Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
04/08/2024 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 | |
| SB164 | |
| SB253 | |
| SB248 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 253 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 248 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 253-DNR BIG GAME HUNTING PRGRM/PILOT PROJECT
3:45:58 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 253 "An
Act establishing a big game guide concession area permit program
on land in the state; relating to the duties of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board, the Board of Game, the Department of
Fish and Game, and the Department of Natural Resources;
requiring the Board of Game to establish an initial big game
guide concession area; and providing for an effective date."
3:47:00 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN speaking as sponsor of SB 253 paraphrased the
following sponsor statement. He added that until 1988 commercial
guide use of all land in Alaska was limited by a state-run
program. He said that in simplest term the challenge is to
manage a finite resource with a potentially infinite demand:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sponsor Statement for SB 253 version B
"An Act establishing a big game guide concession area
permit program on land in the state; relating to the
duties of the Big Game Commercial Services Board, the
Board of Game, the Department of Fish and Game, and
the Department of Natural Resources; requiring the
Board of Game to establish an initial big game guide
concession area; and providing for an effective date"
3:47:21 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN continued paraphrasing the sponsor
statement for SB 253:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Senate Bill 253 seeks to solve a long-standing problem
on state lands by implementing a constitutionally
sound concession program to limit the number of
commercial hunting guide operations on state lands in
Alaska. While federally managed lands in Alaska have
successful hunting guide concession programs, there is
no process by which the commercial use of state land
is allocated. With no limits on the number of
commercial hunting operations, the status quo
continues to drive overcrowding and localized wildlife
resource overutilization. This program is narrow in
scope to hunting guides and does not limit Alaskan
resident hunters or any other subset of the hunting
community.
For years, in problem areas around the state, chronic
overcrowding and overutilization have resulted in
decreasing incentives for guides to act as stewards of
our public trust resources. The current unregulated
situation incentivizes guides to aggressively "race
for the game" thereby decreasing quality of experience
for guided clients, increasing conflicts between
commercial users, and disadvantaging the general
public (resident hunters, subsistence users, private
property owners) who would not be limited by this
bill. The status-quo also increases difficulties and
costs for the enforcement of wildlife laws.
From January to October 2023, the Guide Concession
Program Workgroup (formed by the Big Game Commercial
Services Board) conducted a comprehensive process that
included public meetings, a thorough review of
numerous past proposals, consideration of the
successful elements of the federal concession
programs, and robust public consultation with licensed
guides, residents, other stakeholders, and various
state agencies. Public input played a crucial role in
shaping the recommendations throughout the Workgroup's
process. The concession program proposed by SB 253 is
modeled after the Workgroup's conclusions and
recommendations.
Specifically, SB 253 establishes a big game guide
concession program on state lands, aiming to add tools
to improve wildlife conservation, reduce conflicts and
encourage a professional guide industry. The key
features of the program include a competitive process
that ensures qualified individuals and new entrants to
the market are selected; 10-year concession duration
that requires all applicants (including incumbents) to
compete for each concession area on an even playing
field every cycle; carefully crafted transferability
conditions; heightened ability for state enforcement
of wildlife laws; and an equitable fee structure that
will allow the state to adequately maintain the
program.
This legislation represents a balanced, well-
considered approach to address the challenges in
commercial big game hunting on state lands. The
passage of this bill will put in place a proven
mechanism to improve the quality of hunting on state
lands to the benefit of all Alaskans.
3:51:08 PM
EMMA TORKELSON, Staff, Senator James Kaufman, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional analysis
for SB 253:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sectional Analysis for SB 253 version B
"An Act establishing a big game guide concession area
permit program on land in the state; relating to the
duties of the Big Game Commercial Services Board, the
Board of Game, the Department of Fish and Game, and
the Department of Natural Resources; requiring the
Board of Game to establish an initial big game guide
concession area; and providing for an effective date"
Section 1: Amends the duties of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board (BGCSB) in AS 08.54.600(a)
to authorize their role in the establishment of big
game guide concession areas.
3:51:43 PM
MS. TORKELSON continued the sectional analysis for SB 253:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Section 2: Creates new section AS 16.05.262 empowering
the Board of Game (BOG) to oversee the process of
determining which game management units or subunits
will adopt a big game guide concession area permit
program.
Requires a proposal be first submitted to the BOG
nominating a game management unit or subunit for the
guide concession program. After a public comment
period, the BOG in consultation with the BGCSB,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Department
of Fish and Game (DF&G), may approve that proposal.
Their approval process must take into consideration
that establishing the area supports the conservation
and management of the state's land and big game
resources, aids the enforcement of big game hunting
laws, and is in the public interest. If the BOG
approves an application, they will determine the
number of full and limited concession area permits
that will be granted in a given big game guide
concession area.
Further, section 2 prohibits the combination of more
than three existing guide use areas into a single big
game guide concession area and includes definition
references.
Section 3: Creates new section AS 38.05.022 empowering
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to
administer the implementation of the big game guide
concession area permit program on land approved by the
BOG.
Outlines that the overarching goals of the guide
concession program are to encourage long-term minded
conservation, enhance customer experience, reduce user
conflicts, and ensure responsible, professional,
economically guiding industry.
Establishes the features of the guide concession
program permits:
1. All permits are awarded an open, public, and
competitive process.
2. A guide may not hold more than three concession
permits at a time.
3. Permits are valid for 10 years.
4. Permits may not be extended or renewed without
the same open, public, and competitive process.
5. Permits may be transferred to another individual
based on conditions set in regulation that are
consistent with the overarching goals of the
guide concession program.
6. If the terms of statute or regulation are
violated, permit may be suspended or revoked
after the permit holder has been given written
notice and opportunity to be heard.
3:54:33 PM
MS. TORKELSON continued the sectional analysis for SB 253:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Section 3 further empowers the DNR, in consultation
with the BOG, DF&G, and BGCSB, to adopt the necessary
regulations including the qualifications for full and
limited concession permits, process for issuing the
permits, and the collection of fees; grants DNR or
their designee the authority to enforce the terms of
this program; allows DNR to keep confidential any
proprietary, commercial, and financial information
provided by concession permit applicants; and includes
definitions.
Section 4, Uncodified Law: In order to establish the
first big game guide concession area and permit
program, the BOG will select one game management unit
or subunit that would most benefit from the
implementation of the guide concession program.
Section 5, Uncodified Law: Transitional language
allowing the guide concession program to extend to new
game management units and subunits after the first one
has been implemented for at least three (3) years.
Section 6: Sets an immediate effective date.
3:55:55 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP announced invited testimony for SB 253.
3:56:21 PM
SAM ROHER, President, Alaska Professional Hunters Association
(APHA), Anchorage, Alaska, offered a brief historical
perspective on guiding in Alaska. He explained that guiding in
Alaska is the state's original value-added tourism industry,
with a long history of licensure and area regulation. The first
hunting guides were indigenous Alaskans, miners, and trappers.
The first Alaska hunting guide license was issued in 1909 under
the Taft administration to Andrew Bird of the Kenai Peninsula.
By the 1920s, guiding was well established in Alaska, and during
the territorial days, guides were required for non-residents to
hunt all big game species. After statehood, hunting guide
licensure was re-established, with Andy Simon receiving the
first registered guide license in the 1960s. In the 1980s, the
legislature implemented guide requirements for various species,
including Dall sheep, brown and grizzly bears, and mountain
goats.
3:58:01 PM
MR. ROHRER moved to slide 3 and spoke to an economic study
conducted in 2019. He said that a 2019 economic study conducted
by the McDowell Group found that big game guiding brought nearly
$92 million in total economic output to Alaska. Of this, almost
$58 million was new dollars to the state, including multipliers.
Hunting guides spent over $50 million with Alaskans and Alaskan
businesses to support their operations. He said 59 percent of
this, or nearly $30 million, was spent in rural areas of Alaska
on wages, food, fuel, supplies, and jobs. The guiding industry
directly employs 13,180 people in Alaska. This means that for
every third guided hunter who comes to Alaska, one new job is
created for an Alaskan. Additionally, 85 percent of registered
guides reside in Alaska, making hunting guide businesses
overwhelmingly Alaskan-owned.
3:59:00 PM
MR. ROHRER moved to slide 4 and spoke to public sector benefits.
He said that in 2019, approximately 100,000 hunting licenses
were sold in Alaska, with 3,090 of those licenses being sold to
guided non-resident hunters. Some people mistakenly believe that
Alaska is being overrun by guides and their hunters, but in
reality, guided hunters make up only three percent of the
hunters in the field. Despite this small percentage, these three
percent of hunters contribute significantly, responsible for
over 30 percent of the annual revenue for ADFG's fund. However,
the issue is not just about money.
3:59:37 PM
MR. ROHRER moved to slide 5 and spoke to non-monetary community
benefits. He said that, in addition to the economic impact,
there are important non-monetary community benefits as well.
Over 220,000 pounds of game meat is shared with Alaskans by
hunting guides and their clients each year, with an estimated
value of over $2.5 million. Of those 220,000 pounds of shared
meat, more than 165,000 pounds is distributed in rural Alaska.
4:00:08 PM
MR. ROHRER moved to slide 6 and spoke to the state of Alaska
Guide Area regulation from 1959 - 2024.
[Original punctuation provided.]
State of Alaska Guide Area Regulation (1959-2024)
The State of Alaska regulated the establishment of
guide areas thru the 60's, 70's, and 80's.
Congress deferred to this State regulatory scheme when
ANILCA was enacted in 1980.
During the first 8 years of ANILCA implementation, the
federal agencies deferred to the State guide area
program and honored those State authorizations/permits
to guide on federal land units.
In 1988, the Alaska Supreme Court declared
unconstitutional the State guide area system as
inconsistent with the Equal Use provisions.
New State legislation was drafted in 1989-1990 per the
Court ruling but the legislation was not passed.
The National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) took regulatory steps to create
a federally administered guide area program
(concessions) on NPS Preserve lands and FWS Refuge
lands (1992-94).
4:01:02 PM
MR. ROHRER moved to slide 7 and listed ways to ensure a healthy
hunting guide industry:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Healthy Hunting Guide Industry Policies
• High quality, well managed wildlife populations
• ADFG
• Alaska Board of Game
• Strong Wildlife Enforcement
• Wildlife Troopers
• Stewardship based partnership with land managers
• USFWS
• NPS
• USFS
• ANCs
• Alaska Mental Health Trust X DNR X BLM
• Professional Licensing Regulations Promoting
Ethical and Professional Standards
• Big Game Commercial Services Board
4:01:48 PM
MR. ROHRER moved to slide 8 and described the APHA problem
statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
APHA Problem Statement SB253
Entitlement-
"Alaska's DNR lands make up approximately 50 percent
of all lands open and available to guide hunters in
Alaska. Currently any person holding a guide license
is entitled to access DNR lands. Unlimited numbers of
hunting guides who have multiple game violations,
histories of conflict with residents or have been
denied access to operate on regulated public or
private lands are still allowed to set up shop on
state DNR lands. Even responsible and ethical state
land guides must "race for the game" to produce
opportunities for their clients. Entitling commercial
hunting operations to DNR lands (1988- 2024) is a
failed policy"
4:02:20 PM
MR. ROHRER noted that the policies in place for some state lands
often make it challenging to manage hunting operations in many
areas of the state. He explained that APHA believes entitling
commercial hunting operations to unlimited use of DNR lands, a
policy in place from 1988 to 2024, has been a failed policy.
4:02:38 PM
MR. ROHRER moved to slide 9 and described a potential solution:
[Original punctuation provided.]
APHA Position Statement SB253
Stewardship-
"The APHA supports empowering the DNR to limit the
number of hunting guides on state lands. The APHA
supports the findings of the Guide Concession Program
Taskforce (GCPT). We believe this program builds on
the successful USFWS and NPS programs and will
ultimately be more successful in promoting stewardship
and fostering a professional and sustainable hunting
guide industry than the federal programs. The GCPT's
focus on consultation with ADFG, the BGCSB and
reliance on already existing public processes will
work to keep this program focused on stewardship,
professionalism and sustainability."
4:03:52 PM
JASON BUNCH, Chairman, Big Game Commercial Services Board,
Anchorage, Alaska, stated that the board had been hearing
increasing complaints about congestion and conflict on state
lands, decreasing game populations, and stress on businesses.
They also saw challenges in decision-making, law enforcement
issues due to limited staff, and the high cost of investigations
related to state land users. The final catalyst for action came
when two long-standing residents, who rarely attended commercial
service meetings, testified about conflicts and too many guides
in their areas. This prompted the board to establish a work
group to address citizens' complaints. After being appointed to
lead the work group, he began by looking at investigations, as
it was an easy way to gather data. The review revealed that the
cost of investigations was primarily tied to activities on state
lands. He then compared the requirements for state land use with
those on federal lands, which use concession programs to limit
the number of guide outfitters in a specific area. Such programs
reduce congestion, conflict, and the burden on state agencies,
while also increasing conservation efforts and reducing costs
for the licensing program. With the support of the commissioners
of ADFG, DNR, and the Department of Commerce, he said he formed
the work group, which included representatives from various
relevant agencies and organizations.
4:08:33 PM
MR. BUNCH said the group began by educating themselves through
meetings with the Park Service, the Forest Service, and other
relevant entities. After these initial meetings, they organized
their efforts and used a 2013 DNR proposed concession program as
a roadmap. The group's goal was to develop an updated concession
program that balanced conservation, stewardship, resident
opportunities, economic value, and the viability of small
businesses. The group acknowledged that any imbalance in these
components would negatively impact the others. The work group
continued to vet ideas through public comment and worked on a
detailed timeline for their efforts.
4:10:52 PM
MR. BUNCH said that the third meeting involved written comments,
helping those engaged understand the purpose of the work group.
Following that, they held two public comment sessionsone in
Fairbanks and another in Anchorageboth incorporating Zoom for
those unable to attend in person. Additionally, they completed
nine meetings via Zoom, providing regular opportunities for
public comment, totaling 16 meetings in all. Version B of SB 253
represents the work group's recommendation, which aims to
establish a system similar to the successful concession programs
on federally managed lands since the mid-90s but improved. This
version includes input from various boards and agencies involved
in big game commercial services and will be implemented through
a robust public process.
4:12:13 PM
MR. BUNCH detailed the four-step process:
Step 1: A proposal to implement a concession within a specified
area is generated by any interested person. The Board of Game
will notify the relevant agencies to prepare for comment on the
proposal at the region's next regularly scheduled meeting.
Step 2: The Board of Game, along with ADFG, the Big Game
Commercial Services Board, DNR, and the public, will review the
proposal in a public setting.
Step 3: An advisory committee, established under the Board of
Game, will set the necessary criteria and address key questions,
such as how many guide outfitters should be allowed in the area,
how many should be limited or full, what the boundaries should
be, and how many clients should be allowed. The committee will
also determine what species can be hunted, among other details.
Step 4: Once the necessary answers are determined, DNR will
publicize the offerings, make a decision, and issue a concession
permit.
4:14:48 PM
MR. BUNCH explained that said that Steps 1 and 2 take place
under the Board of Game, whose main role is to conserve and
develop Alaska's wildlife resources. This includes establishing
seasons, areas for taking game, setting bag limits, and
regulating methods of take. The Board is also involved in
setting policy and direction for wildlife management and making
allocation decisions, with the Department of Fish and Game
responsible for management based on those decisions. He noted
that it seemed appropriate for the Board to be involved in these
initial steps. Step 3 involves an advisory committee, which is
recommended to help lift the decision-making burden from the
Board of Game. This committee, a volunteer board, includes
agency representatives and industry experts who help establish
necessary criteria. This process allows for shared knowledge and
ensures accurate decisions by distributing the workload among
various parties. Step 4 takes place with DNR, as the Work Group
concluded that DNR is the appropriate agency to administer the
concession program. All successful concession programs are
managed by the land manager, and previous programs like the one
from the 1980s, which was overturned, were overseen by Commerce.
The state Supreme Court decision indicated that DNR should be
the managing agency for a program that limits the number of
hunting guides on state land.
4:15:15 PM
MR. BUNCH said that a significant difference between the
proposal they used as a roadmap and the current proposal is that
this bill takes a problem-area approach rather than applying a
statewide solution. It involves consultation with all affected
agencies and boards and ensures a transparent public process.
The proposal also provides for new entry into the industry,
empowers DNR, and includes provisions for enforceability.
4:15:50 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP thanked him for the detailed information.
4:16:00 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether SB 253 could impact hunting
opportunities for resident hunters.
4:16:07 PM
MR. BUNCH replied that the proposal would positively impact
resident hunters. He compared the situation to federal lands,
where hunting guides often assist resident hunters who have
drawn a tag or need help with logistics. He described how guides
provide support when resident hunters face challenges, such as
running out of gas or having communication issues. By
facilitating coordination and offering assistance in the field,
he believes the program would benefit residents, especially in
areas where guides operate.
4:17:08 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether the proposed changes would
affect the number of tags available or hunting opportunities for
resident hunters.
4:17:16 PM
MR. BUNCH explained that the impact on resident hunters would
vary by region due to the diverse methods used to allocate tags
across the state. In areas where there is a drawing but no
allocation for either residents or non-residents, he believes
the proposed changes would increase the likelihood for residents
to win a tag. Additionally, there would be more wildlife
available for residents to harvest.
4:18:01 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how this might affect the total
number of game harvested in the state, if at all.
4:18:08 PM
MR. BUNCH mentioned that he needed to think about the question
further. He explained that the impact on the total number of
game harvested is difficult to assess because the focus is on
addressing problem areas in the state. For example, in areas
with high winter mortality of sheep, the concessionaire and
ADF&G could collaborate to ensure responsible management,
aligning hunting activities with the available wildlife
population in those regions.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP invited a representative from ADGF to respond.
4:19:28 PM
RYAN SCOTT, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), Juneau, Alaska, explained
that the impact on the number of animals available for harvest
could either increase or decrease, but the tools are in place to
manage that. He pointed out that drawing permits and quota
systems can regulate the number of animals harvested. He
believes the effect will balance out, allowing for closer
management of the harvest while still ensuring sustainable
wildlife conservation and maintaining quality hunts, in line
with the legislation's intent.
4:20:42 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for a general overview of how big
game guide permits and tags are currently issued to both non-
residents and residents, and how those processes might change.
He anticipated that changes would occur as a result of the
proposed legislation.
4:20:56 PM
MR. SCOTT explained that the process for issuing big game guide
permits and tags is not expected to change significantly.
Currently, harvest opportunities are distributed through various
methods:
• General season harvest tickets for animals like deer,
• Registration permits used for populations being closely
monitored,
• Drawing permits (lottery-based) that are available to both
residents and non-residents.
Non-residents have broad access to hunt throughout the state for
all big game animals, and residents also have the same
opportunities. Some areas set specific allocations for residents
and non-residents, which can affect the distribution of permits.
Overall, hunting permits are available through offices, online,
or specific locations, and the process remains flexible across
different methods.
4:22:24 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether the ability for the Board of
Game to establish big game guide concession areas will impact
resident hunters. Specifically, he wanted to know if this change
might increase, decrease, or have no effect on opportunities for
resident hunters to hunt.
4:22:44 PM
MR. SCOTT clarified that he is not on the Board of Game and does
not make the decisions about allocations. He expressed
confidence that Board will carefully consider the impact on
resident hunters in each case when making decisions.
4:23:11 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP suggested discussing a specific area in
Fairbanks, such as Unit 20A in the Alaska Range, where there is
significant competition among guides. He pointed out that there
are perhaps up to 20 guides in the area, and no one, including
resident hunters, seem to be benefiting from the situation. He
proposed using this as a hypothetical example to help clarify
how the legislation could address such issues and assist in
answering Senator Wielechowski's previous questions.
4:24:07 PM
MR. BUNCH explained that Unit 20A in the Alaska Range has two
factors contributing to its overcrowded guiding situation: easy
logistics and being a popular hunting area. The ease of access
allows guides to operate without significant upfront costs,
making it an attractive area for new or smaller businesses
versus more distant areas which require barging or flying in
gear, supplies, etc. plus transport in and out. Additionally, it
is considered "backyard" land for many local guides who are
familiar with the area, leading to a large number of guides in
the region. Limiting the number of guides in such an area could
help alleviate congestion, providing more opportunities for
resident hunters. Reducing the number of guides to a smaller
group would likely improve the quality of the hunting experience
for both residents and non-residents. The overcrowding in Unit
20A has made it difficult for hunters to experience a sense of
remoteness or solitude, which many hunters desire.
4:27:05 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether the Board of Game already has
authority to limit the number of participants in a specific
area, like Unit 20A, without the need for additional
legislation.
4:27:18 PM
MR. BUNCH explained that the work group's objective was to
ensure a balance between conservation, stewardship, resident
opportunities, economic value, and small business viability. He
noted that while the Board of Game could establish limits in
Unit 28, such as through a drawing system, this would introduce
uncertainty for guides. Under a drawing system, guides would not
know in advance how many permits they would secure each year,
making it difficult for them to plan and invest in their
businesses. This uncertainty would affect their ability to train
guides, update gear, and maintain business operations.
Therefore, a just drawing system could negatively impact small
business viability.
4:28:58 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how concession permits will be
awarded, specifically whether it will be through bidding, a
lottery, or another method.
4:29:15 PM
MR. BUNCH explained that the specific method for awarding
concession permits is still being worked out, as this is just
the initial stage. However, they recognized the need to allow
for new entry. The 2013 proposed concession program suggested
two types of concessions: an unlimited concession, where a guide
could offer services for multiple species in an area, and a
limited concession, which could restrict certain species if
populations were low, or allow for predator control.
4:30:47 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked if, based on what he just explained, the
current draft would meet the necessary requirements of the
"Owsichek test" and withstand a lawsuit.
4:31:13 PM
MR. BUNCH replied that the department believes it would and
offered to have a lawyer from the APHA's address that legal
question.
4:31:31 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he was uninterested in hearing from a
lawyer and expressed concerns about several key aspects of the
proposed concession system. He first worried that if the permits
were opened for bidding, wealthier guide businesses or
organizations might outbid and crowd out smaller, local
operators. Additionally, he raised concerns about whether there
would be a preference for resident guides in these areas. In
contested regions, he questioned whether the system could
disadvantage smaller operators. He also expressed concerns that
the proposed system, which could grant permits for up to 10
years, might result in long-term losses for some businesses,
potentially creating "losers" in the process.
4:32:12 PM
MR. BUNCH acknowledged that his concerns were discussed within
the work group. He suggested addressing each of the concerns one
by one to clarify their approach and asked Senator Wielechowski
to repeat his question.
4:32:23 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for clarification regarding
residential preference.
4:32:28 PM
MR. BUNCH replied that clarified that the work group did not
discuss residential preference because he was unsure if it would
be lawful and would need to seek legal counsel on the matter.
4:32:41 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed his belief that residential
preference could be implemented if there was a compelling state
interest, which he suggested the state does have.
4:32:47 PM
MR. BUNCH reiterated that the work group did not cover that
topic.
4:32:51 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed concern that if the Board of Game
or DNR decided to award concessions to the highest bidder, it
could result in small operators being crowded out by those with
more financial resources, potentially making it difficult for
smaller businesses to compete.
4:33:07 PM
MR. BUNCH explained that the workgroup discussed the issue of
bidding extensively, particularly because the Park Service uses
a bid process, but they decided against it. The concern was that
a high bid could create a situation where the guide outfitter
would need to kill more animals to cover the high fees, which he
considered counterproductive. He emphasized that permits would
be issued to individuals, not corporations, though that still
wouldn't eliminate potential concerns. He also mentioned that
they considered a model similar to the DNR proposal, where the
guide outfitter would pay a land fee (e.g., $850 for a base camp
and two spike camps for a year, with a limit of 14 days) that is
already established. Additionally, there could be a fee specific
to certain species, like $500 for a particular species, so it
would generate an equitable return to the state.
4:34:40 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed his concern about smaller
operators getting crowded out.
4:34:50 PM
MR. BUNCH drew an analogy to his own living situation in Kodiak,
explaining that just like there is limited space on the beach
for homes, the finite resources available for guiding also need
to be managed to avoid depletion. He emphasized the importance
of limiting access to resources to ensure sustainability. He
expressed enthusiasm for the idea of limited permits being
issued through a draw, noting that when all guides have similar
experience and business models, it can be difficult to choose
the "best" candidate for a permit. A random draw would ensure
equal opportunity for everyone who meets the minimum
requirements. He pointed out that the concession system wouldn't
be implemented statewide but would apply to congested areas. If
a guide chooses to operate in a highly congested area, ADFG
would need to accept the potential loss of opportunity as part
of their decision. There are many other less congested areas in
the state where guides could still operate without conflict, and
it would require more effort to explore and provide services in
those areas.
4:37:22 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked for clarification regarding the fiscal
notes, expressing confusion about why the program would require
additional funding and staffing. They noted that the program
seems to create a more limited entry system with fewer guides,
but the actual management of wildlife, including the number of
animals harvested, appears to remain the same. He questioned why
this would require more money and staff, especially since it
seems easier to track a limited number of guides with
concessions compared to an unlimited number.
4:38:18 PM
MR. SCOTT explained that the department struggled with the
fiscal note but provided context based on their experience with
the 2013 DNR program. He noted that on the front end, the
department would need to collect and manage various data, such
as harvest effort, population status, and available species, to
determine what is harvestable. While managing a single subunit,
like Unit 19C, might not be overly difficult, expanding the
program statewide would be a significant challenge due to the
large number of participants and the complexity of different
species. This potential scale-up would require considerable
additional resources, which contributed to the need for more
funding and staffing, as reflected in the fiscal note.
4:40:13 PM
CHRISTY COLLES, Director, Division of Mining, Land, and Water
(DMLW), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Anchorage,
Alaska, answered questions related to SB 253. She explained that
similar to ADFG, DNR does not have the capacity to run the new
program without significant additional resources, especially in
the initial stages. Developing the program would require
creating regulations, application processes, and scoring
criteria. Since the program is not intended to be based on high
bids but on qualifications, dedicated staff would be necessary
to manage the regulation process and develop the program. As the
program grows, these staff members would continue to oversee and
manage its operations.
4:41:20 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR suggested that the implication is laissez-faire.
4:41:44 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether the Concession Advisory Committee
would be responsible for setting the limits on the number of
guides and the species allowed, or if those responsibilities
would still fall under the Board of Game.
4:42:17 PM
MR. BUNCH replied that the Board of Game holds the allocated
authority. He explained that questions regarding species limits
would likely go through the Board of Game. However, the
Concession Advisory Committee would function similarly to local,
specific-area biologists for species like moose, bears, and
sheep. The committee would analyze historical harvest data,
perform due diligence, and attempt to forecast sustainable
practices. For example, they might consider scenarios such as
how many guides could be supported in a region and what harvest
limits should apply. These considerations would need to be
formalized in regulations. While this approach reflects the
intended vision, the specifics of how it would be implemented
are still under development.
4:43:30 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked about the situation concerning Game
Management Unit 20A and the Tanana Chiefs Conference, noting
that they have long requested potlatch ceremonial permits for
moose, which are limited. He inquired what would happen in cases
where permits are frequently denied due to a lack of moose. He
questioned whether such circumstances would also result in
guides losing opportunities during that particular time or
season. He directed the question to Director Scott for
clarification.
4:44:11 PM
MR. SCOTT replied that the department has tools and strategies
to monitor moose populations and manage harvest opportunities.
In the specific case of antlerless moose, the department works
hard to ensure availability for ceremonial permits, as it is a
priority. However, he noted that if a moose population declines
significantlyas seen in certain areas like 20Asuch declines
would affect all stakeholders, including residents and guides.
The Board of Game takes resident opportunities seriously and
considers mitigation strategies to allocate resources fairly.
The department can adjust harvest quotas, permit numbers, and
other mechanisms as needed to respond to population changes.
Still, in cases of severe population decline, everyone would
feel the impact, regardless of the method used to distribute
opportunities, such as harvest tickets, drawing permits, or
registration permits.
4:45:56 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP held SSSB 253 in committee.
4:46:08 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN expressed gratitude to the committee and all
participants involved in the development of SB 253. He explained
that his interest in sponsoring the bill arose after recognizing
the extensive work already undertaken to address a significant
issue. He highlighted a pattern within the legislature of
addressing timely and pressing challenges, such as energy
production, transmission, and ADFG management. While the bill
may not be a complete solution, it represents a strong starting
point for tackling a complex problem, thanks to the expertise
and dedication of those involved. He expressed appreciation to
legislative legal, particularly Alpheus Bullard, for his
exceptional work in processing and drafting the bill based on
the substantial amount of information provided.