Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/20/2021 09:00 AM 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 | |
| HB100 | |
| HB126 | |
| HB79 | |
| HB80 | |
| SB22 | |
| HB151 | |
| 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 | |
| += | HB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 22
"An Act repealing the termination date for the
intensive management hunting license surcharge."
10:35:28 AM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy
on file):
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "repealing"
Insert "extending"
Page 1, line 4:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. Section 33, ch. 18, SLA 2016, is amended
to read:
Sec. 33. AS 16.05.130(g) and 16.05.340(k) are
repealed December 31, 2026 [2022]."
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson relayed that the Intensive
Management (IM) Program was a hotly disputed and
contentious program. The commissioner and the department's
Wildlife Conservation director, Eddie Grasser had
concurred. Their testimony, when the bill was introduced,
was that they applied a sunset date rather than making the
program permanent because of its controversy. The concept
of the bill had some merit because it broadly helped the
state's general fund. However, he had concerns with the IM
Program. He reminded members that in 1996 the voters of
Alaska passed an initiative to outlaw aerial hunting. The
legislature reversed part of the 1996 initiative in 1998.
In 2000, Alaska rebuked the institution voting to allow
aerial hunting through a ballot initiative. The Intensive
Management Program encompassed much more which he would
discuss.
Representative Josephson continued that presently, the
state allowed for the targeted hunting of APEX predators
for the express goal of increasing undulate populations for
human consumption. He suggested that with an eye on the
narrow policy goal of increasing undulates for humans to
eat, there were other concerns that arose. The state had
spent millions of dollars to artificially deflate the
population of wolves and bears around Alaska. The results
had been mixed. The science also suggested that results had
been incredibly mixed. Out of six distinct areas in which
IM had occurred frequently in the last 10 years to 20
years, the state had spent in excess of $5.7 million on IM
specifically and $10.6 million in total. The money was used
to kill approximately 4,100 animals, most of which were
wolves. Based on DFG spending over the last 8 years to 9
years and data on animals taken over the last 11 years to
17 years, the cost per animal killed under the program was
about $2,600. Because the analysis included den animals
during years without spending data, the average cost per
animal was likely higher, potentially by hundreds or
thousands of dollars.
Representative Josephson reiterated that the goal of the IM
Program was to increase undulate population. The forty-mile
caribou heard that was near Alaska's border with the Yukon
had increased but remained below the upper bounds for
population and harvest objectives. Predator control had
been suspended. The moose population around McGrath had
increased, and the moose population in the Denali Highway
area had generally increased. However, the population might
have peaked in 2015. On the other hand, the Mulchatna
caribou herd had continued to decline, and moose population
in the Upper Kuskokwim was still low but was increasing. As
mentioned previously, the program had spent a great amount
of money with significantly variable results. The specifics
of predator control were often controversial. He recalled
photos that were spread on social media in 2017 depicting a
single hunter legally taking an entire wolf pack in one
day.
Representative Josephson suggested that the IM Program was
distinct from very liberalized hunting practices which DGF
and the Board of Game had encouraged. He thought
maintaining a sunset provision for the IM surcharge
guaranteed the legislature the opportunity to review the
program anew in a number of years. He was recommending an
extension of 5 years. While there was some fiscal policy
behind reducing the state's general fund, abolishing a
sunset provision reduced the likelihood that future
legislatures would review the policy behind the IM Program.
Given the controversy, he thought it would be unfortunate.
Representative Josephson commented that predator control
was a subset of the overall expense of the IM Program. He
claimed that the department deputized people by authorizing
them to do land-and-shoot, the true purpose of predator
control. He suggested that when the department was talking
about predator control, it was really talking about DFG
workers doing the controlling. However, he argued that the
program was much more expansive, and the legislature needed
to be aware of that. He had been in contact with Dr.
Sterling Miller who worked for DFG for 20 years. Mr. Miller
noted that IM was spread throughout 91 percent of the state
and thought the department's comment about it not occurring
on federal land was laughable. Mr. Miller stated, "In
essentially none of these areas has there been any
meaningful research done showing that IM has actually
resulted in the harvest of more wild ungulates on any but
the very short term."
Representative Josephson continued that part of the issue
was that almost annually there were reports provided to the
Board of Game from the department about the efficacy of IM.
He thought part of the reason to continue with the sunset
was so that the legislature could participate in fact-
finding relative to the reports. He also commented that the
department had produced a brochure called, "Intensive
Management: Stories of Success." A review by Dr. Miller
supported that the stories of success did not hold up, and
the facts were cherry-picked. They failed to report illegal
and unreported kills, the effect of which the kills were
blamed on predators. However, human beings made the kills.
He provided another example of how predator control bled
into liberalized hunting practices. Dr. Miller reported
that in Unit 13, northeast of Anchorage, bears might not be
designated as predator control area target species, but the
management objectives for brown bears in Unit 13 was to
reduce them to 350 individuals, a 70 percent reduction. He
was astounded guides had not questioned why wolves and
bears were being taken through predator control. He
suggested that wolves might be part of the liberalized
take.
Representative Josephson relayed that when the department
discussed how small the sliver was for predator control,
they were doing so in a very constrained, narrow, and
technical way. However, the program was much more
widespread. He thought that the legislature should keep an
eye on the issue. Dr. Miller noted that a Fairbanks
biologist who currently worked for the department was
working on a report on the efficacy of the IM Program that
was not yet completed another reason to maintain a sunset
date.
Representative Josephson agreed that the legislature had
not received significant testimony from the people of
Alaska but suggested it was due to fatigue. He hypothesized
that Alaskans and tourists who enjoyed seeing wildlife
thought the system was rigged against them. If there was a
greater understanding of the practices that the state
authorized, quasi predator control, people would be
astounded by the creative ways in which the state found
ways to kill predators. They were not fair chases or the
North American model.
10:44:45 AM
Representative LeBon asked for the bill sponsor to comment
on the amendment.
SENATOR JOSH REVAK, SPONSOR, appreciated the sentiment of
the amendment maker. However, he disagreed with the
amendment because it created an unfunded mandate. It had
come before the legislature a couple of times over the past
10 years. He thought that if the legislature wanted to
address the issue of an unfunded mandate, it should be
addressed in legislation. The idea behind the bill was to
remove the sunset date completely because every time the
issue was reviewed it cost the state time and money. He
suggested that since the issue had been reviewed a few
times and had overwhelming support, the sunset date should
be removed. Ultimately, it would be up to the will of the
committee.
10:46:50 AM
Representative Rasmussen asked, if the legislature were to
sunset the board as originally put forward, whether it
would remove the legislature's statutory authority to
change the predator control statutes in the future. Mr.
Bullard replied that nothing would constrain a future
legislature from making a change at a later time.
Representative Rasmussen clarified that if the legislature
repealed the sunset date on the bill, it would still have
the authority in the future to revise the predator control
statute. Mr. Bullard responded in the positive.
Representative Rasmussen noted that there was broad support
across the state from user groups including some
conservation groups and hunters. She suggested it was a
strong testimony to support the legislation as it stood
because resident hunters of Alaska supported the
termination date of the hunting license surcharge. In other
words, they were asking the state to continue a surcharge
with no end date in the future. She continued that the
Alaska Professional Hunters Association supported the bill.
She thought the amendment was unnecessary since there was
support from the Safari Club, the Alaska Wild Sheep
Foundation, the Territorial Sportsman Group, and many
individual Alaskans that had weighed in on the matter.
Representative Rasmussen argued that the predator control
component was only two-tenths of a percent of the funding
that went into IM activities. Whereas, research management
made up 98 percent of the funding. She added that research
management included surveys to determine abundance,
assessments of nutritional conditions including calf
weights, measurements, brows use, twining surveys, and
investigating causes of mortality. The majority of the
funding went to benefiting the various animals across the
state. She would not be supporting the amendment. She
looked forward to having a specific discussion on predator
control if it was the will of the group and if a bill was
put forth.
Representative Wool noted a number of sunset cycles had
occurred. He wondered how many there had been. Senator
Revak replied 10 years. Representative Wool clarified that
the sunset had been set 10 years prior and it was now
coming up for review. He wondered if it had occurred
previously. Senator Revak responded that it had been in
effect for 10 years. He wondered whether the Department of
Law or DFG were online to offer further clarification.
Representative Merrick indicated Mr. Grasser from Wildlife
Conservation was online. She invited him to respond to
Representative Wool's question.
EDDIE GRASSER, DIRECTOR, WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), replied
that the IM surcharge was part of the bill package that
passed in 2016. It would be the first time that the
surcharge was up for sunset review.
Representative Wool commented that based on the comments by
Representative Rasmussen and the letters of support she
received, it appeared that various hunting groups supported
eliminating the sunset provision. He argued that although
he understood the sentiment of reauthorizing a good program
into perpetuity, he thought that it was good to reexamine a
program every 3 or 4 years. He used the Technical and
Vocational Education Program (TVEP) as an example. He
thought it was important to look at the recipients and
allocations every few years. In the case of the IM Program
the allocation was .2 of 1 percent. However, in FY 18 the
allocation was 4 percent.
Representative Wool continued that if the facts presented
by Representative Josephson were accurate, much of the
predator control was outsourced. Therefore, individuals
were allowed to trap, shoot, or kill some predators under
the IM Program that would not necessarily be directly
funded by the department. He supported the timeline and
thought it would be helpful to have another conversation
about the issue in a few years. He also believed that some
of the controversial issues should come up before future
legislatures and different administrations, as they would
have different goals. He believed it would force a
conversation. He would be supporting the amendment.
Co-Chair Merrick MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, Ortiz, Foster
OPPOSED: Thompson, Carpenter, Johnson, LeBon, Rasmussen,
Merrick
The MOTION FAILED (5/6). Amendment 1 FAILED to be ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to report SB 22 out of Committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
Representative Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Carpenter, Edgmon, Johnson, LeBon, Ortiz,
Rasmussen, Thompson, Wool, Foster, Merrick
OPPOSED: Josephson
The MOTION PASSED (10/1).
SB 22 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN2 (DFG).
10:56:08 AM
AT EASE
10:58:59 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 80 Amendment 1 Ortiz 041721.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| SB22 Amendment 1 Josephson 041721.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 22 |
| HB 79 Amendment 1 Carpenter 041921.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 79 |
| HB 80 Amendment 2 Carpenter 041921.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 79 Amendment 2 Wool 041921.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 79 |
| HB 100 Response to Co Chair Merrick 041921.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 100 |
| HB 80 KRSMA Letter 4-19-2021.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 80 Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 Ortiz 042021.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 151 Supporting Document - Employment Effects of Unemployment Insurance Generosity During the Pandemic, 7.14.20.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| HB 151 Supporting Document - NBER Paper, 2021.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |