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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= HB 79 SALTWATER SPORTFISHING OPERATORS/GUIDES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+= HB 80 SPT FSH HATCHERY FACIL ACCT; SURCHARGE TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
+= SB 22 INTENSIVE MGMT SURCHARGE/REPEAL TERM DATE TELECONFERENCED
Moved SB 22 Out of Committee
+= HB 126 EXTEND BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY TELECONFERENCED
Moved HB 126 Out of Committee
+= HB 100 EXTEND WORKFORCE INVEST BOARD ALLOCATIONS TELECONFERENCED
Moved HB 100 Out of Committee
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 151 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR COVID-19 TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
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