Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/22/2013 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB21 | |
| HB158 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 158-DNR HUNTING CONCESSIONS
3:19:12 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 158, "An Act authorizing the commissioner of
natural resources to implement a hunting guide concession
program or otherwise limit the number of individuals authorized
to conduct big game commercial guiding on state land." [Before
the committee was the proposed committee substitute, version 28-
LS0555\U, Bullard, 3/20/13, adopted as the working document on
3/20/13.]
3:19:28 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony [on the proposed
committee substitute (CS), Version U].
3:19:46 PM
THOR STACEY, Lobbyist, Alaska Professional Hunters Association
(APHA), referred to page 3, lines 3-9, of Version U and
suggested the word "determine" on line 6 be replaced with
"recommend" so that the language on lines 4-7 would read "the
commissioner of fish and game shall recommend ... the number and
type of concessions". He said the APHA agrees that a statutory
link between the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) and
this program is appropriate and that overall it is constructive.
MR. STACEY noted the language in Version U on page 3, lines 12-
19, is a response to the concern that an individual hunting
guide could hold a total of six federal and state concession
permits. However, he pointed out, AS 08.54.750 already holds a
registered guide to three guide use areas irrespective of land
status within those, and therefore this concern is already
addressed in statute. The APHA feels that if concessions were
further counted against the total it could cause significant
portions of state land, or small inholdings within guide use
areas, to be unused or extraordinarily valuable, which is not
necessarily within the intent of keeping those three area
limitations intact.
MR. STACEY said development of a transporter concession [Version
U, page 3, beginning on line 25] is perhaps the most significant
change from the original bill. He said APHA is very supportive
of big game commercial services generally having good public
oversight and is supportive of the concept of a transporter
concession program. However, he cautioned, the guide concession
program took seven years of diligent hard work to develop and
that question is now before this body as a fully developed
concept. The APHA is hopeful that the same process would be
applied to the future transporter concession program.
3:22:39 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, responding to Representative Tuck, clarified
that Mr. Stacey is referring directly to the proposed CS,
[Version U], and the amendments [to the original bill] that were
incorporated into the CS.
3:22:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK requested reiteration of how the number of
concessions is already addressed in statute.
MR. STACEY replied an individual registered hunting guide can
hold only three guide use areas. Guide use areas are subunits
of a game management unit (GMU). For example, a guide use area
in GMU 9 would be referred to as 0309 and there might be 20
different guide use areas. These guide use areas take into
account physical boundaries, barriers, historic use, and so
forth. The attempt was to draw them up with 100 percent land
status - all federal or all state, some private - but that was
impossible to do as can be seen by the checkerboard on the map
of the state land status. Within a guide use area there is
usually a majority of state or federal land, but sometimes there
are minority pieces within that. Sometimes a person might have
to apply for a permit for a very small piece within his/her
guide use area. If a person does not have the ability to do so
because he/she has, say, three federal concessions, then that
tiny inholding of state land could, if in a very favorable
location, dominate the rest of the guide use area. Or, it could
go unused because it is not a big enough unit to be valuable as
a concession, but it is unused because the federal concession
holder could not apply for land use authorization there.
3:24:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated the intent of this provision is to
open it up for more opportunities for more people. He
understood Mr. Stacey to be saying, however, that this is
adequately done under current state statute.
MR. STACEY responded correct.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK further understood Mr. Stacey to be saying
that keeping this provision in the proposed CS could create a
potential problem.
MR. STACEY answered the potential problem is that there are
small inholdings that are either extraordinarily valuable or
unintentionally unused. The state has a historic compromise
where guides are limited to three geographic areas; the
individual land status within is the question with a concession
program. The APHA's position is that it is already addressed in
statute.
3:25:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON understood Mr. Stacey to be describing a
state concession area that might have a small federal area
inside it or vice versa. He asked whether APHA's concern would
be satisfied with a provision that excludes a state area within
a federal area or an area within a state area.
MR. STACEY replied if there is a sliver, and that sliver is
excluded, there would need to be a definition of sliver - how
small does small become. One person's definition of a sliver
might be a very valuable piece of beach in a brown bear area.
The guide use areas already in place, he explained, have drawn
in those compromises - historic use, physical barriers, and so
forth. The APHA's position is that the guide use area is the
best type of three-area limitation. Additionally, the industry
is currently set up around that so a guide cannot control too
much land.
3:27:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON understood if this proposed provision was
implemented a guide could hold three federal concessions and
three state concessions, excluding the small slivers.
MR. STACEY responded absolutely. He posed a scenario of three
different landholders within one guide use area, each of which
has concessions covered under this provision. A guide would
have to apply for each one of those concessions, but another
guide could also apply for those concessions. So this guide use
area can now provide more opportunity. A guide is not
guaranteed to get that just because he/she has the guide use
area. There could be three difference concessions within one
guide use area, which is an extreme example and very rare
situation within the state. So a guide would not want to be
prevented from applying for concessions within another guide use
area because he/she is already geographically limited to that
area. He allowed it is confusing to add this layer of guide use
area, but it is part of the professional licensing.
3:28:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON commented that "guide use area" is
somewhat of a new term.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE stated, "'Guide use area' is what they are using
now".
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON presumed that guide use areas would go
away with the concessions.
MR. STACEY stated guide use areas would not go away. In the
vast majority of the state, he continued, there is one type of
concession within each guide use area so that a concession
boundary and a guide use area boundary line up. However, it is
not that way everywhere. For example, "I register for 0902 and
2602, let's say, different guide use areas. Generally it is the
same land status within those, but there are some specific
differences where you might have to hold two different
concessions in that area now."
3:29:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON understood that would be true whether it
is state or federal under this program, "so you'd still have to
hold two if it's all on state land."
MR. STACEY answered absolutely. The concern is that if a guide
has such a small concession that it is not economically viable
and the person that has the majority of the land status around
it cannot apply it, it would lay fallow and be unused.
3:29:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired what is keeping someone else
from applying for that and making it not unused.
MR. STACEY replied there is a low density of animals and not all
land is created equal. It takes so much land to create economic
viability. No one can have a reasonable opportunity if too
small of a concession is within a guide use area and the person
with the federal land that is surrounding it cannot apply for
it. As it stands currently, the federal operator is just paying
$500 to hunt on state land there now; that operator does not
have to compete at all. It is within his guide use area, so he
would not be getting more land than what he has currently.
3:30:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he needs to become familiar with the
guide use area under the new concession area. He asked whether
[the guide use area] is going to go away and said his
understanding is that the new concession area becomes the guide
use area.
MR. STACEY responded the guide use areas were drawn up with
historical compromise, such as what is big enough to be
commercially viable depending on the part of the state. For
instance, guide use areas in Southeast Alaska are much smaller
than in the Arctic. So these guide use areas came out of "a
situation with commerce" and now the landholder - the state or
federal agency or whoever it is - has attempted to match these
concessions with the borders of the guide use areas, and the
vast majority of them were successful. There are very few
instances where the situation being talked about would happen,
but it could cause that land to be unused, which is not
something APHA would want to see happen.
3:31:49 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced the committee would ask the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) to provide further clarification.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE requested witnesses to address their comments
specifically to the amendments that were incorporated into
Version U.
3:32:37 PM
TIM BOOCH, Master Guide 176, testified he conducts hunts on
Native, state, and federal refuge lands. Regarding the
provision for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to be
able to deal with transporters, he maintained that that is the
Big Game Commercial Services Board's job to do. As written in
Version U [page 3, line 26], he said the "may" just means maybe,
not for sure. This guide concession program has a number of
things the guide industry and APHA do not support. There are
things that need to be ironed out and he has little confidence
that they will. He said he has offered alternatives to this in
his [earlier] comments to DNR and to the committee. The Board
of Game and the Big Game Commercial Services Board are the
state's tools tasked and funded to regulate the guide industry
and allocate the resources. However, they are hamstrung by this
plan, which is evidenced in the cherry picking
allocation/application of the drawing permits.
MR. BOOCH stated the Kodiak model represents the time tested,
precedent-setting allocation for drawings in the state. For
high-profile, guide-required species that focus the attention of
guides and residents on a limited resource, the Board of Game
has developed a very good system. The [3/13/13] testimony by
Mr. Tiffany of the APHA did not bring up the guide/client
agreement, an established pre-requisite in these drawings that
establishes a relationship with the guide and the hunter. He
disagreed with Mr. Tiffany's testimony that Cabela's and big box
booking agencies can flood the drawing such that a guide cannot
have a viable guide business in a drawing, and pointed out that
there are viable guide businesses on Kodiak Island, which has
nine state land guide use areas with multiple guides. The Board
of Game and the Big Game Commercial Services Board should be
allowed to use those tools, and those tools do work. He urged
HB 158 be tabled until the legislature decides on this most
important cultural and economic issue in Alaska.
3:35:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said it sounds like Mr. Booch is saying
"the big game guys" have tried to circumvent the Board of Game
to get legislators to do something different.
MR. BOOCH replied he is not saying that. Continuing, he said
there are a number of different powers in this. The APHA is a
leading conservation group and voice, but there is not a
consensus within the APHA. That is not because the board of
directors and the people involved have not tried to represent
that; it is that some of the members feel they are not welcome
to. Those people who are Class A guides, or assistant guides,
or apprentices, or who do not do a lot of hunts, feel they are
not even pertinent in the issue. The point is there are certain
members of the Board of Game who have bought into this and
legitimately feel it is their task to promote this and so they
have deferred from implementing a standard uniform drawing
permit application, which is the Kodiak model. It covers every
problem that possibly can occur. Mr. Tiffany's [3/13/13]
testimony that the guide concession program is going to get rid
of the need for a drawing is not true, he asserted. "If it is a
guide required for nonresident species where multiple guides and
residents compete, if it is within ... easy access and it is a
high profile hunt, then it is going to be a drawing regardless
of what DNR does."
3:37:44 PM
MR. BOOCH, continuing his response to Representative P. Wilson,
said the Big Game Commercial Services Board should also be
allowed ... There is now a precedent setting regulation in Unit
9 where there is spatial distribution between camps. However,
the board did not include in that regulation the DNR registered
camps, which is where the established guides are. The board
just said permanent camps, but that is a precedent setting tool
right there [that could be] implemented statewide and include
DNR camps. A federal style perspective is not needed and DNR
running the guide industry is not needed. The Big Game
Commercial Services Board will regulate where a guide
establishes a camp, so DNR does not have to try to deny anybody.
A guide wanting a camp could either have a DNR camp or could go
get one still. On a prospectus with this 14-day statewide
permit, a guide could not prove where he/she hunts. These are
alternatives, he said. The Board of Game has dropped the ball
and is cherry picking in these allocations. One area has an up
to 10 percent allocation, which means nothing to the guide
industry if the residents take it all. The policy used for
drawing allocation is the past 10 year average, but that is not
done. Or there is a 50 percent guide allocation for Koyukuk
moose. Or there is the Kodiak Island model of separate
nonresident and resident allocation, and the guide/client
agreement up front establishes a relationship with the guide and
the hunter. The hunter has to be registered prior to the
drawing application. Establishment of the Kodiak model
eliminated guides that were prospecting. There are tools that
can be used. [The bill] has gaps and big glaring mistakes that
should be looked at.
3:40:14 PM
Mr. BOOCH, in response to Co-Chair Feige, agreed to provide
further information about the Kodiak model to Representative P.
Wilson. Responding to Representative Tarr, Mr. Booch agreed to
send information about how he is regulated by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Native corporations, and DNR.
3:41:08 PM
DICK ROHRER testified he served on the Big Game Commercial
Services Board for five years when it specifically went through
the whole state with lots of public input at many board meetings
to adjust the guide-outfitter use area boundaries and add within
those the state guide concession area boundaries. He concurred
with the changes suggested by Mr. Stacey. The guide-outfitter
use area boundaries as they exist today, and that whole body of
legislation and regulation, cannot go away, he said. He spent
10 years working to get those boundaries, specifically on Kodiak
Island, to coincide so that the guide-outfitter use area
boundary would be the same as the brown bear permit area
boundary would be the same as the federal concession area
boundaries. That works fine on Kodiak on federal land, except
for specific areas that are very small, as pointed out by Mr.
Stacey. For example, there is an area that has three
nonresident bear tags in the spring and two in the fall. A
small portion of that area is federal land, a small portion is
state land, and a larger portion is private land. This area is
an example of where it makes sense, and the Big Game Commercial
Services Board has the regulations and the authority, to allow
the federal concessionaire to attempt to have the state
concession within that guide-outfitter use area boundary. Since
it is only five possible nonresident bear hunters per year, it
is not reasonable to have potentially four different operators
in that area. He reiterated that the guide-outfitter use area
boundaries, as they exist today, may not go away.
3:43:53 PM
MIKE MCCRARY testified this issue started in 2007, was developed
behind closed doors, and did not come out to the public until
2010 in a series of informational meetings. The public never
really had any input on change and the development of this
program, he charged. There are alternatives that have not been
looked at. This bill gives DNR authority, but if DNR did not
have the authority to do this program, his question is what
process DNR used to go through the development of this program
that is now before the committee. Occupational licenses are
designed to provide assurance to the public that the licensee is
qualified and meets the professional standard. Occupational
licenses are not transferable and are issued to a person and not
a company. A hunting license is issued to a person and is not
transferable. For example, a person cannot be paid to be a
commercial pilot until qualified to provide that public service.
The common thread between a hunting license, guide license, and
pilot's license is that they are issued to individuals, are not
transferable, and the person meets certain standards before
he/she can benefit from that license economically. He therefore
suggested that if the number of guides needs to be limited, the
person actually conducting the hunt be limited to the licensed
professional qualified guide, not the private pilot and not the
assistant guide. If this program is implemented, it will be
financed on the backs of the public's wildlife resources, and
those resources are set aside, protected, by the constitution
for the common use of all Alaskans. For all Alaskans to benefit
from such a proposed program as this one, it would absolutely
have to make a profit for the state that can be shared by
Alaskans.
3:47:12 PM
SMOKEY DON DUNCAN, Master Guide 136, testified he has been self-
employed in this industry since 1986. He said he can tell
committee members have not had time to read his comments on the
proposed amendments that he sent by electronic mail yesterday
because otherwise members would not be confused about the
[differences between] guide use areas and guide concessions. He
urged his comments be read before the committee votes. He said
last week's Big Game Commercial Services Board meeting had the
worst attendance ever - many guides have and are giving up.
Effort to include the Alaska Department of Fish & Game's (ADF&G)
input into the guide concession program is a welcome change, but
is six years too late; DNR has proceeded too far without
substantial industry input. What is really needed is area-by-
area input by ADF&G or the Board of Game. The legislature, in
all fairness, should create the assistant transporter license so
they can pay their fair share. Currently, one person is
licensed as a transporter business and a transporter may have
multiple assistants who pay nothing and are not vetted like an
assistant guide.
MR. DUNCAN said a guide use area is not the same as a concession
area. Typically, under guide statutes a guide must have
permission for 5,000 acres of upland to pick a guide use area.
Regarding Mr. Stacey's reference to guide use areas being
developed on historical use, Mr. Duncan maintained that those
were the illegal, exclusive guide use areas. "Basically, they
went back to almost exactly the same lines they used when the
Owsichek [decision] ruled that it was illegal," he said. He
thanked Representative P. Wilson for her amendment to bring in
ADF&G and use data, facts, and evidence to determine if anything
needs to be done. If the problem areas are addressed, the rest
of the state can be left alone. Guides objecting to the guide
concession program do not feel it is fixable; there should be a
return to "square one" with participation by guides,
transporters, ADF&G, Board of Game, and [Big Game Commercial
Services Board].
3:50:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted several people have suggested that now
is not the time; however, she understood this proposal has been
worked on for a number of years. She asked Mr. Duncan how long
it would take if the process was started over.
MR. DUNCAN replied the best action, the right thing to do, is to
start from square one and do it right. He said he does not
believe public input was ever there and charged that DNR did
this behind closed doors and did it for a reason - it did not
want APHA controlling the input and the other 90 percent of
guides felt abandoned and gave up. He said he believes there
will be substantial change in DNR's program if a meaningful
process is begun that includes ADF&G, the Board of Game, and the
industry. That will result in a very viable program supported
by the vast majority of guides, he predicted, but this program
here actually has the vast majority of guides adamantly opposed
to it. The Board of Game and the Big Game Commercial Services
Board both dropped the ball, putting DNR in a bad spot. He
recalled ADF&G's representative testifying that it is not in the
allocation business because that is the Board of Game's concern.
These conflicts will go away, he maintained, if everybody has
their cards on the table and these tough allocations between
guides, transporters, and air taxis are dealt with. He further
urged that the term "transporter" include anybody who is taking
a hunter afield for money, whether by air taxi, horseback, or
four wheelers.
3:53:26 PM
DAN WINKELMAN testified he is a resident hunter in favor of HB
158, for which he has been waiting 30 years and which will do
much for stewardship of the land, conservation, addressing
overcrowding, and preserving resident hunter opportunities. He
said his family has been hunting in Unit 19 since after World
War II when his grandfather and great uncles hunted there, and
in 1964 his father built three cabins in Unit 19C. He has
hunted nearly every major draw from the Big River and the Stony
River all the way around the western side of the range through
the Middle Fork of the Kuskokwim River. His family has
inholdings specifically on the Windy Fork. He has hunted the
Dillinger and the South Fork and the Jones River all the way up
to Tonzona along the edge of the park.
MR. WINKELMAN said over the years he and his family have seen
guides come and go, with some years worse. The Board of Game
took some action a few years ago with Unit 14A that pushed a lot
of guides into Unit 19C. The discussion that there is not a
problem with guides in Unit 19 is completely false, he asserted.
Any law enforcement, ADF&G, and the biologist, Roger Savoy in
McGrath, can tell the committee that during the months of August
and September many planes are seen on all of the major drainages
all the way through the Alaska Range on the west side. This has
been particularly worse since the Board of Game took action on
Unit 14A, which pushed new guides over to [Unit 19]. With HB
158, the key to remember is that there needs to be full
implementation across the state and not just addressing certain
specific so-called problem areas. Otherwise, because guides are
well equipped, well financed for the most part, and young and
very mobile, they will go wherever they have to go and that is
seen in Unit 19.
3:56:50 PM
ISRAEL PAYTON, Registered Guide 1111, testified the language of
"may" versus "shall" on transporters is weak. Transporter is a
term defined by the Big Game Commercial Services Board and
transporter needs to include everyone who provides commercial
services to a hunter. The question to ask here is whether it is
a guide issue or the allocation of resident hunter versus
nonresident hunter, which is what it truly boils down to because
right now this would restrict where guides could operate.
Nothing is restricting the nonresident drop-off hunter. What is
the difference between the two? One hires a guy to help them
find the game, the other does not. There is no land stewardship
on that end. He said he is a lifelong Alaskan and it is
unfortunate to have to say that some of the worst stewards of
the land are Alaskans. Guides are not even the user group, he
argued. The nonresident hunter is the one buying the license
and using the resource. The guide is just assisting that person
and the Board of Game, ADF&G, the Big Game Commercial Services
Board, DNR, State Troopers, and the [Division of Corporations,
Business and Professional Licensing] oversee all of that.
MR. PAYTON acknowledged the guide industry is split on this, but
said the question is whether Alaska is at carrying capacity for
guides, which is not known. The facts he has sent the committee
indicate guided hunters in Alaska are down. Sheep numbers have
remained stable as has hunter participation. There will always
be hot spots and low spots, but for the most part everything
remains stable. Legislators must delve into this and ask who
should be limited and will this help the resource. It does not
limit nonresident hunters coming to Alaska and they are the ones
using the resource. Guides are not using the resource; they are
assisting the users of the resource. One of two things can
happen with this program. There are 300 concessions and roughly
300 contracting guides on state land and DNR could be fair and
give every guide one concession, but there is no viability in
having one of these small little concessions. Or DNR could give
the top 100 guides three concessions each, which would be very
viable but would put 200 working guides on state land out of
business.
4:00:39 PM
NATE TURNER, Registered Guide 1036, testified he has been a
registered hunting guide for over 12 years and is the current
vice chair of the Board of Game. A member of the Alaska
Professional Hunters Association (APHA), he takes 10-12 hunters
per year on state, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands. He has U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service guiding concessions. He employs 5-6 Alaskans
each year as assistant guides, most of them rural residents. He
is a trapper most of the year in the same area that he guides.
For the last 23 years he has made his entire living from hunting
and trapping on those lands. About 80 percent of his income
comes from guiding, while about 80 percent of his time is spent
trapping. He also works as an assistant guide for one other
registered guide in the state because it is his only opportunity
to actually be in the field with his clients. He said he is
basically in support of HB 158 and added that DNR has made a
very meaningful step in a very detailed and laborious process of
creating a program that addresses multiple factors regarding
stewardship and conservation issues. This comes from the Board
of Game primarily, but it started with the public coming to the
Board of Game. He said he agrees with Mr. Stacey's recommended
changes.
4:03:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired whether Mr. Turner thinks
limiting it to three on state lands would cause people to go to
other available lands, such as tribal land.
MR. TURNER replied the answer depends on whether BLM
incorporates its lands into this program, which he expects the
agency will do because it is looking at this possibility right
now. Yes, it would definitely increase pressure on private
lands, he continued, because people would try to utilize those
if they were unsuccessful in obtaining a state or federal
concession.
4:04:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR related the committee was told the process
began with a white paper distributed in 2009 with a 113-day
comment period in which almost 300 comments were received. She
requested those witnesses who felt left out of the process to e-
mail the committee about their experience with this process.
MR. TURNER commented his personal experience is that this has
been a very detailed and open process. Admittedly, DNR took the
public comments and went behind closed doors to work on it,
which caused a lot of concern in the industry as well as
resident hunters. The Board of Game addressed that by asking to
be incorporated into the program so it could speak directly to
some of the issues and concerns that the board had identified.
He said the Big Game Commercial Services Board did that as well.
Since involvement of these two boards in the DNR process, and
ADF&G being at the table, he said he personally believes that
most of the concerns outlined through the public process have
been addressed. In his opinion, the primary voices being heard
now about not participating in the public process are from
people who did not think this would get as far as it has and now
they are afraid and showing up at the last minute.
4:06:53 PM
JOE WANT, Registered Guide AA006, testified he became involved
in the guiding industry in 1958 packing water, wood, and horses
between Chickaloon and the Little Oshetna River. The next
spring he took a job on Kodiak Island with the same job
description except that he packed bear hides instead of horses.
Based on his 50 years of association with the guiding industry,
he said he does not believe that guides are stewards of the
resource in the context that is being presented for this bill,
although they are concerned about the resource. In the late
1980s or early 1990s, ADF&G came to the industry saying
something needed to be done about the sow harvest; however, the
industry as a whole, with two exceptions, fought it tooth and
nail until economically there was an alternative that was better
than the one that was in front of them. That does not mean that
guides are a bunch of sleaze balls that want to kill everything;
rather, business plans and the way guides approach a resource
are based far more on a guide's personal attitude towards
guiding than it is the amount of game that is present in the
area. As far as stewards of the resource, his opinion is that
ADF&G staff and the Board of Game oversee these issues and spend
millions of dollars each year trying to determine the amount of
game that can come out of a specific area. For example, over
$500,000 was spent trying to determine the number of bears on
the Kenai Peninsula and the number was placed at somewhere
between 400 and 600, which shows how inexact the process is.
While he would hope he is either in support of, or opposed to,
this bill, his bottom line is the hope that the legislature will
maintain some sort of monitoring system over this if the bill is
passed and DNR goes forward with the program.
4:09:40 PM
VIRGIL UMPHENOUR, Master Guide 158, testified in regard to
paragraph (c), page 3, lines 12-19, of Version U. He said one
of the guide use areas he operates in has five landowners inside
it: a state township, BLM land, Koyukuk National Wildlife
Refuge land, Doyon regional corporation land, and village of
Huslia land. He currently has three permits for that guide use
area, including a permit from DNR for which he pays $1,000 a
year. Because all three of his guide use areas have multiple
landowners, he must have multiple permits to operate in those
guide use areas. He stated he is glad to see the transporters
included in [Version U].
MR. UMPHENOUR said he has been involved in hunting and fishing
politics for years. He is currently chairman of the Fairbanks
Fish & Game Advisory Committee. He has spent eight years on the
Board of Fisheries and leaves tomorrow for Whitehorse, Yukon,
for seven days of salmon treaty meetings. A lot of time has
been spent on this, he noted; he has provided comments to DNR
and the department has made many changes. Originally, the
proposal was totally unacceptable, but it is getting close to
acceptable now. He said he would like to see paragraph (c)
changed so that if a person has two federal concessions plus a
state concession inside one state guide use area, that that is
not counted "as all three of them."
4:12:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired how much Mr. Umphenour pays in
total for all of his permits.
MR. UMPHENOUR replied he pays the state $1,000 a year plus a
client day use fee of $3 per client per day. For his refuge
permit he pays the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service $13 per client
use day. For BLM he pays 3 percent of the gross. For some of
his Native corporation permits he pays a flat $500 per client.
So, for about 20 clients a year, he pays a total of $7,000 or
$8,000 in fees per year.
4:13:27 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE closed public testimony [and held over HB 158].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HRES CSHB158 Tarr Amendment A.5.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| HRES HB158 Letter Packet 10.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 158 |
| CSSB 21 SFIN Sectional for HRES 03 22 2013 .pdf |
HRES 3/22/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 21 |
| SB0021D.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 21 |
| SB0021-7-2-031813-REV-Y.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 21 |
| SB021CS(FIN)amS-DNR-DOG-3-22-13.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 21 |
| SB021CS(FIN)amS-DOR-TAX-03-21-13.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 21 |
| HRES SB21 DNR - GRE.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 21 |
| Oil Tax Provisions Comparison 03222013 Final.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2013 1:00:00 PM |