Further, AOC supports the BOG process throughout its 40
years of managing conservation issues. He acknowledged allocation
of resources is tough. Mr. Arno said there is not a large influx
of nonresidents hunters in the state; in 1970, 12,602 big game tags
were sold; in 2019, 13,272 big game tags were sold to nonresidents.
He cautioned that the legislature does not want to tie the hands of
BOG. He referred to [AS 16.05.255. Regulations of the Board of
Game; Management Requirements], which authorized BOG to adopt its
duties and regulations to manage for sport hunting and subsistence
hunting as needed for conservation first, and for development and
utilization of the game. He opined there is nothing in the statute
regarding a special priority. Also, regulations adopted under [AS
16.05.258(a)], the only harvest priority in statute, are followed by
the taking of ungulates, game animals, moose, deer, elk, and
caribou, for residents for personal or family consumption has
preference over taking by nonresidents. He pointed out the
legislature established seven criteria regarding fish, and a 1991
decision by the Board of Fisheries was upheld by the Alaska Supreme
Court in [Peninsula Marketing Association vs. STATE, 1991]. He read
from regulations [document not provided], and concluded BOG chooses
from any factors it wishes and votes accordingly.
2:30:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked for the difference in the subsistence
definition as it is applied to fish and game.
MR. ARNO said he was reading from the allocation criteria factors
after subsistence and there is no difference between BOF and BOG
regarding subsistence; subsistence comes first, as is clear by
regulations for BOG and BOF.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN further questioned what differentiates
subsistence hunting from sport or recreational hunting.
MR. ARNO said there are no definitions for sport hunting; in fact,
there is only subsistence hunting and general hunting. He
acknowledged BOG struggles to mesh subsistence law, IM law, and in
some circumstances, federal law, to allocate resources in each case.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN related some Alaskans hunt regularly but do
not rely on hunting to feed their families; other Alaskans depend on
game for food and survival; guides rely on hunting by nonresidents
to earn their living. She said all Alaskans should have the
opportunity to provide for their families and inquired as to how to
differentiate from three alternate methods to do so.
MR. ARNO said the state provides a $5.00 low-income license which
may help to identify subsistence users, of which 7,000 come from
urban areas; another 13,000 come from [rural] areas, and these
numbers could be one criterion. Further, 6,000 Alaskans get a free
license because of their old age. He said the [differing factors]
cannot be racial or, because of [the 1989 Alaska Supreme Court
decision in McDowell v. STATE], based on the location of residency;
however, federal law grants a priority on federal land for
harvesting fish and game after one year of residence. Mr. Arno
argued the guide industry and nonresidents are not taking game meat
away from Alaskan subsistence users, based on his personal
experience that moose and caribou meat [taken by nonresident trophy
hunters] is distributed to local communities.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN directed attention to AS 16.05.258 (4)(B) which
read:
(B) distinguish among subsistence users, through
limitations based on
(i) the customary and direct dependence on the
fish stock or game population by the subsistence user
for human consumption as a mainstay of livelihood;
(ii) the proximity of the domicile of the
subsistence user to the stock or population; and
(iii) the ability of the subsistence user to
obtain food if subsistence use is restricted or
eliminated.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN said state law distinguishes that the broad
category of subsistence users includes some Alaskans who rely on
subsistence more than others due to their location and ability to
obtain food.
MR. ARNO pointed out no has defined mainstay of livelihood.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked if Mr. Arno agreed with the facts of the
population and resident and nonresident hunting quotas regarding the
Central Arctic Caribou herd during 2016-2019, as presented by Mr.
Richards.
MR. ARNO said the appointed [BOG] board members thoroughly
deliberate issues such as accessibility, and in [the case of the
Central Arctic Caribou herd] made a decision about continuing
opportunities for nonresident hunters because BOG has sufficient
leeway; he cautioned against the bill tying the hands of BOG and
forcing board members to make certain decisions.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN restated his question about the accuracy of the IM
population level of the Central Arctic Caribou herd at 28,000-
32,000.
MR. ARNO responded:
Absolutely, and those numbers are just as made up as
anything else that we work on based on past data, but
theres plenty of other factors as to what the carrying
capacity is, the habitat is at that time and those are
factors that come to that board. So when, you know,
theyre looking at that and want to get that herd, you
know, built back up, and do what they can, cause intensive
management then requires the board to look at control,
predator control programs, so as much as a factor as
anything else they have to look about the funding. I
mean, can they actually pull it off if they put it in
intensive management ?
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN pointed out his question relates to a game
population that was critical for subsistence users, and that was
well under established IM populations - and one would expect there
would have been an effort to revive the population - yet 40-50
percent of the take was by nonresident hunters. He asked if these
circumstances were inherently out of balance.
2:41:55 PM
MR. ARNO opined the decision was not any more out of balance than
numerous other BOG decisions that were based on its criteria and the
board process.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN said, I wasnt asking if it was more or less out
of balance than other decisions. ... That doesnt seem problematic
to you, that, you know, half the take was from nonresident hunters?
MR. ARNO said he couldnt answer the question further.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN recalled there is a mid-winter moose hunt in
Lower Yukon that is not utilized by guided trophy hunters and asked
whether there are similar winter hunts that garner 99 percent
resident hunters.
MR. ARNO said he couldnt answer.
2:44:06 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on HB 137.
2:44:48 PM
SAM ROHRER, president, Alaska Professional Hunters Association
(APHA), informed the committee he is a lifelong Alaskan living on
Kodiak Island and has been a hunting guide for 21 years. He said
APHA opposes HB 137; APHA has represented the big game guiding
industry in Alaska for over 50 years. Big game guiding is an
honorable and historical profession in Alaska and is the original
value-added tourism industry in Alaska that is approximately 90
percent Alaskan-owned. Many guides live in rural Alaska and over 50
percent of $52 million in guiding income stays in rural Alaska;
APHAs mission is to support the conservation of wildlife in Alaska,
enhance the value of Alaskas wildlife resources, and to sustainably
provide jobs and income for guiding businesses. He said APHA
opposes HB 137 for several reasons: the bill would reduce funding
for wildlife conservation because nonresident hunters represent less
than 13 percent of hunters and pay 72 percent of the bill through
license fees and tags; if HB 137 were to pass, there would be a
large drop in nonresident opportunity and a large drop in license
and tag fees. In addition, BOG currently has the ability to promote
resident priority by adjusting seasons, limiting methods and means,
imposing a subsistence priority and controlled use areas, and
implementing draw hunts if necessary. Mr. Rohrer said HB 137 would
force BOG to instead mandate a hunt structure most harmful to the
guide industry and that would reduce funding for conservation, be
harmful to small guide businesses, and wont work. He urged the
committee to oppose the bill.
2:47:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK observed BOG has various options [when making
its decisions]; he noted the bill [makes a change in statute] from
may to shall, but surmised BOG could establish some sort of
preference on very a minimal level.
MR. ROHRER explained HB 137 would require BOG to review every
hunting regulation and to define reasonable resident opportunity
for each hunting season and bag limit. Currently, BOG reviews
individual proposals and uses many options, such as shortening
seasons, in response.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked when nonresidents typically book
guides and hunts.
MR. ROHRER said clients book well-known operators two to four years
in advance; most hunters book more than one year in advance.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked for a breakdown, by species, relative to
guiding operations, revenue to guides, and revenue to the state.
2:50:51 PM
MR. ROHRER offered to provide an economic study. In response to Co-
Chair Lincolns earlier question about the Central Arctic Caribou
herd, he gave an example that if 50 percent of an allocation is
going to nonresidents, it is not because of an allocation decision
by BOG, but because the hunts are open to all hunters and thats
just who is showing up, but other people can show up for it as well,
other residents.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN recognized BOG uses many options; however, its
decision [on the Central Arctic Caribou herd] was based upon a
projection of 40 percent. He remarked:
I imagine when theyre going through their deliberations on
the tools that they do have, that they have some of target
in mind, some sort of a projection that wasnt met and
that in fact, the majority of the animals taken at a time
where the population was substantially less than the IM
target. The point of that question is trying to get at
if a there is a game population at that level, under that,
that level of stress, and its as important as it is to
Alaskans, for their food, does it strike you as being like
a reasonable balanced sort of distribution, if not an
allocation, its still a projection around 40-45 percent of
the take goes to nonresidents as an Alaskan, how do you
feel about that?
MR. ROHRER acknowledged the aforementioned numbers didnt sound
good; however, one must look at the location of the hunt area, who
is participating, whether there are villages nearby, and what the
means of access are, all of which would shed some light on why the
[Central Arctic Caribou herd] nonresident number is so high.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN reported 230,000 pounds of game meat was
shared with Alaska residents in 2015 from guided nonresident hunters
[document not provided].
2:56:39 PM
SAM FEJES expressed his opposition to HB 137. He said he is a
lifelong Alaskan with three children and is a commercial pilot and
holds a master U.S. Coast Guard license. Mr. Fejes has served on
the APHA board of directors for nine years and holds a master guide
license. Currently, Mr. Fejes operates two lodges, one near Yakutat
and one on Kodiak Island, and he has been guiding for 39 years.
Further, he is one of three guides in Alaska who applied for a
commercial guide lease in 1986; the guide lease process required a
substantial investment in his property. Mr. Fejes provided brief
personal background. As a professional guide, he has clients from
all walks of life and noted the most important is the client who
saves all his life to go hunting or fishing in Alaska. All clients
are appreciative of the beauty of Alaska and how the state manages
its resources. He said HB 137 would most likely end his profession,
lead to a downturn in tourism, and reduce funding for wildlife
management programs. He said the BOG process works and restated his
opposition to the bill.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN inquired as to the species guided by Mr. Fejes.
MR. FEJES said he guides fishing, hunting, ecotourism, and all kinds
of tourism. In summer, he operates a fishing and bear viewing lodge
in Kodiak; in fall and spring he guides hunting and fishing. In
further response to Co-Chair Lincoln, he said the big game hunted
are moose, brown bear, goat, and black bear.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN questioned whether any of the big game animals
currently fall under any hunting restrictions.
MR. FEJES said in some areas there are restrictions. He said he
conducts surveys of goat, moose, and fish for the state. For
example, goat surveys can cover 100 miles in one day; and from the
extensive counts, biologists determine how many animals can be taken
in specific areas. He pointed out hunting areas are open to
resident and nonresident hunters; however, in certain areas,
resident hunters are seldom found.
3:02:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stressed the bill only applies in times of game
shortages; he asked how the bill would put Mr. Fejes out of
business.
MR. FEJES opined resources belong to everyone, including those from
outside Alaska. Returning to Representative Tucks question about
the effect of [a change from may to shall], he said he has
learned to voice his opinion. Moose were transplanted down there
in the '50s and now there is a big herd with a lot of subsistence
hunters. He expressed his belief subsistence should be for those
who live off the land and not for those who use their $40,000
airboat to hunt moose.
3:05:49 PM
HB 137 was held over with public testimony open.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 203 1.21.20.PDF |
HFSH 1/30/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 CS(FSH) v. U 2.5.20.PDF |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Sponsor Statement 2.5.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Fiscal Note 1 - DFG-DCF 2.5.2020.PDF |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Fiscal Note 2 - DPS-AWT 2.5.2020.PDF |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 HFSH Testimony 2.6.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 Testimony Recieved by 1.29.20.pdf |
HFSH 1/30/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/4/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 137 Sponsor Statement 2.10.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 v. A.PDF |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Sectional Analysis v. A 2.10.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Resident Hunters of Alaska White Paper.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Work Draft CS v. M 2.12.20.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Fiscal Note - DFG-DWC 2.14.20.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Fiscal Note - DFG-BBS 2.14.20.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 203 DEC Note 2.5.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 203 HRES Testimony 2.19.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 203 |
| HB 137 Testimony as of 2.18.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/21/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 137 |