Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
04/29/2022 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 | |
| SB204 | |
| HB349 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 204 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 349 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 204-HUNTING PERMIT/TAG AUCTIONS/RAFFLES
1:03:47 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 204(RES), "An Act relating to auctions
or raffles for hunting harvest permits and big game tags; and
providing for an effective date."
1:04:19 PM
SENATOR JOSH REVAK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor,
presented CSSB 204(RES). He related that since its passage in
1997, the Governor's Auction and Raffle Tag program has
successfully and substantially increased the funding for the
wildlife conservation programs and outdoor tradition educational
efforts of Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). He said
CSSB 204(RES) seeks to build on this success and expand ADF&G's
ability to bring in revenue by adding one new species and
increasing the maximum number of permits that ADF&G can issue to
be auctioned or raffled. The funds, he continued, will support
wildlife conservation, wildlife protection, and education
programs across Alaska.
SENATOR REVAK explained that with the large increase in firearm
and ammunition sales, and approximately $18 million in new
Pittman-Robertson (PR) funds becoming available soon, ADF&G will
need sufficient matching dollars to prevent these new PR funds
from reverting back to the federal government. A comparable
expansion took place in 2014, he stated, when House Bill 161
made similarly sized increases to the number of harvest permits
that could be issued annually and added several new species to
the list. Revenue jumped as a result and increased revenue is
anticipated this time as well with the possibility of a lot more
in PR federal matching funds.
SENATOR REVAK pointed out that modern wildlife management is
becoming more expensive. For example, he said, the increased
cost of aviation fuel has a major impact on survey and inventory
operations which are a key element in setting game population
and harvest objectives. Without accurate objectives, he stated,
the Board of Game cannot make well informed decisions on yearly
hunting seasons and bag limits. In sum, he continued, CSSB
204(RES) will allow more federal revenue to be leveraged for
wildlife management programs, education programs, proactive work
to prevent new listings under the Endangered Species Act, and
the support of hunters and outdoor recreation users.
1:07:30 PM
EMMA TORKELSON, Staff, Senator Josh Revak, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Revak, prime sponsor,
presented the sectional analysis of CSSB 204(RES). She spoke
from the document in the committee packet titled "Senate Bill
204 Sectional Analysis Updated for Version W," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided with some formatting
changes]:
Section 1. Amends AS 16.05.343(a):
• Page 1 Lines 6-7: Adds Afognak and Raspberry Island
Herds to the type of Elk harvest permits that can be
donated by the department to be auctioned or raffled.
• Page 1 Line 6: Changes the number of harvest permits
that can be donated for Etolin, Afognak, or Raspberry
Elk herds from four to two.
• Page 1 Line 9: Adds the word "wildlife" in front of
"conservation" to clarify that the nonprofits who
qualify to receive these donated harvest permits must
be established to promote education in outdoor
traditions and "wildlife" conservation and wildlife
protection programs in partnership with the
department.
Section 2. Amends 16.05.343(c):
• Page 1 Line 14 Page 2 Line 4: Removes differing tag
limits for individual species and allows up to four
harvest permits to be issued for all the listed
species.
• Page 2 Line 1-8: Adds to the list of permits that can
be auctioned or raffled four McNeil River State Game
Sanctuary bear-viewing permits and "emperor goose."
• Page 2 Lines 13-30: Revisor changes that move (1)
outlining a 70/30 revenue split between the Department
of Fish and Game and the qualified nonprofit (2)
limiting use of the funds by the organization to
approved programs and prohibiting use of the funds for
any political campaign or candidate into two new
subsections in Section 4 of this bill.
• Page 2 Lines 12 & 13, Page 3 Lines 1, 2, & 5: Removes
"big game" from any mention of "big game harvest
permit" so that all the permits are referred to
consistently by the broader "harvest permit."
• Page 3 Lines 3 & 4: Retains the inscription on the
hunting license issued under this subsection as
"Governor's license" but gives the Commissioner of
DF&G or a designee the authority to sign off on the
permits.
Section 3. Amends AS 16.05.343(e):
• Page 3 Line 11: Standardizes language that outlines
how the revenue can be used and how an organization
can qualify for these permits by adding that a
nonprofit must promote education in "wildlife
conservation" and conduct "wildlife" conservation
programs in order to qualify as an organization that
can conduct auctions or raffles for the department.
Section 4. Amends AS 16.05.343 by adding new
subsections:
• Page 3 Lines 19-25: Reinserts the language removed in
Section 2 to create a new subsection (f) that requires
that all revenue earned from an auction or raffle of
harvest permits be paid to the Department of Fish and
Game EXCEPT an amount not to exceed 30%, which the
qualified organization putting on the auction or
raffle can retain for the administrative costs of
holding the auction/raffle and approved projects and
educational programs that support outdoor tradition,
wildlife conservation, and wildlife protection.
• Page 3 Lines 26 Page 4 Line 4: Reinserts the
language removed in Section 2 to create a new
subsection (g) explicitly limiting use of the funds by
the organization to approved programs listed in (f)
and prohibiting use of the funds for any "candidate
for political office," "organization supporting or
opposing ballot propositions," and "expenses
associated with lobbying the legislature or
administration."
Section 5. Sets an immediate effective date.
1:11:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether there is a list of
organizations that have received these donations from permits.
He further asked which organizations might now be disallowed
because of the change to saying only wildlife conservation.
SENATOR REVAK deferred to Mr. Grasser to provide an answer.
1:11:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether the $18 million in PR
funds has already been approved to come Alaska's way. He
further asked how those funds come to Alaska.
SENATOR REVAK replied that PR funds are matching federal funds
that "when Alaska spends money they match." He explained that
when the nonprofits auction these tags, ADF&G gets 70 percent.
Those funds are matched using PR funds, he said, so it will be
potentially millions of dollars. He recounted that last year
[the legislature] passed a measure where these raffle tickets
could be sold out of state, which drastically increased the
revenues to the state. Essentially Alaska is taking voluntary
dollars to fund its fish and game while it is doing a good job
promoting healthy hunting practices and wildlife conservation,
he continued. Pittman-Robertson is an ongoing program, and
those funds are there, so Alaska is able to match quite a bit.
He deferred to Mr. Grasser to address what the numbers are.
1:13:26 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK observed that Section 1 of the bill would add
[two] herds and would change the total number of harvest
permits. He requested clarification as to whether it would be
two harvest permits per each island herd or two permits for the
[three] herds in aggregate.
MS. TORKELSON answered that it is two total, so ADF&G will
choose up to two permits for either the Raspberry Island,
Afognak Island, or Etolin Island herds.
1:14:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for further clarification on whether
it is two per herd per year or ADF&G chooses one herd per year
for two harvest permits for auction.
MS. TORKELSON responded two total and ADF&G could issue one
permit for one herd and another permit for another herd, or two
permits from the same herd.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated she has questions regarding the
addition of emperor geese.
MS. TORKELSON replied that questions should be directed to ADF&G
given the department recommended the addition of emperor geese.
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Mr. Grasser to provide ADF&G's invited
testimony.
1:15:35 PM
EDDIE GRASSER, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, provided invited testimony in
support of CSSB 204(RES). To provide background, he related
that he was asked to work on the original legislation in the
1990s and on the revisions in 2014. In relation to CSSB
204(RES), he recounted that three years ago during the COVID-19
pandemic everyone was worried about budget cuts to Alaska's
agencies. He said that during a discussion at his division
about where to make cuts he suggested figuring out a way to find
more revenue. Last year, he continued, ADF&G grossed $1.2
million dollars and it is his belief that with the additions in
CSSB 204(RES) about $5 million can be raised annually for
matching purposes with PR dollars.
MR. GRASSER, regarding the question about organizations, said
the division sends out a call for proposals to a list of about
40 organizations, which he will get to the committee. In most
cases, he stated, only about 15-16 organizations on the list
have ever applied for a permit. Regarding the $18 million, he
informed the committee that ADF&G will receive that money this
year and must find a match for those funds. He further stated
that if the Recovering America's Wildlife Act passes Congress
this year, ADF&G will receive an additional $32 million on top
of the other $30 million that the department regularly gets from
Pittman-Robertson, meaning ADF&G will have a lot of cash to
match. The department can do in-kind work, he said, but
creative thinking will be needed to come up with match funding
so that the funds don't revert to the federal government.
MR. GRASSER, regarding the addition of emperor goose to the
list, reported that [ADF&G] has had conversations with Ducks
Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, other waterfowl organizations, and
bird dog organizations, and the department probably will not be
offering any emperor goose permits in the near term because the
population, while not necessarily in trouble, is low. He said
ADF&G has always retained the authority to issue a permit or not
issue a permit based on the department's biological surveys. If
the emperor goose population comes back, he related, Ducks
Unlimited could probably get $100,000 for that permit.
MR. GRASSER stated that ADF&G supports the bill.
1:19:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said he found the list of organizations
in the committee packet. He observed that a few of the
organizations which have applied for or received the donations
are from out of state, such as Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife
Utah ("SFW Utah"). He asked if it is standard to give out these
donations of tags and hunting permits to out-of-state entities.
MR. GRASSER responded that under current statute an out-of-state
entity can apply for the permits but must do so through a
registered nonprofit that is incorporated within the state of
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired whether the nonprofit entity in
Alaska gets the funding or whether SFW Utah gets the funding
even though there is an SFW chapter in Alaska.
MR. GRASSER answered that the Alaska chapter gets the funding.
1:21:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked what the percentage or dollar
amount would be of the $18 million in Pittman-Robertson funds in
relation to CSSB 204(RES).
MR. GRASSER replied that the department can receive the $18
million if it raises $6 million in matching funds.
1:22:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN offered her understanding that the emperor
goose is a migratory species. She asked whether a raffle
recipient would be required to get a waterfowl stamp and whether
that would be gifted by the state. She surmised that waterfowl
hunters must have a life list like all other birders and that
that is why an emperor goose could be so highly prized. She
further offered her recollection that the emperor goose is a
species that subsistence hunters are allowed to use and harvest
in the spring. She stated she wants to understand the current
consumptive use of emperor goose by Alaskans, especially if it
is spring harvestable waterfowl used in rural communities.
MR. GRASSER responded that statute requires whoever is lucky
enough to draw a permit - whether a goose permit, moose permit,
or other permit - to follow the existing rules and regulations
regarding those permitted hunts. He said [ADF&G] therefore
cannot give a permit for the spring season because it not part
of a general draw hunt. He explained that an amendment to the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act allows for spring harvests, which is a
customary and traditional use by subsistence users.
1:24:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether ADF&G's data on the
customary and traditional spring harvest use of emperor goose
shows ten, hundreds, or thousands of bags. She said she
understands that ADF&G thinks at this point that emperor goose
is not a species that the department is likely to offer a tag
for because there is not an overabundance of the species. But,
she stated, her concern is that it is a species of local
consumption use for customary and traditional harvest in the
spring and she wants to ensure it is protected and not risked
for generating revenue.
MR. GRASSER answered that he is unsure on the exact overall take
for subsistence use. However, he said, if the population
objective is reached to allow for [the offering of a tag], it
would primarily be on the Alaska Peninsula. According to
ADF&G's data, he continued, most of the subsistence harvest of
emperor geese is in Game Management Units (GMUs) 18, 19, and, he
thinks, 21, but mostly around Bethel in GMU 18.
1:26:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN submitted that any emperor geese going
through GMUs 18 and 19 [in the spring] will have come across GMU
9, and then [in the fall] the remaining geese will fly southward
over such places as Cold Bay where more geese will be taken.
She said she is concerned about the emperor goose provision and
subsequent impacts on customary and traditional use, and she
questions why adding that species is needed now.
MR. GRASSER replied that the thinking was which species could
help raise money in the future because even if they are
currently closed they might come open. He offered his belief
that there is currently no nonresident season for emperor goose
and therefore the department isn't going to offer it on permit
this year. He further related that the department has already
told the member groups that are applying for these permits that
emperor goose is not on the table this year. Mr. Grasser stated
that ADF&G has an obligation to conserve wildlife so that it is
sustainable; if the population is low, the department is not
going to issue a permit. For example, he continued, after a
hard winter last year in the Tok management area, the department
did not offer a permit for the Governor's Auction and Raffle Tag
Program and cut the number of permits for Alaska residents to
just 10. He said safeguards are in the bill that allow ADF&G
and its biologists, especially its area biologists, to decide
whether to offer a permit.
1:29:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated that raffles and permits for hunts
that are within Alaska's regulatory scheme don't give her
heartburn. But, she continued, she has long had concerns about
emperor geese and other migratory species where there are spring
and fall harvests and it may not be realized until the following
year that overharvest occurred. Given that there has not
previously been a raffle for emperor goose and that the
population is not currently healthy enough to sustain one now,
she said it gives her heartburn to add this provision before
there is a surplus of the species.
SENATOR REVAK responded that those concerns about wildlife
conservation and sustainability are shared by himself and other
volunteers in wildlife conservation organizations, and by the
department. He said he is comfortable with the provision in the
bill that the maximum the department can allow is four tags with
one goose per tag. He stated that sustainable yield has been
the primary focus in the past when numbers of game species
weren't there. There needs to be a balance between the ability
to fund fish and game with the game available, he continued, and
that is what made him comfortable with this provision. When the
time comes that the numbers exist, he added, this will bring in
quite a bit of funds that will then be matched in an exponential
way to fund ADF&G.
1:33:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK pointed out that there are already great
restrictions on the hunting of emperor goose. He said hunting
by Alaska residents is through a registration permit and for
nonresidents a permit must be drawn. He related his belief that
emperor geese bypass a big part of the Interior because he has
seen only one in his entire life of living there. Accessing
emperor geese is tough and costly, he continued, so the pressure
is not going to be there to hunt. He said he therefore doesn't
see any issue with four permits to raise money to help create
more birds and he thinks it's a good thing.
1:34:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to Sections 1 and 3 where the
word "wildlife" would be added to the organizations that can
apply for these donations. He asked whether any organization
currently on the list would be excluded with this change in
language and, if not, the kind of organization that would be
excluded by adding the word "wildlife".
MR. GRASSER responded that regarding the organizations that have
been applying right now or in the immediate past, it would keep
organizations that don't spend money on wildlife conservation
from applying. He noted that conservation is a broad term when
it comes to sustainable yield of living renewable resources.
There are conservation groups that do things other than
wildlife, such as conserving waterways or forest lands, he said,
and this would preclude a forestry nonprofit from applying for
one of these permits.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS observed that [the groups on the list]
are all consumptive use organizations. He asked whether a non-
consumptive use organization could qualify for these permits
with the proposed term of wildlife.
MR. GRASSER replied yes, if they are spending money on programs
that support wildlife conservation or wildlife outdoor
education.
1:36:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired whether conserving land and
environmental concerns would be included in wildlife
conservation. He further inquired whether an organization would
be excluded from applying if it is concerned about the impact on
wildlife of opening lands or resource development.
MR. GRASSER answered that he will get back to the committee. He
said an organization which has land and enhances habitat for
species consumption would qualify for a permit. But, he
advised, an organization that is going to block development of a
resource like, say, a forest product or forestry project, would
not qualify at that point.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether an organization that wants
to stop logging to protect wildlife would qualify for a
donation.
MR. GRASSER replied that he doesn't believe it would qualify.
1:38:21 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked whether he is correct in understanding that
there is the possibility for receiving additional funds of up to
$18 million that the state needs to match, which is on top of
the existing $32 million that the state matches for, as well as
in the short-term future there is the possibility for an
additional $30 million that the state must match, and that is
what the effort of this bill is.
MR. GRASSER responded that that is right. He said that for the
last several years Alaska has received around $30 million a year
in general Pittman-Robertson money. The $18 million, he stated,
is the result of higher gun and ammunition sales this last year,
and it has already been apportioned to Alaska. So, he advised,
a total of about $50 million is on the table right now that
Alaska needs to match. He further advised that the Recovering
America's Wildlife Act is currently before Congress and would
raise monies for conservation of species of greatest concern
through fines on environmental violations, such as oil spills.
The projected apportionment to Alaska if that bill passes, he
continued, would be $30 million, for a total of $80 million for
which Alaska will need to find a matching funds.
CHAIR PATKOTAK surmised it is a 1:1 match where the state must
find a single dollar for any single dollar currently available
under Pittman-Robertson, not including the pending legislation.
MR. GRASSER answered that it is a 3:1 match. He explained that
if Alaska gets $1 in license sales and puts it into the fish and
game fund, that $1 is available to match with PR dollars, so
that $1 becomes $4.
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated that this information suffices for the
percentage breakdown on Pittman-Robertson that Representative
Rauscher was seeking.
1:41:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK, regarding the emperor goose, related that
for a count of over 28,000 geese the quota is set at 1,000 and
if the count falls to 23,000, the quota drops to 500. He said
every resident hunter can shoot only one goose. If the quota is
dropped to 500, he continued, then only 500 geese are available.
For the nonresident draw, he stated, only 25 people draw, and
they get to shoot one goose. If the count drops below 23,000,
he explained, no one hunts because there is no quota for the
state hunt. He said he therefore thinks the management plan is
a good plan.
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested that either the sponsor's office or Mr.
Grasser provide the committee with the current emperor goose
management plan.
1:42:59 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on CSSB 204(RES).
1:43:18 PM
JOHN STURGEON, President, Safari Club International, Alaska
Chapter (SCI-AK), testified that SCI-AK strongly supports the
changes to the Governor's Auction and Raffle Tag program
proposed in CSSB 204(RES). He said these changes would benefit
Alaska outdoor conservation groups like SCI-AK while providing
an economic boost to the Division of Wildlife Conservation and
local businesses and communities. He noted that the bill does
not require the department to issue these permits if there is
wildlife conservation concern.
MR. STURGEON related that this year SCI-AK raffled a Chugach
sheep tag, with 63 percent of the raffle tickets being sold to
out-of-state residents. This is outside hunter revenue being
brought into the state, he pointed out, although the winner of
the raffle was an Alaska resident. This single raffle netted
about $420,000, he reported, of which about $300,000 went to
ADF&G for wildlife management and $125,000 went to SCI-AK for
its conservation programs. Because ADF&G can leverage this
money against Pittman-Robertson funds, this one raffle provided
ADF&G with $1.7 million for its management programs and SCI-AK
with roughly $300,000.
1:45:20 PM
THOR STACEY, Director of Governmental Affairs, Alaska
Professional Hunters Association (APHA), testified in support of
CSSB 204(RES). He stated that the guides he represents are
proud of their contribution to wildlife management in Alaska.
He related that currently nonresident hunting licenses and tags
account for about 83 percent of the Division of Wildlife's
budget. Within that structure, he continued, APHA supports this
bill as it is a good reform.
MR. STACEY related that APHA participates in the Governor's
Auction and Raffle Tag program and auctions these tags as part
of a package where guides have donated their services. The tags
have value and the donated guide services have value, he pointed
out, and that is recognized by the people who are competing for
the tag. The guides, he added, are proud of that relationship
between this program and the support of wildlife conservation in
Alaska. Because some of the species are guide required, he
noted, that is an important partnership with the hunting guides.
1:47:04 PM
MR. STACEY addressed the bill's addition of emperor goose. He
said the Board of Game recently discussed emperor goose
management because the population is starting to get to
threshold. Within the allocation structure, he explained, most
of the harvest goes to the federal program which serves
federally qualified rural residents, and that harvest is about
7,000 birds per year. The state seasons, he continued, allow up
to around 150 tags, which the department issues depending on the
threshold, and the nonresident tags are issued through a drawing
structure of up to 25 tags. So, in looking at the pie, he
continued, a very small percentage of the available harvestable
surplus is used by the state seasons for either Alaska residents
or nonresidents. He stated that APHA is neutral on the emperor
goose portion of the bill, meaning that APHA would defer to this
committee, the legislature, and the department to decide if it
is a good idea.
CHAIR PATKOTAK said the committee looks forward to receiving the
requested follow-up documentation on the specifics of the
emperor goose management plan.
1:49:33 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK closed public testimony on CSSB 204(RES) after
ascertaining that no one else wished to testify.
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that CSSB 204(RES) was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 349 Amendment Hannan B.1 4.29.2022.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 349 |
| SB 204 Support Letter SCI-AK 3.1.22.pdf |
HRES 4/25/2022 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/29/2022 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/30/2022 9:00:00 AM SRES 3/2/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 204 |
| SB 204 RHAK Letter 3.14.22.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/16/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 204 |
| SB 204 S FIN SB 204 Support SCI-AK 3.25.22.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2022 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/30/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 204 |
| SB 204 Supporting Document Action-Raffle Revenue by Year 2.28.22.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 204 |
| SB 204 Testimony APHA 3.2.22.pdf |
HRES 4/25/2022 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/29/2022 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/30/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 204 |
| SB 204 Updated Sectional Analysis Version W 3.29.22.pdf |
HRES 4/25/2022 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/29/2022 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/30/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 204 |
| SB 204 Sponsor Statement 3.1.22.pdf |
HRES 4/25/2022 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/29/2022 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/30/2022 9:00:00 AM SRES 3/2/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 204 |
| SB 204 DFG Letter of Support 4.28.2022.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 204 |
| HB 349 Amendment Hannan B.1 Pass 4.29.2022.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 349 |
| SB 204 DFG Response to Committee Members 4.29.2022.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2022 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/2/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 204 |