Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
03/20/2015 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB137 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 137-HUNTING, SPORT FISH, TRAPPING FEES
1:02:07 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK announced that the only order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 137, "An Act raising certain fees related to
sport fishing, hunting, and trapping; raising the age of
eligibility for a sport fishing, hunting, or trapping license
exemption for state residents to 65 years of age; requiring
state residents to purchase big game tags to take certain
species; and providing for an effective date."
1:02:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), labeled 29-LS0625\N, Bullard, 3/16/15, as the
working document.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER then objected for discussion purposes.
JOSHUA BANKS, Staff, Representative David Talerico, Alaska State
Legislature, drew attention to the committee packet and the
written summary of changes to HB 137 that would be made by the
proposed CS, Version N. He explained that the first change is a
title change to reflect major changes within Version N.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version N was before the committee.
1:05:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that HB 137 has not previously
been before the committee. He requested that a sectional
analysis be provided for Version N rather than an explanation of
differences between Version N and the original bill.
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK concurred and requested Mr. Banks to provide a
sectional analysis of Version N.
MR. BANKS reviewed the sectional analysis for Version N provided
in the committee packet. He explained that Section 1 relates to
AS 16.05.251(a), which deals with the Alaska Department of Fish
& Game's (ADF&G) ability to establish different open and closed
seasons for fishing based on different age groups. Currently,
ADF&G can do this for residents that are over age 60 or below
age 16. Version N would raise the age from 16 to 18 and would
raise the eligibility for a permanent resident license from age
60 to 62. Section 2 would raise the resident [sport] fishing
license fee from $15 to $20 and the fee for blind residents from
$0.25 to $0.50. Section 3 would raise the resident hunting
license fee from $25 to $30. [Section 4] would raise the fee
for a resident hunting and trapping combination license from $39
to $450. Section 5 would raise the resident trapping license
fee from $15 to $20. Section 6 would raise the resident hunting
and [sport] fishing combination license from $39 to $45.
Section 7 would raise the fee for a resident hunting, trapping,
and [sport] fishing combination license from $53 to $60.
Section 7 would also limit those who are eligible for a low-
income license and increase the income limit as well. Under
current statute a person only has to show receipt of some form
of welfare assistance and doesn't have to meet the income
requirement. After hearing from several groups the sponsor
thinks that if a person is meeting the income requirement the
person should be eligible for a low-income license, but not
merely because the person is receiving federal assistance. The
income limit would be raised from $8,200 to $29,820, the current
federal poverty level for a family of four in Alaska.
1:09:18 PM
MR. BANKS said Section 8 would raise nonresident sport fishing
license fees as follows: a 14-day license from $50 to $60; a 7-
day license from $30 to $40; a 3-day license from $20 to $30;
and a 1-day license from $10 to $15. Section 9 would raise the
nonresident annual sport fishing license from $100 to $130.
Section 10 would raise the nonresident hunting license from $85
to $125. Section 11 would raise the nonresident hunting and
trapping combination license from $250 to $325. Section 12
would raise nonresident big game tag fees as follows: black
bear from $225 to $335; brown/grizzly bear from $500 to $750;
bison from $450 to $675; caribou from $325 to $485; deer from
$150 to $225; elk and goat from $300 to $450; moose from $400 to
$600; sheep from $425 to $635; wolf from $30 to $45; wolverine
from $175 to $260; and musk oxen from $1,100 to $1,650. Section
13 would raise the waterfowl conservation tag from $50 to $10
and would also make some conforming amendments to the increase
in ages for residents from age 60 to 62 and from age 16 to 18.
Section 14 would raise the nonresident small game hunting
license fee from $20 to $30.
1:11:25 PM
MR. BANKS, continued the sectional analysis, explaining that
Section 15 would raise the nonresident alien hunting license fee
from $300 to $450. He said nonresident alien is defined in AS
16.05.940(23) as someone who is not a citizen of the U.S.
Section 16 would raise the nonresident alien big game tags as
follows: black bear from $300 to $400; brown/grizzly bear and
bison from $650 to $900; caribou from $425 to $600; deer from
$200 to $250; elk and goat from $400 to $500; moose from $500 to
$600; musk oxen from $1,500 to $2,000; sheep from $550 to $650;
wolf from $50 to $75; and wolverine from $250 to $350. Section
17 would increase the resident king salmon tag from $10 to $15.
Section 17 would also make conforming amendments for the
increase in the resident blind license fee, the required age for
a resident to obtain a license, and the age of eligibility for a
permanent license. Section 18 would raise the nonresident king
salmon tag as follows: 1-day tag from $10 to $15; 3-day tag
from $20 to $30; 7-day tag from $30 to $45; 14-day tag from $50
to $75; annual tag from $100 to $150; and the nonresident
military tag from $20 to $30. Section 19 would increase the age
from 16 to 18 for when a resident is required to obtain a
fishing, hunting, or trapping license. Provisions in Section 19
for nonresidents remain the same. Section 20 would increase the
age of eligibility from 60 to 62 for a resident to receive a
permanent license. The reasoning for this change is that a
person must wait until age 62 to start drawing Social Security.
Section 21 would clarify in uncodified language that residents
who are currently receiving the permanent license under AS
16.05.400(b) will continue to be eligible for this license.
Section 22 creates an effective date of January 1, 2016.
1:14:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired whether there is an explanation
for the amount of increase chosen for each fee or whether it
done by using a standard ratio.
MR. BANKS replied that originally the fees were increased by
about 50 percent, with rounding up or down to the nearest $5
increment. However, in response to feedback from Alaskans some
of the fees were lowered.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON concluded, then, that the chosen amount of
increase was essentially random.
MR. BANKS hesitatingly responded yes.
1:15:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR observed that Section 11 is about a 23
percent increase and some of the other sections are a 50 percent
increase. She asked what the range of increase is, from highest
to lowest, for all of the sections.
MR. BANKS answered that percentage-wise he does not know off the
top of his head. He directed attention to Tab 6 in the
committee packet which includes a comparison of current statute,
the original bill (Version H), the proposed CS (Version N), and
a proposal brought forth by some of the outdoor groups.
1:16:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked what the current license status
is for 16 and 17 year olds, what would be changed, and why.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO answered that this proposed change is his
personal feeling. A person cannot register to vote until age 18
and when there is a draft a person must register at age 18. So,
a person is treated as a child until age 18, except when it
comes to the purchase of a hunting and fishing license. Also,
in Alaska's remote communities, increases in these fees could be
tough. Many families in those remote communities have teenagers
who participate in fishing, hunting, and trapping, and it is
much easier on a family with a 16- or 17-year-old if the age is
increased to the age for voting or graduating from high school.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON surmised a 16- or 17-year-old would be
subject to any penalty for violation of fish and game code, but
would simply get a free license.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO replied correct.
1:18:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether a legal opinion has been
obtained as to whether the proposed changes for resident versus
nonresident fees do not violate the "Carlson Disparity Test."
MR. BANKS confirmed that a legal opinion was requested and is
included in the committee packet under Tab 9. The response from
Legislative Legal and Research Services states that the Carlson
case is not applicable to HB 137. That court case dealt with
commercial fishing and the court found that that had a different
standard than recreational or subsistence hunting and fishing.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:20 p.m. to 1:21 p.m.
1:21:21 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK requested Mr. Banks to explain the differences
between the original version, Version H, and Version N.
MR. BANKS explained that after filing the original bill the
sponsor received a lot of feedback, primarily against the
resident big game tags. The sponsor originally thought to put a
modest big game tag fee on a number of animals that nonresidents
already pay for, but received almost unanimous opposition to
that and so it was taken out. In addition to taking that out,
some of the resident license fees were lowered. The hunting
license was originally $35, in Version N it is $30; the hunting
and trapping combination was $50, in Version N it is $45; the
hunting and fishing combination was $50, in Version N it is $45;
the hunting, trapping, fishing combination was $70, in Version N
it is $60. The original bill increased the low-income license
fee from $5 to $10, Version N takes out that increase.
Conforming amendments were taken out in Sections 13, 17, 19, and
22 of Version H, the original bill. Version N also lowers some
of the nonresident license fees: the 14-day sport fishing
license is lowered from $75 to $60, the 7-day sport fishing
license is lowered from $45 to $40, the annual sport fishing
license is lowered from $150 to $130; and the hunting and
trapping combination license is lowered from $375 to $325.
Version N increases the waterfowl conservation tag from $5 to
$10, a provision that was not in the original bill. Ducks
Unlimited spoke to the sponsor and requested that this provision
be included in the bill. Version N reduces a number of the
nonresident alien big game tag fees: black bear is reduced from
$450 in the original bill to $400 in Version N; brown grizzly
bear and bison from $975 to $900; caribou from $635 to $600;
deer from $300 to $250; elk and goat from $600 to $500; moose
from $750 to $600; musk oxen from $2,250 to $2,000; sheep $825
to $650; wolverine from $375 to $350. Version N increases the
age at which a resident is required to have a sport fish,
trapping, or hunting license from age 16 to 18. This would help
younger Alaskans and encourage them to hunt and fish at a
younger age without having to pay a license fee. Version N
decreases the age of eligibility from 65 to 62 for a permanent
resident hunting, trapping, and fishing license. This was done
because the original increase was a bit too high and age 62
lines up with the age that a person can start receiving Social
Security benefits. Conforming amendments related to that change
are made in Sections 1, 13, and 17.
1:25:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood there is some general support for
the nonresident increase shown in the last column on the
comparison sheet under Tab 6. She understood the reason for
support of that more substantial increase is that it has been 20
years or more since some of those fees have been increased, plus
there is the opportunity for federal matching funds at 3:1. She
asked what the sponsor's rationale is for not adopting the
recommendations supported by a number of groups.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO answered that while going through these
numbers he presumed there is a sweet spot, but he does not know
exactly where that is. He said is not married to any of these
numbers, he just thinks it is an issue that needs to be
addressed since it has been 23 years since anything has been
changed. He said he wishes he knew exactly which numbers to put
in for the maximum benefit to the state and allowed that these
are just his thoughts. Therefore, he continued, testimony will
be vital to where these numbers go.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR thanked Co-Chair Talerico for his leadership
on this issue and agreed that it is time to look at this.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO added he understands the concern of people,
but said his wallet currently holds his forty-third combination
hunting and fishing license. He said he has always taken pride
in being part of the system. Outdoorsmen have traditionally
supported fish and wildlife conservation and participating in
this program. Regarding the senior discount, he said he thought
it might be awkward for him to stay at 60 because next February
he will qualify for a free license and he is having a hard time
with that because he probably sees himself as being younger than
he is and he cannot see why he would get one of those licenses.
He added that he proudly purchases a combination hunting and
fishing license every year and he wants to be a participant in
the conservation and management of wildlife.
1:30:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired as to what would be the amount
of increased revenue and what the state intends to do with that
revenue.
MR. BANKS drew attention to the fiscal note under Tab 5 in the
committee packet, stating it provides good estimates of the
projected revenue but is based on the original bill version.
Version N has lower fees and also has the resident game tag
fees. Tab 7 of the committee packet has spreadsheets for the
numbers in Version N. For the hunting license there is the
possibility of bringing in $500,000 incremental revenue, for the
fishing license there is the possibility of bringing up to just
shy of $2 million incremental revenue, the king salmon stamp
fees are just under $900,000, and for the big game tags there is
the possibility of $1.2 million. Because people may not want to
pay an extra fee there is the likelihood of a decrease in
license and tag sales, so this is based on 90 percent sales.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO added that several people who contacted him
asked why raise extra money for a department when there should
be cuts. He explained that a subcommittee of the House Finance
Committee is putting forth a budget that cuts about $12 million
from the proposed ADF&G budget. The proposed increases in
license fee will not be enough to replace that $12 million. The
budget cut is needed and appropriate, but it is also important
for the committee to consider that substantial cuts will have to
be made next year as well. But, the ability to have some data
and research is important to Alaskans for continued [fish and
wildlife] management. He said he fears that if the research and
data goes away, then [fish and wildlife resources] will need to
be managed conservatively, which may mean that Alaska residents
could be giving up some opportunity, such as shortened seasons
and closures. Therefore, part of his inspiration is to ensure
that Alaskans do not lose their opportunity in the future given
that more cuts to the state budget are foreseen.
1:34:35 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK opened invited testimony.
1:35:12 PM
EDDIE GRASSER, Lobbyist, Safari Club International-Alaska,
stated that the leadership of the hunting and fishing community
has come together and agreed that an increase in hunting and
fishing license fees is necessary given the budget crisis and
cuts. Hunters have always asked for and received the ability to
pay for their use of wildlife and for conservation measures. He
noted that besides representing Safari Club International,
Alaska Chapter, he is the non-voting chair of the Legislative
Outdoor Heritage Caucus Advisory Council to which nine major
groups belong. In the history of the U.S. conservation
movement, hunters and fishers have gone to state legislatures
and the U.S. Congress to find ways to fund wildlife
conservation, and that is what is being talked about here today.
There needs to be assurances that there will be sufficient funds
available for managing the state's wildlife and fisheries,
otherwise there will probably be restrictions on the ability to
do serious Alaska traditions like hunting and fishing. He
pointed out that it has been a while since fees were increased.
He said he bought his first license in 1968 when a hunting and
fishing combination license was $7. By his estimates using an
online inflation calculator, Alaska residents would be paying
$73 today, rather than $25, had the fees for a hunting and
fishing combination license kept up with inflation. It is
important to note, he continued, that the entire leadership of
the outdoor community has come together behind this idea of a
license increase.
1:38:39 PM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
stated that AOC is a coalition of about 48 clubs throughout
Alaska, as well as individual members. The AOC came together
before statehood and is interested in preserving the Alaska
lifestyle of gathering a wild food harvest. He said that about
200,000 out of Alaska's 700,000 residents buy some kind of
hunting or fishing license. Because AOC members realize it is a
privilege to be able to harvest a public resource they are
willing to do what they can to manage that resource on a
sustainable yield basis. The Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G) has a legislative directive through the intensive
management law. Harvestable surplus is declining in numerous
places throughout the state and it takes money to get the sound
science necessary for managing a predator/prey situation to
where it is sustainable yield. The working members of the AOC
are willing to pay this increase even though it affects their
budgets because they have the results of intensive management.
1:41:37 PM
MR. ARNO drew attention to Tab 15 in the committee packet which
provides the compromise points. He related that the AOC, Safari
Club International, Alaska Professional Hunters Association, and
Territorial Sportsmen sat down, came to agreement, and made
compromises. Despite the public's concern and a fair amount of
opposition to raising fees, the groups agreed to go ahead and
have a $50 trophy hunting fee for sheep in the Tok Management
Area and in Chugach State Park. Management is a bit different
when managing for trophy. A side benefit in any place where
there is a harvestable surplus of trophies is that there must be
a big population to get to that point, so those areas still
benefit regular Alaskans who are not trophy hunting. Another
compromise was to revise a resident tag for coastal brown bear
in game management units (GMUs) 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10, which
would be a fee of $50. Most residents hunting in these areas
are hunting for a trophy brown bear. Along with that trophy fee
of $50 the current statewide tag fee of $25 on brown bear would
be dropped due to the revenue that would come in from the trophy
fee. In rural Alaska, he maintained, that $25 tag fee cuts down
on the harvest in areas where the state is trying to raise the
ungulate population. The [Board of Game] would still have the
authority to modify those tag fees in those trophy areas. He
related that part of the compromise among the groups was
agreement for keeping the nonresident tag fee at a 100 percent
increase. The number of nonresident hunters coming to Alaska
has fluctuated very little over the last 40 years. That number
is about 10,000 and has ranged from 8,000-14,000. There is no
place like Alaska as far as hunting goes just by the magnitude
of the state's wild lands that have been kept intact. So, there
will always be 10,000 nonresidents who will come to Alaska and
pay that 100 percent increase in tag fee for the opportunity.
1:44:55 PM
MR. ARNO said another agreement among the groups was developing
a new intensive management surcharge of $10 that would apply to
every license and that would have a three-year sunset. This
surcharge would be in addition to the price of the tags and is
similar to the present surcharge for sport fish facilities and
which has a sunset date. The intensive management surcharge
would go into the fish and game fund with the idea that people
want more of a harvestable surplus and are willing to pay for
it. He allowed there will be some opposition to the surcharge,
but said it can be seen how it works out over the three years.
He noted that for the surcharge for the sport fish facilities is
not applied to the low income license fees. Mr. Arno reported
that another agreement was for creating a new voluntary fish and
wildlife conservation decal priced at $20. He said this is
something that has been talked about for decades because
managing for abundance benefits the other 500,000 Alaskans who
appreciate the ability to see wildlife.
1:47:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired whether Mr. Arno is saying
that he hopes the increased revenue will go to expanding
intensive management.
MR. ARNO replied that for this particular tag, absolutely. If
there wasn't management it would then be like what the federal
government wants, he continued, which is to have biological
integrity where the populations are allowed to go to the low
level of equilibrium that doesn't provide the harvestable
surplus that a lot of Alaskans depend upon for a wild food
source. It's a matter of trying to work with ADF&G and the
Board of Game to ensure that Alaskans who depend on that wild
food source have the ability. It would go into the fish and
game fund and would provide a cushion given how much ADF&G
spends on intensive management. That money would be used
specifically out of the fish and game fund for doing inventories
and surveys; it wouldn't be used for doing actual control. It's
that background data that is necessary and benefits all of the
wildlife resources by having a good data base of the sizes of
population and the health that it's in.
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK remarked that intensive management has been
ongoing for a long time, including back to when he was on the
Board of Game.
MR. GRASSER believed that Co-Chair Nageak was on the Board of
Game in the 1960s and said that in those days intensive
management was just regular management. In those days the same
thing was being done but it wasn't called intensive management.
He added that intensive management money is isolated, Pittman-
Robertson money cannot be used as a match for intensive
management. The idea is to have a pool of money that is
specifically for intensive management programs where the Board
of Game has identified the need.
1:50:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that a lot of boating and
hunter safety training takes place around the ability to get a
hunting or fishing license. He expressed his concern that
increasing the age from 16 to 18 for being required to get a
hunting or fishing license will cause a loss in the impetus for
those two safety programs.
MR. GRASSER agreed that is a good point, but said a bigger
concern is that youth throughout the state, not just in urban
areas, are being lost from the outdoor traditions of hunting,
fishing, and trapping. From the point of view of the groups,
having an extension on going out with a parent or relative is a
plus for maintaining this tradition. Education programs reach
out to youth, including 18-year-olds. For example, ADF&G's
program, Becoming an Outdoors-Woman, is reaching all kinds of
women with young children. This program is growing by leaps and
bounds and teaches boating safety, as well as outdoor, camping,
and survival skills.
1:52:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether there have been
situations where there is concern about excessive intensive
management because predators are being removed that otherwise
would be taken by guides or Alaskans. In other words, trapping
or regular hunting cannot occur because of intensive management.
MR. ARNO responded he has probably spent more time at Board of
Game meetings than some of the members of the board. When
allocating a public resource it will always be found that there
is conflict, but that conflict is minimal. He said he thinks
the board has done an excellent job. For example, the Alaska
Peninsula is managed for trophy brown bear and that area has
moose and caribou and the department has done an excellent job
managing predator/prey; the department has stayed true to
ensuring that that brown bear population was not reduced to that
point. He allowed there are trappers in the Nelchina Basin who
are concerned with intensive management reducing their
opportunity to harvest wolf, but at the same time they and their
neighbors are seeing a lot more moose meat than there used to
be. He said he has found that over the years trappers do say
they would like to have more wolf, but those trappers know they
and their friends are being fed by that moose resource and so
that kind of conflict has not come to a loggerhead.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired whether there is concern in
this shrinking budgetary climate that there will be a lack of
funding for intensive management. For example, whether the
proposal is designed to forestall potential cuts or other
concerns that enough is not currently being spent on intensive
management. In other words, whether the proposal is designed to
supplant or supplement what the state is currently doing.
MR. ARNO answered it is mainly looking at the budget, looking at
the price of oil. Does intensive management need to be ramped
up in other areas of the state? Absolutely not. The department
has done a good job on the intensive management program. It is
not to ramp up intensive management but to keep up the steady
flow of gathering that data. This is an opportunity like never
before in 23 years for the public who consumes a public resource
to say, "Boy, if thing's are tough we're more than willing to go
ahead and scrape and come up with some more money ourselves."
1:56:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, regarding the compromise to raise
nonresident tag fees by 100 percent, inquired whether those fees
would be comparable to the nonresident fees of other states.
MR. GRASSER replied that Alaska's tag fees are on the low side
compared to tag fees in a lot of other states, especially in
those states where there are drawing permit systems for elk,
deer, bighorn sheep. Alaska's nonresident fees are less than
half of what the nonresident fees are in some of those states.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether Alaska is shorting itself
in this regard and Alaska should therefore be even more
ambitious about fee collection.
MR. GRASSER responded he thinks it is about right and he thinks
that is what the Alaska Professional Hunters Association
supports. In most instances where the tag fees are more than
double what they are in Alaska it's for a very limited resource
that's on a drawing permit. A lot of Alaska's populations can
be hunted without drawing a permit, so it is not quite the
supply-and-demand scenario that is had in other states.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired as to what gave the groups comfort
that a 100 percent increase wouldn't have unintended
consequences for the guide community such as fewer clients, as
well as a ripple effect in Alaska's economy.
MR. GRASSER deferred the question to the Territorial Sportsmen
and the Alaska Professional Hunters Association.
1:58:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether someone who currently has a
permanent license will be grandfathered in.
MR. ARNO believed they would be.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO understood that because those licenses have
already been issued they would be grandfathered in.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:59 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
2:00:40 PM
RON SOMMERVILLE, Board Member, Territorial Sportsmen, noted he
worked 24 years for ADF&G. Under Governor Hickel he was the
ADF&G deputy commissioner in charge of budgets and every year
for four years the department took a 5 percent reduction in
general funds. This experience made it a little bit easier for
him to put together the background materials for the groups to
work out a compromise. He explained that federal matching
monies, Pittman-Robertson money, can be used for some things but
not others. He pointed out that Tab 15 within the committee
packet includes a listing from ADF&G regarding how much money is
in the Division of Wildlife Conservation as well as how much
general fund money is in the Division of Sport Fish. Currently
ADF&G has about $6 million in each of those two divisions and
the listing includes what that money is used for. He confirmed
that Pittman-Robertson money cannot be used for intensive
management, but said fish and game fund money and general fund
money can be used for that. During the Hickel Administration,
ADF&G lost every dime of general fund money due to the
competition it was against. Similarly today, when the finance
committees look at the state's budget, this money is going to
disappear. Outdoor users probably cannot be taxed enough to
replace all of this money, but the question is how much money
can be gotten and that is the way the compromise came together.
What is needed to replace the critical programs in ADF&G? It
isn't just for intensive management and that is what the
department's list shows. One of the key ones is endangered
species. The Endangered Species Act has more potential impact
on Alaska than any state in the union because Alaska is the
testing ground for how the environmentalists can manipulate the
Endangered Species Act to stop development.
2:04:07 PM
MR. SOMMERVILLE noted that a lot of the resource programs may or
may not be able to be funded by Pittman-Robertson monies. Some
of the education programs cannot necessarily be funded by
Pittman-Robertson. The groups looked at these programs to see
what proportion of them could be covered. The department was
instructed by previous legislatures to manage for raising the
abundance of prey species for use by Alaskans and the department
has attempted to do that. From the department's listing it can
be seen what might be lost for the divisions of wildlife
conservation and sport fish.
MR. SOMMERVILLE said the surcharge was created by the groups as
part of the compromise because it was clear that the resident
tag fees was going to disappear. Other states have gone to tag
fees and they rise exponentially over time. But Alaska is
different - a hunter is allowed to take five caribou a day in
the northern parts of the state and every one of those people
would be asked to buy a resident tag for that and that is not
going to work. Other options could be pursued, such as getting
a caribou tag by itself or have punch cards. He related that
when he was regional supervisor for Unit 13, the Nelchina Basin,
bear numbers were manipulated because it is critical in terms of
predation on moose calves. When the moose population started
deteriorating, the region would move the bear season a week into
August so it overlapped with the moose and caribou season so
that resident hunters would take a bear incidentally to their
moose and caribou hunting. Putting a tag on it, which was
eventually done, discouraged Alaskans for hunting that bear
population. When the region's bear population was down and the
moose population coming back up, the region moved the bear
season back one week. However, this cannot be done any more for
a variety of reasons. This example is why the groups got
together in the compromise and came up with the intensive
management surcharge. The key in this is the amount of money -
the $12 million - and how much of that are residents willing to
pay in order to fund some of these programs. Coming up with
this surcharge was after a lot debate regarding what people
might buy. The surcharge amount could be $5 or $10, but the
proposal by the groups is to try to raise as much as the
residents are willing to pay and only legislators will make that
decision, not the groups. Regarding a voluntary wildlife
conservation decal, Mr. Sommerville recalled that when he was
with ADF&G he twice tried to get the tourism industry to support
some kind of tag or decal for watchable wildlife, but he met a
dead end each time. A voluntary wildlife conservation decal was
one of the ideas the groups came up with. Even though it is
voluntary, other states have shown that people do buy them and
the state makes money. He offered his personal appreciation to
Co-Chair Talerico for introducing HB 137.
2:09:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired whether the benefit of the
voluntary decal is that it is a novelty or collector's item. He
further inquired what the decal revenue will be used for and how
can the purchaser know what the revenue will be used for.
MR. SOMMERVILLE replied that that was not identified by the
groups other than it would go into the fish and game fund for
fish and wildlife conservation purposes. He related that the
groups do hear complaints from people who do not want to fund
ADF&G because the department doesn't do something in a
particular area that the person likes. However, he continued,
it is the legislature that controls what the money is spent for.
He argued that writing something finite into the bill directing
that it has to go for watchable wildlife would result in a huge
segment of the hunting community opposing it, which is why the
groups drafted it this way. He said he personally doesn't
oppose using it for that and it gives the department the option
of submitting a budget to use it for that, but the legislature's
oversight is what really controls that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON commented that he knows what he is
getting when he buys an annual Chugach State Park parking pass,
but asked how someone purchasing a voluntary decal will know
exactly what it is for.
MR. SOMMERVILLE responded there isn't anything that ties it to
that, it's just another potential fund raising opportunity. For
example, identification of the revenue from the Alaska waterfowl
stamp program is prohibited, it goes in and is earmarked
separately and is pretty much spent on the waterfowl program
mainly because the legislature has kind of insisted on that. If
the committee feels a program deserves special attention, it can
be written into a bill and identified separately, but it isn't
earmarked.
2:12:14 PM
THOR STACEY, Lobbyist, Alaska Professional Hunters Association
(APHA), said the APHA is pleased to be working with groups that
represent residents for hunting interests. The APHA recognizes
that the fees for nonresident hunting licenses and tags haven't
been raised since 1993 and from a comparative standpoint they
are below market value or comparatively lower than other states.
Clients are excited for the opportunity to contribute to
Alaska's wildlife and the opportunity to enjoy what Alaska has
to offer. When the clients leave they would like to feel as if
they contributed to a sustainable future and did not take the
last sheep or bear. Working with the resident groups is very
important to the APHA, he said. The dialogue is not whether
nonresidents should pay more, rather it is how much more should
they pay. The question about how much residents should pay will
be answered by the legislature. The APHA is excited to be
lending its support on the nonresident side and APHA supports a
100 percent increase for nonresident tag fees. It is a good
starting point and a meaningful enough increase that APHA
doesn't feel it will be back before the legislature in two or
three years. If the current direction of the state budget goes
the way it is, APHA feels it will build some inflation proofing
into the fee increase. But the question is, Will it prevent
people from buying hunts from the APHA's members? Is this fee
large enough or out of line such that it will reduce the ability
to sell trips? The APHA thinks the 100 percent increase is
right on the line of that and therefore APHA does not want to go
higher than that. This industry is different than others in
that it doesn't need help from the state to sell its product.
Alaska's wildlife is very valuable and a lot of people want to
come to the state. Citing statistics from a recent report by
the McDowell Group regarding Alaska's guide industry, he
reported that 89 percent of Alaska's active hunting guides are
Alaska residents. So, unlike a lot of other resource-reliant
industries, a high percentage of the new dollars that come to
Alaska's economy stay in the state. Annual economic activity is
$78 million, with about half of that in rural Alaska. The guide
industry creates about 2,200 jobs in Alaska annually. He
offered his appreciation to the bill sponsor.
2:16:00 PM
MR. SOMMERVILLE added that the increase calculated by the
sponsor's staff is a little bit less than 50 percent. Inflation
since 1993 would be 63 percent. Therefore, what the groups have
proposed is low and will not match the $12 million; it will
require a lot of prioritizing in the department even if there is
a 50 percent increase. The groups would like to at least see
the intensive management fee and possibly go a little higher,
but he respects what the bill sponsor has done.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:17:51 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK opened public testimony on HB 137.
2:19:08 PM
GEORGE PIERCE stated that the [proposed] increase is on the
backs of residents who own the resource and it should instead be
on the backs of nonresidents. When there is a shortage of fish
or game, nonresidents should not qualify for any kind of a
permit, he said. The boards are giving away Alaska's fish and
game to special interests - fishing groups, hunting groups,
guides for nonresidents. The Board of Game is trying to kill
bears and wolves for moose declining, so why do nonresidents get
to hunt when residents are restricted? He urged that he be
given his resources first, not last. The boards need to
investigate the interest on big game permits for nonresidents,
the selling of the state's fish and game. He urged that the
fees be raised for nonresidents and to quit the giving away of
residents' game to special interest groups. It is the special
interest groups that the committee is hearing from - moneyed
guides are controlling the Board of Game. This is about money
for guides. Alaska's game is being sold so the guides can make
more money. He said he had thought that ADF&G, not special
interests, managed the state's resources. How many Alaskans use
hunting guides? The committee is being bamboozled to give the
guides the right to give permits to nonresidents when according
to ADF&G there is a shortage of fish and game everywhere. He
urged that the rates not be raised for Alaska residents but
raised for nonresidents.
2:23:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON requested Mr. Dale of ADF&G to address
how the new revenue would not be used for intensive management
if HB 137 is passed. For example, whether it would be used for
habitat issues, browse, data gathering to see whether a hunt
should be by draw or be generally open, and so forth. He
pointed out that twice during the 1990s voters expressed a
majority objection to parts of intensive management and thus
there is a constituency there.
BRUCE DALE, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), replied that ADF&G would use
a portion of increased funding matched with federal aid monies
to conduct ADF&G's normal survey and inventory activities, as
well as research. Increased, more frequent, and more robust
surveys could be used in many parts of the state to increase the
department's wildlife management activities. Additionally,
access programs that maintain easements that allow hunters to
get to state and other public lands are needed and that is a
general funded program. So, those funds would be used to help
provide a more secure and more reliable funding source for those
important programs.
2:25:08 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK returned to public testimony.
2:25:42 PM
GARY STEVENS disclosed he is a board member of the Alaska
Outdoor Council (AOC), but said he is testifying on his own
behalf. The biggest of the several issues that he has with the
bill is that the increases for the nonresident alien big game
tag fees are inconsistent. If the nonresident big game tags are
raised 50 percent as proposed in the current bill, or the 100
percent proposed by the people testifying previously, then the
nonresident alien big game tags need to go up the same amount.
The way it is currently the nonresident alien sheep tag only has
an 18 percent increase and the moose tag only has a 20 percent
increase and those need to increase at least 50 percent and up
to 100 percent. Another issue is the senior license. Going
from 60 years of age to 62 years is relatively meaningless. He
proposed that the free license be done away with and that age 60
and older be applied to the $5 license and let those people
purchase a $5 hunting, trapping, and fishing license on an
annual basis. Regarding the proposal for a $50 resident big
game tag for sheep and coastal brown bear, he strongly urged
that if this is done it not be designated as a trophy tag but
instead be called a resident big game tag. If the bill is
passed, he urged that a provision be added for a legislative
budget review of the department and that that be provided
publicly so members of the public who are paying this increase
can see how those funds are being utilized.
2:28:03 PM
STEVEN FLORY noted he has held a seat on the Anchorage Fish &
Game Advisory Committee at different times over the years, but
said he will be resigning from the advisory committee because
the Board of Game and Board of Fisheries don't listen to the
advisory committees anymore and the legislature hasn't done
anything about it. He said he opposes raising the hunting,
fishing, and trapping license at all. Several years ago, he
related, then-Senator Seekins proposed raising the fees and that
was supported with the understanding that there were some times
to it and that the department would actually have to produce.
This is another step where the department isn't going to want to
produce, but just get more money. He referred to a pie chart he
sent to the committee that shows that approximately 10 percent
of the money going to ADF&G goes to wildlife conservation and 10
percent to sport fish, with the rest of the money going into
commercial fish. There is talk about the $12 million, but what
should be talked about is the $53 million going into commercial
fish that has no return. At least the hunters, trappers, and
fishermen are talking about putting more money in. If the
legislature is going to cut ADF&G, it should start by cutting
commercial fish money first. Regarding the most recent version
of the bill, he said the one thing that is woefully short is how
much higher the nonresident fees could be raised. The Anchorage
advisory committee went through this a few years ago, he
related, and found that Alaska is the bargain basement for
prices on nonresidents and even after this proposed increase
Alaska will still be pretty close to the bargain basement.
2:31:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked what Mr. Flory means by saying
that ADF&G needs to produce. He surmised Mr. Flory means the
department should spend less on commercial fishing and more on
other things.
MR. FLORY responded that 40 years ago tracking began on how much
wildlife each state produced. At that time Alaska was ranked
number one, but now Alaska is ranked 50. Alaska is producing
less in comparison to what it used to produce. For example,
Dall sheep numbers are down but Alaska continues to placate the
professional hunters first and then worry about the residents.
2:32:51 PM
RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sportfishing
Association, Inc. (KRSA), stated he supports the concept of
increasing license fees on fish and game. It is important to
maintain a good level of funding for the sport fishing and
wildlife conservation divisions so they can handle their
critical tasks to have an effective and efficient department to
manage the state's natural resources. In the past years of
plenty there have been some reductions in the sport fish and now
with the fiscal cliff it is more important than ever to enact
these increases. There has been decreased programming in
education of the next generation of anglers. The last economic
survey done for sport fishing was in 2007 even though it is
supposed to be done every five years, which will result in not
getting consistent baseline data for the state's socio-economic
programs in sport fishing. He said he likes the concept of a
voluntary stamp that Alaskans and nonresidents can pay in
addition to people who are actively harvesting the state's fish
and game resources. He suggested there could also be a
voluntary fish habitat stamp and proposed that there be a
sockeye stamp similar to a king salmon stamp and that would
follow the same regulations, with monies going into the fish and
game fund. With declines in king salmon, the popularity of
sockeye fishing is increasing exponentially, he reported. A lot
of anglers and dip netters are being seen on the Kenai and
Kasilof rivers. The Kenai River is the state's largest sport
fishery for sockeye salmon and the largest dip net fishery for
sockeye salmon. "We're bulging at the seams," he said.
Additional funds for management are needed specifically for
sockeye salmon and that is what a sockeye stamp would do.
Programming for the Mobile Aquatic Classroom (MAC) van for sport
fishing education has been decreased over the past few years.
Education, research, and basic maintenance programs are what
these funds go towards and KRSA supports these increases.
2:36:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR queried whether Mr. Gease supports the fee
increases as proposed in Version N or is comfortable with the
fees proposed by the outdoor caucus that include an additional
$5 for resident sport fishing and increases for nonresidents
that are higher than in Version N.
MR. GEASE answered that for both resident and nonresident fees
it is a low hurdle in terms of what people are being asked to
pay, as well as when bumping up the amount from $8,000 to closer
to $30,000 for claiming a hardship. Whether it is going from
$15 to $20, or from $15 to $25, KRSA is very comfortable with
that on both the resident and nonresident fees.
2:37:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, in regard to the sockeye stamp
concept, asked what Mr. Gease envisions would be paid per salmon
and who would pay it.
MR. GEASE replied it would be just like a king salmon stamp. An
angler or dip netter wishing to retain a sockeye salmon would
have to have a sockeye salmon stamp. The head of household
person getting the permit for the dip net would pay that $10
fee. A resident or nonresident angler fishing on the banks of
the Kenai or Kasilof rivers would be required to pay that $10
fee. It would be a one-time fee just like for the king salmon
stamp and not based on the number of fish caught, but based on a
person going out fishing for that species.
2:38:40 PM
LARRY MORRIS noted that while he is a member of the Fairbanks
Fish & Game Advisory Committee, his testimony represents only
his own views. He said he personally supports HB 137. The
additional revenues would be eligible for matching monies like
Pittman-Robertson. Revenues should be used for sport fish and
game management. Management activities should be used for
enhancement of resource availability. Conversely, lack of
management could cause a default to the most conservative and
restrictive available. Therefore additional revenues should not
be used to increase general administration. He said he does not
believe the nonresident fee increases will have a detrimental
impact to industries such as the travel and leisure industry.
Enhanced management of resources that provides greater
availability has the potential to enhance demand from visitors.
Reduced availability will surely have a greater impact. Mr.
Morris suggested that instead of raising the license age to 18
there be a youth license at an incredibly reduced fee or no fee.
He recalled that getting his first hunting license was special -
an initiation to the new hunters and fishers that is almost like
a rite of passage. Regarding the resident permanently disabled
license, he suggested it be made a lifetime license for a fee.
This would have a significant reduction in administration from
the present annual requirement of reauthorization. It would
also reduce the cost and effort required from those licensees in
getting a doctor's note and the in-person filing of it. He also
suggested that the one-day nonresident fishing license be
eliminated. The cost of two one-day licenses is the equivalent
of a three-day license, therefore eliminating the one-day
license and making the shortest license be three days would
reduce a lot paperwork for a lot of people.
2:42:25 PM
DEB RUDIS noted she is a retired wildlife biologist and avid
consumptive and non-consumptive user of Alaska's fish and
wildlife resources. She said that as a conservationist she
supports the user fees for hunting and fishing that are
deposited into the fish and game fund and various sub-accounts
and that can be used as a match for federal aid in the wildlife
restoration program. Having an adequate match of state dollars
is key to acquiring the federal aid funds and excise taxes that
hunters and anglers are willing to pay for guns, ammunition, and
various fishing equipment. She offered her hope that the bill
could afford the opportunity for a conservation tag that could
be imposed for both consumption and non-consumptive users. Many
states in the West have such a conservation tag, she reported,
and it is required to access areas such as state wildlife
management areas, refuges, and sanctuaries. Funds from that tag
could be used to ensure that there is wildlife education,
wildlife viewing, and wildlife diversity in the state. She has
purchased resident hunting and fishing licenses for many years
and is now a recipient of the permanent identification card that
provides her a number of privileges for hunting and fishing for
free. She recommended that the name be changed to the Alaska
Resident Senior Exempt Card, or a corollary, in recognition that
a person must be an Alaska resident to maintain these free
license privileges. In conjunction with this, a residency
verification program should be written into the statute for
every two to three years or on an annual basis. She said she
presently knows of people who have moved out of state but return
every year to use this resident card to illegally harvest fish
and game and bring it back to the states in which they now
reside. She further recommended that the resident hunting fee
be raised to $40, an amount that would just about meet
inflation. Anything less would not meet the ability of
residents to share in the cost of wildlife management and the
world class hunting opportunities that are afforded. Ms. Rudis
further recommended that fees be imposed for the taking of
raptors by nonresidents for the sport of falconry and that there
be some type of multi-year falconry permit for residents. There
is currently no annual fee for resident falconers, yet there are
extensive permitting requirements which take a lot of time by
ADF&G staff. Nonresidents are now allowed to come to Alaska and
take a bird of prey for falconry for no tag or permit fee. The
Board of Game passed these regulations but has no ability to set
fees, the legislature does. The taking of a highly coveted
species like a gyrfalcon from Alaska by a nonresident falconer
is now being allowed for free. The Alaska Department of Fish &
Game does not even recover any administrative costs of issuing
permits to these nonresidents.
2:45:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said Ms. Rudis has good suggestions. She
asked which states have a good model that could be looked at in
regard to the conservation stamp.
MS. RUDIS answered that many New England states use conservation
stamps. A problem in Alaska is that many of the areas are
accessible only by boat or plane, making it hard to impose the
requirement. However, there could be a posting at major access
points and people would appreciate being able to pay a fee to
actually preserve conservation of species.
MS. RUDIS, in response to Representative Josephson, confirmed
that people come to Alaska to remove raptors for purposes of
falconry. A person is allowed to trap a bird in Alaska and
bring it back to the state in which the person is a licensed
falconer and use that bird as a hunting bird. It is an ancient
sport that goes back to the kings of Egypt.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked how often this can happen.
MR. RUDIS replied it would be one season that the people would
be allowed to come to Alaska and bring a raptor back. These
people are spending a lot of money to get here and are usually
folks of pretty good means, and for them to not be required to
get a license or a permit that costs them money doesn't seem to
meet that program need.
2:47:49 PM
NANCY HILSTRAND noted she is a fish processor with Pioneer
Alaskan Fisheries in Homer and has spent 17 years on a fish and
game advisory committee, but is speaking on behalf of herself.
She said she thinks there is an elephant in the room and that is
the expenditures of wildlife viewers within the state of Alaska.
She reported there are 72 million wildlife watchers in the U.S.
and in Alaska there are 200,000 residents who are viewing
customers and [669,000] nonresidents who are viewing customers.
These customers bring $2.75 billion into the state, which is $1
billion more than the hunting. Together that is 8 percent of
the gross domestic product (GDP) in Alaska. Wildlife viewing
creates 18,800 jobs, brings almost $1 billion worth of labor
income, and brings $231 million into the government revenue.
These are huge numbers and it is important to get a grasp on
what these people can do. While she likes the decal idea, she
said she thinks a license is needed because people want to know
where that money is going. It would be more successful if there
is more reason for them to buy a license other than just as a
conservation decal. A decal can be there also, but there should
be a license for a fee to pay into the wildlife viewing and the
money it costs for the management and conservation of wildlife.
She said she absolutely supports the increasing of fees on both
fish and wildlife and she would like to proudly be part of
wildlife conservation to buy a license but she would like to be
correctly profiled, which is something that a lot of people
would like to have. It is nice to know that a group is
separated out so there can be a count of the people who are
putting money in. It will take time for it to evolve because it
takes time for people to understand how this all works. It is
just a matter of marketing. By working with the tourism and
cruise industries money can be brought into the state. She
thanked Co-Chair Talerico for introducing the bill.
2:51:08 PM
MS. HILSTRAND, in response to Representative Tarr, confirmed
that the document she was referencing from came from herself and
from the survey that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service does every
five years.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired whether Ms. Hilstrand has a
mechanism in mind for how wildlife viewers would buy this
license.
MS. HILSTRAND responded that there are 18 million photographers
in the U.S. and she thinks it should be mandatory for
professional wildlife photographers. While it is probably not
enforceable, a lot of photographers would take it as a badge of
honor to buy it. And, the same with wildlife viewing guides who
are making money off of wildlife, so it should also be a
mandatory license for them. Most people realize that this is a
good thing and that banding together with the hunters and
fishers is good for managing wildlife.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether Ms. Hilstrand is suggesting
something that's more geared towards the professional operators
rather than individuals, or both.
MS. HILSTRAND replied all of the above. Anything that can be
done to get people involved is what needs to be done. For
example, there could be a 1 percent bed tax that is added. For
someone getting a monetary return, she said she thinks it should
be mandatory. Drawing attention to [an unidentified document in
the committee packet previously referenced by Representative
Tarr], she said it shows that people are willing to pay more and
questions were asked to learn that. Now that it is known people
are willing to pay it is just a matter of finding the mechanisms
and an important part is the profiling. Noting she is on the
board of the "Friends of Migratory Bird Staff" in Washington,
DC, she said the same thing is being done with the duck stamp
because people are not profiled and people aren't willing to buy
it until they know that they are going to be counted as the 77-
80 percent of the people who use the refuges. It is important
to profile people correctly so people are happy and proud to
support [the decal] and be involved and be counted.
2:54:34 PM
DON QUARBERG noted he is a 39-year resident of Alaska. He
offered his belief that HB 137 was precipitated in part by the
availability of matching federal funds through the Pittman-
Robertson Act, which provides $3 for every $1 that ADF&G matches
from the sale of hunting licenses and tags. It currently
appears that more federal money is available from this program
than what the state can obtain through this match and this
federal money is used for management of the state's game
resources. He urged the committee to amend the bill to
eliminate Section 7, which is AS 16.05.340(a)(6)(A) and formally
called the indigent license. This would remove ADF&G from being
a welfare program. He related that a local license vendor in
Delta Junction estimates that nearly 30 percent of the sales are
for indigent or welfare licenses, and that is with the current
income ceiling of $8,200. If HB 137 passes and raises that
income limit to $29,820, he said he cannot imagine how many more
individuals will qualify. He suggested that the state's social
services department evaluate who should receive this license and
then provide such to that recipient through a transfer of funds
to ADF&G for the full value of the license and tags, which would
be a net cost of nothing to the state. This would significantly
increase the Pittman-Robertson matching funds available to ADF&G
and would also reduce the fraud, given that a person only has to
sign a statement saying he/she doesn't make any money. He noted
he is a person who has a "geriatric" license and said senior
citizens have a smaller percentage of indigence than any other
age group and he therefore urges the committee to consider
whether this type of license is needed.
2:57:48 PM
KEITH WOODWORTH noted he is 71 years old and supports raising
the age from 60 to 65. He said he stands by the written
comments he has submitted to the committee that were based on
the original version of HB 137. He said he supports the bill as
originally written and further said that the tags in Alaska are
greatly undervalued. The Western states have a ratio between
resident and nonresident tag fees and license fees. A study he
did when Matt Robus was in Juneau came up with a ratio of about
1:7 or 1:11 and he believes that residents should be paying for
their tags and more for their licenses.
2:59:31 PM
BARRY WHITE-HILL, Alaska Chapter Backcountry Hunters and
Anglers, stated that his organization is a sportsmen's voice for
public lands, water, and wildlife, which are critical for his
family to put food on the table. He said he filled a couple of
freezers during the hunting season in Alaska and then had the
opportunity to hunt with resident friends in Idaho, New Mexico,
and Nevada. During all those hunts and discussions with his
friends it became obvious as to what a screaming deal is had in
Alaska. Noting he is of the age for an exempt license fee, he
said he would be willing to pay for a license at his age because
it is an opportunity that the state is missing. As pointed out
by Mr. Grasser, sportsmen and sportswomen have long been
supporting the North American Wildlife Conservation Model of
hunting and fishing. Funds from the 1936 Pittman-Robertson Act
are a tax on firearms and ammunition, so it is a tax that
sportsmen supported and created through legislation and from
which Alaska is trying to get matching funds. It is critical to
maintain the ADF&G staff necessary for having the science to
support hunting and fishing into the future.
3:01:40 PM
TOM LAMAL testified he has been an Alaska resident for nearly 45
years and supports HB 137. Having researched how other states
fund their departments, he said it appears Alaska could generate
a lot more money by adopting some of their policies. A good
example is Montana's self-funded Department of Fish, Wildlife &
Parks: 70 percent of the department's revenue comes from
nonresident tag fees and 30 percent comes from resident tag
fees. A self-funding concept will require ADF&G to manage for
abundance so both residents and nonresidents will want to
purchase tags. The western states also maintain a high
allocation of their game resources for their residents and still
fund their departments through tag fees. The nonresident can
obtain up to 10 percent of their tags, but 10 percent is not
guaranteed and at least 90 percent of their game is reserved for
their residents. In order for ADF&G to support itself the
residents are going to have to pitch in with tag fees and the
guide regulations will have to be eliminated so that more
nonresidents will apply for sheep, goat, and bear tags. This
will require putting nonresidents on permits because the numbers
of applicants will be high. He urged the committee to look at
how other states address these issues. A lot of agendas are
being presented from all sides and he is asking that before
members make decisions all Alaskans be considered and not
special interests. Residents don't have a lobbyist so residents
must depend upon the representatives they voted into office.
This is not a budget cut, it is a way to create revenue for the
State of Alaska. If money can be brought in, the state can ease
cuts on schools and other programs. Alaskans first.
3:04:14 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK closed public testimony and held over HB 137.