Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
04/16/2015 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| HB137 | |
| Presentation: Aklng End of Session Update by Enalytica | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 137-HUNT/FISH/TRAP: FEES;LICENSES;EXEMPTIONS
3:31:17 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of HB 137 [CSHB
137(FIN)am was before the committee].
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO, representing District 6, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of HB 137, explained that
this measure is a response from a lot of individuals who are
concerned about raising hunting and fishing license and tag
fees.
He explained that a deficiency exists between the cost of
management needs and the revenue that is brought in by the
license and tag fees. The biggest change HB 137 makes is that it
raises resident and non-resident fishing, trapping and
combination license fees to help deal with this deficiency. The
most significant change in any of the fees is to the non-
resident fee for big game tags. HB 137 also changes eligibility
for low income licenses: rather than inserting a number into
statute, it actually switches over to the federal poverty level,
which is currently set at $8,200 but changes on a routine basis.
This bill has gone through several iterations and now has a
voluntary fish and game conservation decal available potentially
for non-consumptive users of the resource, although a lot of
active hunters and fishermen may also purchase the decal to
continue to provide funding for wildlife conservation and
fisheries. The current fishing surcharge in the bill will be
combined with the fishing and license fee once the hatchery
bonds are paid. The fishing license fee won't increase, but the
$9 would remain with the current fee, which was added in the
House Finance Committee.
HB 137 raises eligibility for the hunting, fishing and trapping
license exemption from age 60 to 62 and requires renewal every
three years. This is over concerns that some people have been
issued a lifetime license and aren't Alaska residents anymore
but still come back to Alaska and use their lifetime license.
HB 137 also raises the age required for residents to obtain an
actual free license from 16 years old to 18 years, because these
people are still potentially high school students who may not be
out in the adult workforce.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said it has been over 17 years since
non-resident fees had been raised and 24 years for resident
fees. He concluded that HB 137 is all about opportunity and the
ability to ensure that Alaska residents have those incredible
hunting and fishing opportunities ahead of them.
3:35:49 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said to her this bill represents an effort by
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to be more self-
supporting.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked for a walk-through and justification for
the significant change of 50 to 100 percent. He also wanted more
explanation on the bonded indebtedness of the hatcheries,
because he was under the impression that the embedded price
increase for sporting fishing licenses was to pay for those two
hatcheries - one in Fairbanks and one in Anchorage - would go
away when the bonds are paid.
SENATOR STOLTZE asked that the Department of Law (DOL) discuss
the Carlson issues at some point.
SENATOR GIESSEL responded that they will not exhaustively hear
the bill today, but there will be other opportunities.
3:38:33 PM
JOSHUA BANKS, staff to Representative Talerico, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said a legal opinion on the Carlson
cases from Legislative Legal was in their packets. According to
that opinion, the Carlson cases apply to commercial fishing and
not this bill. This bill deals solely with recreational hunting
and fishing.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked Representative Talerico if he would like
to address Senator Stoltze's questions.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO responded that Mr. Banks could rapidly
go through a sectional analysis.
MR. BANKS provided a sectional analysis of HB 137 as follows:
Section 1 repeals authorization for money from the Fish and Game
Funds to pay for hatchery bonds.
Section 2 raises the resident license requirement age to 18
years and the exemption age to 62.
3:40:05 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
Section 3 raises the resident sport fishing license from $15 to
$20 and the fee for residents who are blind from $0.25 to $0.50.
Section 4 deals with the sport fishing surcharge, bonding that
with the resident sport fish license.
Section 5 raises the hunting license from $25 to $30.
Section 6 deals with the hunting and trapping combination
license from $39 to $45.
Section 7 raises the trapping license from $15 to $20.
Section 8 raises the hunting and fishing combination license
from $39 to $45.
Section 9 amends section 8 of this bill by combining the $9
surcharge into the resident hunting and fishing license.
Section 10 raises the hunting, trapping and fishing combination
license from $53 to $60. It also changes the low income license
eligibility so that a person is only eligible for the low income
license if they meet the federal poverty level requirement.
3:41:28 PM
Section 11 amends section 10 by adding a $9 surcharge into the
fishing, trapping, and hunting combination fee.
Section 12 amends the non-residents sport fishing license from
$50 to $60 for a 14-day license, from $30 to $40 for the 7-day
license, from $20 to $30 for the 3-day license and from $10 to
$15 for the 1-day license.
Section 13 adds the $9 surcharge into the non-resident sport
fishing license fees.
Section 14 raises the annual non-resident sport fishing license
from $100 to $150.
3:42:39 PM
Section 15 adds the $9 surcharge into the annual non-resident
fishing license.
Section 16 raises the non-resident hunting license from $85 to
$130.
Section 17 increases the non-resident hunting and trapping
combination license from $250 to $350.
Section 18 increases a number of the non-resident big game tag
fees for black bear from $225 to $600; brown or grizzly bear
from $500 to $1,200; bison from $450 to $900; caribou from $325
to $650: deer from $150 to $275; elk and goat will now be $575;
moose from $400 to $800; sheep from $425 to $850; wolverine from
$175 to $325; and musk ox from $1,100 to $2,200.
Section 19 makes multiple amendments. It conforms amendments to
raising the age for eligibility for a permanent license from 60
to 62 and raises the age one needs to have a license from 16
years to 18. It also raises the waterfowl conservation tag from
$5 to $10.
Section 20 raises the small game hunting license from $20 to
$30.
Section 21 raises the non-resident alien hunting license from
$300 to $600.
3:43:57 PM
Section 22 doubles the non-resident alien big game tag fees for:
black bear to $600; brown/grizzly bear and bison to $1,300;
caribou to $850; deer to $400, elk and goat to $800; moose to
$1,000; musk ox to $3,000; sheep to $1,100; and wolverine to
$500.
Section 23 raises the resident King salmon tag from $10 to $15
and makes conforming amendments to the blind license increase,
the exemption age to 62 and the license requirement age to 18
years.
Section 24 raises all six non-resident King salmon tag fees: $15
for 1 day; from $20 to $30 for 3-days; from $30 to $45 for 7-
days; from $50 to $75 for 14-days; the annual tag from $100 to
$150 and the annual non-resident military tag from $20 to $30.
3:45:11 PM
Section 25 has the new fish and game conservation decal, which
is voluntary, for $20. This section has intent language saying
that the legislature may appropriate these funds to Fish and
Wildlife Conservation programs.
Section 26 raises the required age to have a sport fishing,
hunting and trapping license from 16 years to 18. The provisions
in this section about non-residents are not amended. This
section also amends the age that a resident can get a free
hunting, fishing and trapping license from 60 years to 62. It
also creates a requirement that those eligible for this license
will have to renew it every three years starting in 2019.
Sections 27-31 make conforming amendments to raising the
eligibility age from 60 to 62.
Sections 28 and 29 allow a resident to hunt and fish on behalf
of a person with a developmental disability.
Section 32 is a number of repealed statutes regarding the fish
hatcheries and the surcharge.
3:46:37 PM
Section 33 creates transition language for those who are over 60
years and currently eligible for the free hunting and fishing
license so that they will continue to be eligible.
Section 34 requires the ADF&G commissioner to notify the Revisor
of Statutes when all costs associated with the fish hatchery
bonds under AS 37.15.765-799 are paid and all obligations are
fully met.
Section 35 crates a conditional effect so that sections 1, 4, 9,
11, 13, 15, and 32 of this bill will not be in effect until the
Revisor of Statutes is notified under section 34.
Section 36 adds uncodified language stating that sections 1, 4,
9, 11, 13, 15, and 32 will be in effect January 1 of the
calendar year following the notice in section 34.
Section 37 creates an effective date for the rest of the bill,
which is January 1, 2016.
3:47:53 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said it's a good idea to hold this bill through
the interim and into next January because of its magnitude. They
should have a review of the Carlson case because most recognize
that it is a commercial issue, but there is concern over any
tie-ins with sport and unforeseen impacts. He agreed that the
DOL should be in front of them for a discussion. He would also
like having a review of the hatcheries' history and status. One
of the issues is the challenges Senator Stoltze has in his
district with sport fish and seeing if senators outside of that
area can come up with a better feel for what he struggling with
and some solutions, part of which is the hatchery. Both of those
items would tie into components of this bill. The fee structure
discussion and how ADF&G should be restructured could happen.
3:49:47 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony.
DICK ROHRER, representing himself, Kodiak, Alaska, said today he
was just listening to the issues related to HB 137.
3:50:16 PM
RICHARD BISHOP, Goldstream Valley, Fairbanks North Star Borough,
Alaska, supported HB 137. He is a retired game biologist and a
traditional hunter, fisher and trapper. He is an advocate for
sound fish and game management as well as the opportunity for
all Alaskans to take advantage of these resources.
He said HB 137 provides a needed boost to ADF&G funding that
will improve management of sport fish and wildlife resource
programs that benefit all Alaskans as well as visitors. It
provides the means to capture more of the available federal aid
(Pitman Robertson federal restoration dollars) to fish and
wildlife restoration. It will allow support of important
programs such as intensive game management, Endangered Species
Act issues and public education where federal aid dollars can't
be used.
3:54:05 PM
AL BARRETTE, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, wanted to
work over the Interim to make HB 137 a really good bill.
3:54:46 PM
GEORGE PIERCE, representing himself, Kasilof, Alaska, agreed
with some provisions of HB 137 but not others. He said "no" to a
sockeye stamp; it's ridiculous. The people of Alaska own those
resources and shouldn't have the fees raised. The personal use
fishery is subsistence and residents are entitled to the fish
and game first.
He wished someone would amend the bill to raise hunting and
fishing fees on guide services that take non-residents out and
make tons of money on them. He also urged a review of guide fees
to know how much they really do pay.
He said this bill does not need to be fast-tracked. Over 90
percent of testimony has come from the guides who want to raise
fees for residents. He agreed with raising fees on non-residents
by 100 percent but not on residents.
3:56:34 PM
TOM BROOKOVER, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Anchorage, Alaska, said he
was available for questions on HB 137.
3:57:00 PM
EDDIE GRASSER, representing himself, Palmer, Alaska, supported
HB 137 and provided some history of the issue. Over 100 years
ago, people like Teddy Roosevelt initiated a process that was to
become known as the North American Model for Wildlife
Conservation, which is "undoubtedly the most successful
conservation structure that has been devised by mankind," he
said. It took things like wild turkey, black tail deer, Rocky
Mountain elk, from virtually being on the verge of extinction to
thriving populations.
One of the central ingredients of this model is that sportsmen
agreed to pay for it. That is what this legislation is doing.
They are coming to the legislature and asking for these license
fee increases. They know that in order to go hunting and fishing
somebody has to manage those resources and do it in a way that
the harvestable surplus is known. Without adequate funding the
department can't do that. If people think they can go hunting
and fishing anyway even if they don't pay, the state could fall
back on precautionary rule and not allow expanded seasons and
harvest limits that people enjoy right now, because of programs
like intensive management.
MR. GRASSER thanked Representative Talerico for introducing this
legislation and looked forward to working on it in the Interim.
4:01:14 PM
GARY STEVENS, lobbyist, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), Chugiak,
Alaska, said he wanted to talk about intensive management and
the surcharge that is not currently in HB 137. AOC is grateful
for the agency funding of intensive management (IM) programs
during times of financial prosperity. Now that it's not the
case anymore, AOC's membership is willing to step up and help
pay for the continued funding for IM programs that benefit all
Alaskan hunters. After all, hunters are taking a public resource
for personal use and it only makes sense that they would help
fund the department to ensure that the IM programs, which
include predator/prey management, habitat improvement, survey
and inventory assessments that continue when the state is
lacking the necessary funding. It's critical to the future of
the ADF&G and management of the state's renewable resources.
MR. STEVENS related that AOC has 48 different club members in
the state representing about 10,000 people. The $10-IM surcharge
that is not part of the bill now has a three-year sunset and
legislative oversight. It's critical to take advantage of the PR
funds that are absolutely necessary for reasonable management of
the state's resources. At their annual meeting in February, 21
clubs were represented; they went through HB 137 and didn't
support it as written but were willing to work on it in the
Interim.
4:03:33 PM
RON SUMMERVILLE, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, said he
is also a member of the Territorial Sportsmen, and became
interested in the license increase issue in HB 137 mainly
because he was here when Governor Hickel asked the department to
take a 5 percent decrease; he wanted 5 percent decreases for
four years. Both sport fish and wildlife had some general fund
(GF) monies that maintained commercial fisheries weirs, counting
towers and other things and that just disappeared. This year's
budget takes another $3 to $4 million in general fund monies out
of sport fish and wildlife, and he predicted that would continue
until those divisions were gone.
MR. SUMMERVILLE said he talked his organization into looking at
ways to convince the legislature to allow them to pay more fees
to carry on these programs. It's been 22 years since general
license fees have increased and they want to increase them
enough to not only meet present demand but a little out into the
future, too. They found that it takes a 63 percent increase in
all those fees just to bring them up to inflation level. With
ADF&G and 30 other organizations, a compromise was developed in
which residents take a 80 percent increase and non-residents and
tag fees a 100 percent increase, and 50 percent for general
licenses. The reason is to have something that is consistent.
He displayed a graph showing a $10 million separation between
the Pittman Roberts monies available and how much the department
has been able to obligate. That has to be obligated in a two-
year period or else it reverts back to the federal government.
He said, "We're way behind the power curve right now on matching
federal monies." He also displayed a map of the IM predator
control programs that are required by the legislature, and he
asked the House Finance Committee, if they don't get license
increases this year, which one of those programs they want to
see disappear and in what order, because the only money that can
be used to match those programs is either Fish and Game Fund
money or GF money. If a bill is not passed this year, some of
those programs will be lost.
4:08:56 PM
THOR STACEY, Alaska Professional Hunters Association, Juneau,
Alaska, supported HB 137. They would like the freedom from oil
revenue to manage Alaska's wildlife, one of the constitutionally
defined resources that shall be conserved and managed on a
sustained yield basis.
He said 90 percent of Alaska's hunting guides are Alaska
residents who rely on non-resident clients. Given that
relationship between resident guides and a resident industry
that relies on non-resident hunters, it takes a stiff upper lip
to support a 100 percent fee increase on non-resident tag fees
knowing that resident guides have to sell those increases.
At the same time, they are not asking for the state to help sell
their hunts. They are confident they can continue to do business
as before and generate more revenue for the state.
MR. STACEY said they are asking to pay more to ADF&G to maintain
Alaska's primacy of wildlife management in the state. If they
don't have the money to do inventory counts and rely on the
federal land managers to do those things, Alaska's fate will be
dictated by somebody else. The industry feels it's their job and
their obligation as sportsmen ask to pay more. He wanted this
body to recognize that they are working with a coalition of
groups that includes resident interests. This is a good will
effort by Alaska hunters and sportsmen and by industry.
4:11:33 PM
He explained that the House Finance Committee Substitute for HB
137 increased some fees beyond the 100 percent level for non-
residents on black and brown bears. These are issues of fairness
and good faith. This is a good faith effort to free Alaska's
wildlife management from the vagaries of oil price and oil
production.
4:12:31 PM
DOUG LARSON, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, felt the fee
increases in HB 137 were not adequate. He has lived, hunted and
fished in Alaska all his life. He served as director of the
Division of Wildlife Conservation in 2007-2010. As a result, he
understands the challenges that go on with the budgets for that
division and to some degree the Division of Sportfish. He
understands the importance of general funds and the graciousness
the legislature has had in the past to provide CIPs for things
like intensive management (IM) and other wildlife related
programs, which includes Endangered Species listing prevention
research and inventory work.
He supports the Sportsmen's Coalition proposed rates and felt
the amounts in the existing bill are insufficient to maintain
those viable programs. He encouraged increasing rates,
particularly on the resident side.
He heard that legislators don't want to raise resident fees too
much and can appreciate that. However, it's important to note
that non-resident hunters make up less than 20 percent of the
hunters in Alaska each year and take relatively few game, but
they contribute 75 percent of the Fish and Game Fund. Resident
hunters make up about 80 percent of the hunters in Alaska each
year and contribute about 25 percent to the Fish and Game Fund
and there is a similar relationship on the sport fishing side.
This isn't so much a reflection of inappropriately high non-
resident fees, which, in fact, are lower relative to other
states'. That is why the coalition supports a 100 percent
increase for non-residents. Rather, it's really a function of
inappropriately low rates now.
MR. LARSON said he is retired now and his income is less than
when it was while he was working. Nonetheless, like many other
Alaskans, he is willing and prepared to dig deeper into his own
pocket to pay a higher amount to ensure that programs like
survey and inventory, intensive management, protections against
ESA listings and access defense are viable.
This isn't the first time this issue has come up. However, up
until now, agreement couldn't be found among user groups. At
this point, there is strong board support for a higher resident
and non-resident increase.
He said the term "IM" conjures up anxiousness in many peoples'
minds, but the fact of the matter is that funds that would come
in through something like a surcharge would be used not only for
IM, but for habitat to see whether predator control is even the
appropriate measure to take.
4:16:51 PM
MR. LARSON said the state receives $2-3 million annually from
federal/state wildlife grants, separate from Pittman Roberts
Funds, but those need to be matched by state dollars. That's
where the idea of a conservation pass comes in, because those
funds could help match those dollars which are used for a
variety of things including research to ensure that species that
are not hunted, trapped or fished are not listed as endangered.
There are many examples where funds from those sources have been
resulted in preemption of ESA listings; they include yellow-bill
loons, black oyster catchers, bats, kitlets, murlets, and
Steller sea lions. More recently, funds have been used to study
Southeast Alaska's wolves to inform a petition that is currently
out to list the wolf as endangered under the ESA. That research
is costly and requires detailed in formation in order to stand
up to legal challenges. He said listings of game or non-game
species have huge implications for hunting, fishing, and
trapping as well as for mineral and oil exploration and
extraction, and timber harvestings.
MR. LARSON said he served on the Governor's wildlife transition
team, a team of people with a broad array of backgrounds and
interests. However, there was consensus on a number of items
including the need to increase license fees and to do so
sufficiently, the need to diversify revenue sources (where the
concept of a conservation pass is important), and expand and
enhance intensive management, not just predator control. In
other words, get more information about habitats, predator/prey
dynamics and assessments. An IM surcharge would help with that
specifically.
4:19:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO closed saying he appreciated having the
bill before the committee. He has talked to people throughout
his district and they are where they want to be in the current
bill.
4:20:03 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said she appreciated his courage in bringing this
issue up and held HB 137 in committee. She said this issue will
have to be addressed as state revenue decreases.