Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/13/2021 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 | |
| HB79 | |
| HB80 | |
| SB22 | |
| HB126 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 22
"An Act repealing the termination date for the
intensive management hunting license surcharge."
2:03:02 PM
SENATOR JOSH REVAK, SPONSOR, introduced himself. He was
honored to present SB 22. The bill was an act repealing the
termination date of the intensive management hunting
license surcharge. He shared that the bill was asked for by
the sportsman community. He thought it meant a lot when a
group indicated they wanted to pay their own way. He stated
the bill would bring in matching funds for the state. The
bill would mean intensive management would continue to be
directly sourced from the surcharge as opposed to general
fund appropriations. He noted the state had an obligation
to conduct intensive management in Alaska. The bill would
be used to leverage Pittman Robertson's 75/25 matching
funds. He detailed that $1 million from the surcharge would
bring in $3 million [in federal funds]. Given tourism, he
believed it was more important at present than ever before
for the Department of Fish and Game.
Senator Revak reported that the program had been working
well and the bill would merely eliminate the sunset for the
program. He relayed that he had not heard any opposition to
the bill. He stated that most importantly, the program
helped support healthy game populations for moose, caribou,
and deer in the state so Alaskans could continue to harvest
the animals to feed their families.
2:05:19 PM
EMMA TORKELSON, STAFF, SENATOR REVAK, stated that SB 22
removed the sunset date of the intensive management
surcharge placed on hunting licenses. She explained that
the program identified when a moose, caribou, or deer
population became at risk of falling below a sustainable
level to allow for hunting of the particular population.
She elaborated that the program identified the root cause
of the population decrease and developed and implemented a
plan for rectifying the issue. She stated that most often
the plans were focused on research and could also include
management such as habitat enhancement. Prior to 2016 the
program was funded by capital project appropriations;
however, since 2016, the surcharge on hunting licenses plus
the matched federal dollars, completely covered the cost.
In total, the surcharge brought in $1 million in user fees
that were leveraged to receive an additional $3 million in
Pittman Robertson funds.
Ms. Torkelson relayed that the $4 million paid for all of
the work of intensive management; however, the state would
have to assume the cost if the surcharge sunset. She
highlighted that the program protected the state's wildlife
populations and promoted food security across the state by
allowing hunters to access healthy herds. She stated that
the bill ensured the program could continue to be self-
sustainable and user funded. She asked for the committee's
support.
2:07:10 PM
Representative Josephson stated that he had been told
repeatedly that Pittman-Robertson funds could not be used
to match predator control and could only be used for other
parts of the program. He asked if the information was
accurate.
Senator Revak deferred to the department.
2:07:44 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME (via teleconference), responded that in certain
instances federal funds could be used for predator control;
however, the natural diversity guidelines driving much of
federal management in the State of Alaska, precluded the
use of federal funds to do predator control on federal
lands. He explained that doing predator control on state
lands using federal dollars fell under federal review,
which could be cumbersome. The department leveraged federal
dollars to conduct much of the science associated with
predator control activities on state lands; however, the
removal of predators was done with state dollars to avoid
interference and oversight from the federal government.
2:08:47 PM
Representative Josephson noted he had heard the
commissioner mention that intensive management (IM) was not
done on federal land. He was puzzled by the statement
because intensive management was done on federal lands,
frequently over the objection of the federal government. He
asked for the accuracy of his understanding. He remarked
that the issue was in the newspaper monthly.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that the department was
not currently doing any intensive management on federal
land. He relayed that DFG had approached the federal
government the previous year about doing intensive
management on federal land near the Mulchatna caribou herd
because the herd was in a predator pit and not providing
for any subsistence uses; however, the department had not
heard back on whether it could enter into a cooperative
agreement to do predator control on federal lands. He
reiterated that the department was doing predator control
on state lands, but not on federal lands.
Representative Josephson highlighted that the National Park
Service had noted the shooting of its collared wolves in
research programs. He remarked that wolves did not know the
boundaries [between state and federal lands]. He asked for
verification that there had been huge disputes about the
topic between the two governments.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied that there were wolves
the National Park Service had collared on federal land in
Tetlin Park that had been shot on state land in predator
control areas. He confirmed there had been conflict between
the state and federal governments over predator control
programs. He relayed that DFG was operating under the state
intensive management law and the federal government was
managing under natural diversity guidelines. The federal
guidelines did not endorse predator control on their
landscapes. He emphasized that the state was not doing
predator control on federal lands, some of the state
predator control areas were adjacent to federal lands.
2:10:54 PM
Representative Josephson asked the commissioner to explain
the difference between intensive management and predator
control. He assumed predator control was a subset of
intensive management.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang explained that intensive
management was anything the state did to intensively manage
populations to increase productivity for human use. He
stated that in some cases, the state was doing intensive
management on federal lands, but not predator control. For
example, the department was conducting habitat restoration
programs on the Kenai Peninsula in cooperation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service aimed at fire breaks and a
variety of other habitat improvements that would hopefully
result in greater moose populations over the long-term. He
stated that DFG was not doing any wolf population control
on federal lands on the Kenai Peninsula. He relayed that
intensive management was a broader spectrum that could
include habitat manipulation, fire controls, and the
removal of predators. He stated that predator removal was
one subset of intensive management.
2:12:01 PM
Representative Josephson asked at what point the
liberalizing of brown bear baiting on the Kenai became de
facto predator control.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that he had been part
of the discussions regarding brown bear baiting on the
Kenai Peninsula and it was a more complex discussion than
intensive management of bears. He stated it had been more
focused on trying to deal with the number of bears on state
land that were causing human-bear interactions on the Kenai
Peninsula. There had been a large outcry from citizens on
the peninsula with the number of bears around. He relayed
that the Board of Game had decided to do some bear removal
to try to reduce the human-bear interactions. He stated
that the board recognized the action would potentially
benefit the moose population on the Kenai Peninsula due to
the reduction in bears. He believed the board's primary
driver was to remove the number of bears to reduce human-
bear interactions, given that the state could not do
intensive management across the entire peninsula on federal
lands.
2:13:26 PM
Representative Josephson was concerned that when people
paid the surcharge, they may not be aware of the variety of
ways invented and enhanced since 1994 to undergo predator
control. He asked if the commissioner believed hunters were
aware of all of the liberal practices as legalized hunting
and predator control.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang believed there was a relatively
good awareness on the subject based on the number of emails
and calls he received about it. He noted that the topic was
in the newspapers quite a bit. He provided background on
intensive management. He explained that the department had
a statutory obligation to report back to the Board of Game
when a population was not meeting its population or harvest
objectives. The department reported to the board when
[population or harvest] objectives set by the board were
underachieving. He explained that the board then tasked the
department with coming up with an intensive management
plan. He detailed that DFG evaluated the population and the
intensive management strategies at the department's
disposal. He relayed that if the land was mostly federal
and there was little chance to improve habitat, the
department likely reported back to the Board of Game that
intensive management was not feasible in the area. He
stated that at that point "it moves off and they deal with
it through other levels of means to get the population back
up." In other cases, when the department determined
predator control may work, it put together a proposal for
review by the Board of Game and advisory committees across
the state were given an opportunity to weigh in.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang stated that the department moved
into the implementation phase of an intensive management
program after it was approved by the board. He stated that
if the plan included reducing the number of wolves or bears
on a landscape, the department moved to implement the plan.
The department had an obligation to report back annually on
progress on the plan. He relayed that if the plan was not
working, the board could reverse the plan as it had in Unit
16 about eight to ten years back. He summarized that a plan
was initiated by the Board of Game, and it was constantly
reviewed by DFG and the board to ensure it was meeting the
objectives. He stated that if a plan was not working, the
department walked away from it and moved on to the next
area. He added that the public had an opportunity to weigh
in throughout the process.
2:16:36 PM
Representative Carpenter stated that he did not think the
Kenai residents' understanding of the current regulations
and how management was conducted was germane to the bill
discussion. He thought the people of Kenai were likely
fully aware of how the state was managing resources. He did
not believe the committee should be questioning whether the
people of Kenai did or did not know.
Senator Revak thought it was important to remember that
predator control was a small piece of intensive management.
He stated that intensive management included a variety of
things such as research, controlled burns, and all
different aspects of habitat. He believed under 1 percent
of intensive management the previous year went to predator
control.
Co-Chair Merrick relayed that the committee would hear
invited testimony.
2:17:54 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME (via teleconference), provided testimony on HB 80. He
read a prepared statement:
The Alaska Legislature recognized the importance of
wild game meat to Alaskans as a food source and
consistent with Article VIII, Section 4 of the Alaska
Constitution, passed the intensive management law in
1994. This law requires ADF&G and the Alaska Board of
Game to identify moose, caribou, and deer populations
that are especially important food sources and to
ensure that the populations remain large enough to
provide food security to Alaskans to an adequate
sustained harvest. Recognizing the potential for
federal interference and state IM programs, the
department funded its IM programs under the IM law
from a series of capital budgets. As the capital funds
were expended and new funds were not allocated,
hunters became concerned about the future of intensive
management in Alaska. Because of the success of
several state-run conducted IM programs in increasing
ungulates, principally caribou and moose populations
on state lands, hunters requested an intensive
management surcharge be added to their licenses. This
was at the request of hunters across the State of
Alaska. The request was made to ensure the funds were
dedicated and available to assess and conduct
intensive management activities, especially given the
reluctance of federal managers to conduct intensive
management on their lands or using federal funds.
The legislature agreed and added an intensive
management surcharge to hunting licenses in 2016 and
the surcharge has been collected since January 1, 2017
and has been used to fulfill our obligations under the
state IM law. Intensive management programs and
enhanced habitat [inaudible] predators are a core
element of game management on state lands. I emphasize
that IM programs also include habitat enhancement in
addition to predator control. We have done several
habitat enhancement projects across Alaska aimed at
improving ungulate numbers. In addition to reliable
funding, careful planning is essential to ensuring our
state IM programs are both effective and defendable.
All state intensive management programs are guided by
an intensive management protocol that ensures
decisions are based on the best available science.
Intensive management allows us to put food on the
table of Alaskans and is one of the priorities of me
as commissioner and are essential to meeting
subsistence needs, the department's first priority.
Just look at the success we have had in meeting the
food needs of Alaskans in the 40-mile caribou herd.
This herd, restored through our IM efforts, put over
2.6 million of healthy meat in the freezers of
Alaskans. I refer to a handout each of you should
have. These surcharge funds also ensure that we can
implement the state IM law without interference of
federal oversight, and I remind you that two-thirds of
Alaska lands are federal lands and are off limits to
intensive management activities as they are managed
for their natural diversity, not human use, despite a
rural subsistence priority and there is no assurance
one can feed one's family under natural diversity
objectives.
The legislation before you today repeals the sunset on
the intensive management surcharge. This proposal does
not have any additional costs to the department.
Should the surcharge sunset, the department will see a
significant decrease in revenue to pay for intensive
management and our ability to meet our obligations
under the intensive management law. Revenue from the
IM surcharge totals approximately $1 million in each
of the last three calendar years. Most of those funds
are used to match Pittman Robertson dollars at a one
to three ratio. That means absent an appropriation for
the match, the department could stand to lose nearly
$4 million hampering the department's ability to
conduct IM activities. With that, I urge your support
for this important piece of legislation.
2:21:48 PM
Representative Wool referenced Ms. Torkelson's testimony
that funds were used for research, management, and habitat
enhancement. He did not believe he had heard her list
predator control. He did not know whether it was a
deliberate or accidental omission. He understood predator
control accounted for a small percentage in FY 20. He
pointed out that it accounted for a larger percentage in FY
18 and FY 19. He highlighted the controversial nature of
the topic. He referenced a couple of costs. He thought it
was important to touch upon the issue because many
legislators heard from constituents who did not agree with
the aerial hunting of wolves or gassing of wolf pups in
their dens. He believed it was what Representative
Josephson had been referring to when he had asked if
everyone realized some of the funds went to those
methodologies. He knew it had been going on and that it had
been controversial. He noted the topic had come up in the
commissioner's confirmation and it would continue to be an
issue. He thought if the sponsor was going to list what the
funds would be used for that predator control should be on
the list with habitat enhancement and research and
management. He stated that while it was not a large part of
the budget, it was part of the budget and he believed it
should be discussed in the open.
Senator Revak responded that the programs were statutory,
and DFG had to fund intensive management. He felt it would
be appropriate to address the issue separately. He stated
that currently intensive management had to be funded. He
believed it would be better for it to be funded with a user
fee rather than UGF.
Representative Rasmussen referred to Representative
Carpenter's point of order. She did not feel like the
conversation was germane to the topic.
Representative Wool countered that the committee had
received a handout for the bill that mentioned the
aforementioned items. He disagreed with the previous
comment and stated that the topic was germane.
Co-Chair Merrick noted the committee had been joined by
Representative Mike Cronk.
2:25:29 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked why a sunset date had been included
when the fee had been put forward in 2016.
Senator Revak replied that he was not in the legislature
when the initial bill had passed. He deferred to the
commissioner.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that there had been the
same amount of angst about predator control and a variety
of other things when the law had originally passed. He
believed the compromise had been made to leave a sunset in
place to review whether the program was or was not working.
2:26:30 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
ROD ARNO, POLICY DIRECTOR, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, PALMER
(via teleconference), shared that the Alaska Outdoor
Council (AOC) had been on hand in Juneau in 2016 with the
other major conservation organizations in the state to come
together and agree to have hunting license fees increased
to help pay for management of fish and game. He detailed
that Section 22 of HB 137 had created the intensive
management surcharge. The bill had also created how the
funding source could be gathered and used specifically for
intensive management projects. He relayed that the bill had
created a sustainable wildlife account. He reported that
AOC members and those of other major conservation
organizations had willingly agreed to be part of the
legislation and to pay more for the opportunity to gather a
wild food harvest. The sunset had been included due to the
apprehension from some people over how intensive management
would be implemented by different administrations and how
it would be received by the public through the board
process.
Mr. Arno stated that AOC members were pleased with the way
DFG had dispensed the funds from the special subaccount. He
noted that individuals who purchased the $5 low income
resident hunting license did not have to pay the $10 fee.
He added that nonresidents paid an additional $30 fee on
top of their hunting or trapping license. He relayed that
the AOC's 10,000 members were more than willing to help pay
for the state's management that allowed for an increase in
harvestable surplus. He emphasized that food security was
much more important than the concerns over some of the
methods of predator control.
Co-Chair Merrick noted Representative Kevin McCabe had
joined the meeting.
2:30:15 PM
MARK RICHARDS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESIDENT HUNTERS OF
ALASKA, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in support of
HB 80. He understood and respected that some legislators
had issues with predator control in general. He was happy
to discuss those issues with anyone outside of the meeting.
However, he pointed out that intensive management was a
law, and the Board of Game was mandated to follow the law
and do intensive management when necessary. He stated that
most of what went into intensive management did not involve
predator control efforts and could be funded in part by
matching three to one federal Pittman Robertson dollars. He
noted the dollars were growing substantially with the new
[federal] administration. The continuation of the surcharge
helped with the continuation of work including aerial
population surveys, animal health monitoring, habitat
surveys, and other. He stated the work was necessary in
order for the department to inform the Board of Game about
what kind of opportunities hunters could have and how much
game could be taken sustainably. He encouraged members to
support the legislation. He remarked that opposing the bill
would only result in less Pittman Robertson funding coming
into the state.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated the committee had been joined by
Representative George Rauscher.
2:32:59 PM
JOHN STURGEON, DIRECTOR, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL, ALASKA
CHAPTER, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support
of SB 22 and believed it should be made permanent. The
organization believed the law had been of great assistance
to DFG and the proper management of Alaska's wildlife
resources. He stated that harvesting wild game was a
practice steeped in tradition and was extremely important
to Alaska families. He shared that his family almost
exclusively relied on wild game for their freezer. He
highlighted that without the funds to properly manage
wildlife as a food source, the food source could be
drastically reduced or in some cases lost. He noted it was
very important in rural Alaska.
Mr. Sturgeon stated that an intensive surcharge had been
added to hunting licenses in 2016 and had been collected
since January 1, 2017. He stated that because the programs
had proven successful in increasing caribou, moose, and
deer populations, hunters requested the surcharge to ensure
the funds were dedicated and available to assess and
conduct intensive management activities. He stated that the
license revenue allowed DFG to carry out projects free of
interference from the federal government and freed up
Pittman Robertson funds for the state in a three-to-one
match. He stated that most hunters paid the surcharge
without hesitation or regret. He relayed hunters realized
the value of proper management of the state's wildlife
resources. He expressed strong support of the intensive
management program and urged making it permanent.
2:35:31 PM
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony. She asked the
department to review the fiscal note.
RACHEL HANKE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME (via teleconference), reviewed the fiscal note. The
fiscal note reflected the changes in revenues to the Fish
and Game Fund starting in FY 23 at $500,000 beginning on
December 22. The note reflected $1 million in the outyears.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated amendments were due in her
office by the end of Saturday, April 17, 2021.
SB 22 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:36:42 PM
AT EASE
2:37:55 PM
RECONVENED