Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
03/25/2015 06:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| 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
6:11:45 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO 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." [Before the
committee was Version N, the proposed committee substitute (CS)
labeled 29-LS0625\N, Bullard, 3/16/15, adopted as the working
document on 3/20/15.]
6:12:04 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO opened public testimony.
TED WELLMAN, President, Kenai River Special Management Area
Advisory (KRSMA) Board, testified that the KRSMA Board supports
the adoption of a sockeye salmon stamp for inclusion in HB 137.
He pointed out that the advisory board is a statutorily created
board that includes state and federal agencies as non-voting
members, as well as the cities of Kenai and Soldotna and the
Kenai Peninsula Borough. He said the proposal for a user stamp
has been under consideration by the board for many years. The
December 1997 Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan contains
such a recommendation. River boat traffic and on-bank use has
grown exponentially since 1997. The primary reason for the
increased use is a growing harvest of sockeye salmon, which
imposes significant burden on enforcement agencies and stresses
the environment and habitat throughout the entire system.
Accordingly, the KRSMA Board identified the adoption of a
sockeye salmon stamp this year as a priority to provide adequate
resources to handle the burden imposed by this sockeye salmon
fishery. Because the matter has arisen sooner than the KRSMA
Board had anticipated, it has had no opportunity to look at the
details of adopting a sockeye salmon stamp. However, the
proposal that has been supported before in testimony talking
about making a Kenai sockeye salmon stamp be much like the king
salmon stamp with the same rates and conditions appears to serve
the board's objectives as long as the money generated is
returned to the river and its use is not unduly restricted on
the agencies so the habitat can actually be protected and hire
adequate enforcement to deal with the many flagrant violations
of regulations that occurs during the sockeye salmon fishery.
6:15:00 PM
MR. WELLMAN, responding to Representative Tarr, stated that the
name of his organization is the Kenai River Special Management
Area and it is the advisory board. He explained that when the
park was created, an advisory board was created in statute and
he is presently serving as the president of that board. The
board's mission under the legislation is to advise state and
federal agencies, municipalities, and the legislature on issues
affecting the Kenai River and [the sockeye salmon issue] is an
important issue that the board feels very strongly about.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON posed a scenario in which someone from
Anchorage is fishing the second run of sockeye in early July and
there is a limit of three sockeye per day. He asked what that
person would pay [under the KRSMA Board's proposal].
MR. WELLMAN replied the person would have to have a fishing
license and would pay the resident stamp of $20, much like the
person would do if fishing for king salmon. Much of the traffic
on the river comes from Anchorage, with people often making
multiple trips during the season rather than one three-day trip.
6:17:02 PM
JOE CONNORS, Lodge Owner, stated he is a 40-year resident of the
Kenai Peninsula and is a member of the Kenai River Special
Management Area Advisory (KRSMA) Board, but is speaking for
himself as a lodge owner and a guide on the Kenai River for over
35 years. Addressing HB 137 in its entirety, he said it's about
time the state adjusts its fees for the various fish and game
activities. He said he would like to speak especially to the
inclusion of a sockeye salmon stamp and model it after the king
salmon stamp; for example, one-day, three-day, seven-day,
fourteen-day, and annual stamps for nonresidents, and residents
would buy a stamp for the entire season just like they buy a
fishing license. The incredible increase in use of the middle
river where he lives has put a lot of burden on the various
state departments and federal agencies. People are everywhere
and in places they never would have been five years ago. It is
reasonable to expect them to pay some money so the habitat and
infrastructure can be taken care of and to have enforcement. He
said he seriously recommends the stamp, although the details
have not yet been worked out as to how the funding would get
from ADF&G to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
6:19:31 PM
GORDON CARLSON said he supports raising the hunting and fishing
license fees, but opposes putting a price on moose and caribou
tags because people rely on those animals for food. He added he
might be able to understand raising or putting a price on sheep,
musk oxen, or buffalo that are more of a sport hunt versus a
hunt for sustenance. Fees possibly need to be raised for
nonresidents coming to Alaska to hunt because that is sport
hunting rather than relying on the meat as a food source.
6:20:43 PM
ROBERT FITHIAN testified he has been actively involved in
Alaska's mineral, forestry, professional guide, and agriculture
industries for many years. He said he is currently serving his
third term on the federal Wildlife and Hunting Heritage
Conservation Council where he represents the United States
relative to the guide, outfitter, and tourism industries as they
pertain to hunting. He also serves on numerous governor
appointments to the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park Subsistence
Resource Commission. He stated he fully supports HB 137 in its
original text, but understands there are substitutes and
amendments that he hasn't seen. In particular, he opposes
increasing nonresident big game tags by 100 percent. Without
question, this amount of increase will impact his family's long-
time established professional guide service of striving to
conduct long-term, quality wilderness, multiple-species, safari
style hunts. Current nonresident hunters using his service
spend $2,000 on licensing and the proposed amendment of 100
percent would require them to spend $4,000. This would
negatively impact his ability to book hunters and compete with
comparable hunts at lower rates with better quality provisions
in other countries. Since his guide service is primarily
provided on state lands, his clients already have to agree to
hunt in the most poorly managed land base that exists in Alaska.
A 100 percent increase would require them to pay for the vast
majority of Alaska's wildlife conservation measures in exchange
for being treated to the most disrespectful industry stewardship
imaginable. There is currently no limit on the amount of impact
on wildlife conservation by the professional guide industry; no
protection for these nonresident hunters to have a quality hunt
or to protect Alaska's delicate social atmospheres related to
subsistence and general resident hunters. Guiding on state
lands has a much greater amount of law enforcement issues which
visiting sportsmen and sportswomen are exposed to, and the list
goes on. Alaska is long overdue for license fee increases for
both residents and nonresidents. Many thousands of Alaskan are
willing to pay for the privilege of hunting in this state and
would be pleased to contribute to the North American Wildlife
Conservation Model, the greatest model of wildlife conservation
the world has ever known. To take this desire away from them
and Alaska for political reasons is not fair or respectful to
the whole. As the committee knows, several years ago he drafted
a very comparable bill to HB 137, which had broad spectrum
support from every resident hunter that it was exposed to. But
when he shopped it for a sponsor within the legislature there
was opposition to including resident hunters in any respect for
increased fees. He encouraged the committee to help Alaska and
ADF&G with this bill and to include respect and fairness within
it by including resident license fees instead of providing
residents with a continued free ride at someone else's expense
and by establishing no more than a 50 percent increase in
nonresident big game tags. Additionally, he requested that
language be incorporated in the bill for the concept of a
sportsmen's license that includes big game tags, fish and
waterfowl stamps, and development of electronic licensing and
recording for ADF&G.
6:24:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON requested Mr. Fithian to elaborate
further on his statement about "most disrespectful."
MR. FITHIAN answered that to guide on state lands all he has to
do is walk into the Anchorage office of the Department of
Natural Resources, pay $500, and walk out. It takes about three
minutes and he is then licensed to guide an unlimited amount of
hunters on any of the state lands where he is authorized to
guide within his guide license and guide use area registrations.
There is nothing stopping however many hundreds or thousands of
hunters to be booked by professional guides to hunt on state
lands. Historically there were restrictions on geographical
regions and the number of guides, but that is no longer the case
and so there are impacts on state lands, the resources, and on
the delicate social atmosphere with subsistence and resident
hunters; it is a free-for-all on state lands. The federal
agencies gave the state a number of years to remedy that
situation, which the state didn't do. The federal government
has taken control of its lands with respectful concession
programs that provide for protection for the visiting hunters
and the stewardship of the resources. Thus, a fee increase is a
slap in the face to those hunters choosing to hunt in Alaska on
state lands.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether Mr. Fithian participates in
any of the hunting organizations that testified in favor of the
100 percent increase in nonresident fees.
MR. FITHIAN replied he is a long-time member and leader of the
Alaska Professional Hunters Association, but unfortunately there
was no opportunity for membership to weigh in on this issue due
to conflicting programs, such as the Board of Game. Had he had
the opportunity he would have tried to encourage a lesser amount
of fee increase than 100 percent for nonresident big game tags.
The rest of the increases look pretty reasonable for Alaska.
6:28:14 PM
MITCH FALK said he supports the bill to raise the license fees
for residents and nonresidents. It is time to take advantage of
the Pittman-Robertson funds that are available, he testified,
rather than leaving them on the table by not raising the fees.
It is also probably time to start charging $10 for a moose or
caribou tag. The cost for a 13-inch pepperoni pizza is the same
as for hunting a moose, he pointed out. It is also probably
time to curtail the issuing of lifetime hunting licenses. Close
to 60,000 or 70,000 of those have been issued and like the
Longevity Bonus it is time to sunset those.
6:29:46 PM
ROBERTA HIGHLAND stated she is supporting an amendment but
doesn't see the exact writing of what she is advocating. While
she has an amendment that she prefers to HB 137, she said she
does support HB 137 because license fees seem really low for
what is received and she definitely supports increasing license
fees. She suggested there be a wildlife conservation emblem
program and proposed that Section 1 of AS 16.05.130 be amended
by adding language directing that money accruing to the state
from Alaska's fish and wildlife conservation emblem program
shall be deposited into the fish and game fund and shall be used
by the department for conservation programs, including viewing,
education, and diversity. She further suggested that Section 2,
AS 16.05, be amended by adding a new section: "Section
16.05xxx, contributions to the Alaska's fish and wildlife
conservation emblem program and that's also the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game shall develop a fish and wildlife
conservation emblem; persons may contribute any amount to the
fish and wildlife conservation emblem program and may elect to
receive a certificate, decal, or other recognition offered by
the department for a contribution of $20 or more; contributions
and sale proceeds of items bearing the fish and wildlife
conservation emblem will benefit the programs per AS
16.05.130(g)." So, she noted, it is a little bit different than
what has been put in for a fish and game conservation decal.
They sound somewhat similar but she is looking at it for a
wildlife conservation emblem program and this is to allow the
viewing people to be counted. Viewing brings in $2.750 billion
and hunting brings in $1.326 billion, she reported, with 18,820
jobs for viewing versus 8,400 for hunting. It is a sensible
idea for the state to attempt to get some funding from this
large number of viewers, a lot of conservation people would like
to pay into something like this so they can be supporting
conservation along with the hunting and fishing.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO requested Ms. Highland to submit her suggested
amendment by email.
6:33:26 PM
MIKE TINKER said he has resided in Ester for 50 years and
supports the concept of raising license and tag fees. He noted
that AS 16.05.130(d) requires the expenditure of license and tag
fees for department programs intended to directly benefit the
purchasers of general hunting, trapping, and fishing licenses.
He said he realizes the point of the legislation is to replace
some of the general funds now used by [the divisions of] sport
fish and wildlife conservation. He asked how it is possible to
charge more fees without defining a benefit for those paying the
fees. General funds are not required to be used for programs
directly benefitting the license purchasers. He urged the
committee to look at the increases from the perspective of the
hunters, trappers, and fishers who asking what they will get for
the additional cost. He urged the committee to request that the
department answer this question in detail. In that answer will
be found either support for the increases or a groundswell of
opposition against HB 137. When he undertook an estimate of the
revenue from increased fees, he discovered that the department
tracks 49 different types of licenses. He said his estimate
shows it's impossible to replace all the general funds, which
leaves the question of whether a formula is being discussed for
how much of the new revenue to leave in the fund and how much
general funds can be replaced. He understood the intent is not
to further cut the department's programs, but hunters, trappers,
and fishers are trying to get some feeling of cost/benefit for
the increases that they will pay and thus far there is no
information to that purpose. Even the "self-proclaimed hunting
leadership" who testified [on March 20, 2015,] were very careful
not to say anything about the use of new money, which he
suspects was in the hope that the legislature would put it all
in the fish and game fund. At best, he stated, that leadership
represents less than 10 percent of the license holders and the
other 90 percent has yet to be heard from. He urged that
members have caution when listening to people testifying on the
bill. Some "what-ifs" need to be considered. For example,
there are less than 1,100 actual trapping licenses and another
9,300 are part of multiple license packages. The low income
portion for trapping doesn't change under the present bill. If
the trapping license portion increases, residents can save that
additional money by not buying the multiple licenses. Thus, if
the money from trapping licenses goes on to support furbearer
programs, money could be lost under the proposed increases.
Also, all trapping is subsistence as defined by the Board of
Game and this should be taken into consideration for licensing.
Short-term nonresident fishing licenses and tags are also at
risk from a supporting public that may shift where its money is
spent due to new cost. Most of Alaska's waters have very low
harvest limits for king salmon. For example, how much is one
king salmon worth as the season bag limit is one? He thanked
Co-Chair Talerico for taking up the issues in HB 137 and urged a
look at the language in the section of the statute as well as
the numbers since there are some simple changes that would
clarify what the hunters and fishers are doing. The increases
further divide Alaskans who are hunting and fishing for
subsistence, he said, and those trying to put fish and game in
their freezers under other licenses.
6:37:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood ADF&G's perspective is that if
there are not funds available to hire staff to do inventories,
then there is not the information necessary for the Board of
Game to make allocation decisions, which could result in a cut
or elimination of the hunting opportunity. She said that from
her perspective, a benefit of the bill is to ensure the
resources necessary for being able to make allocation decisions.
MR. TINKER replied the department will always make a population
estimate, especially for highly used animals like moose and
caribou. That estimate will be shared with local advisory
committees and there will be weigh-in on what the season bag
limits ought to be. The question is whether there is enough
money to make high probability accurate estimates. If there is
less money the department will let people know that they are low
probability estimates. So, yes, that is an opportunity for
spending the extra money and that is why he supports not trying
to replace all of the department's general funds, but mainly
replacing some small portion of it and allowing the department
to continue to grow. In the past, he opined, the Division of
Wildlife Conservation has not done a good job of sharing the
information on exactly what programs it is spending money on.
6:40:06 PM
AL BARRETTE offered his support for license fee increases. He
maintained that 20,000 Alaskans are not paying for the resource
or the management being discussed. The 17,000 subsistence
fishermen in the state are not required to get a license at all,
despite being the second biggest taker and user of the state's
fish resources. About 2,000 National Guard and Reserve persons
get a free hunting license and there are probably 2,000 hunters
who don't buy a hunting license at all. He said he has a
problem with the low income figure of $29,000 and asked whether
that is a before or after-tax number. The statute states gross
income tax, which could be net gross or adjusted gross, so this
needs to be clarified. He further inquired whether the figure
of $29,000 increases or decreases the potential for people
getting a $5 license. He charged that since enactment of the
king salmon stamp, the king salmon opportunity has decreased to
none over the last five years in the Interior. He said there is
quite a discrepancy in the Alaska Professional Hunters
Association (APHA) community. Last week the lobbyist for APHA
said that clients were excited about paying more, yet a well-
known member today said that is not the way he sees it. He
recalled hearing last week that these numbers were randomly
chosen and how much will the public bear before revolting and
not paying or not buying a license. There should be
justification and reasons for why and how much license fees are
being raised, which should be made clear in the record. He said
he thinks there will be a problem with raising the age to 18
with the drawing hunts. Currently, there is a different age
than the 18 that is being proposed for no license; a person must
have a license to apply for a drawing hunt or must hunt under a
parent, guardian, or sponsor. Responding to Representative
Tarr, Mr. Barrette agreed to provide the committee with a copy
of his suggestions.
6:43:52 PM
NICK STEEN testified he is a 50-year resident of Alaska and
opposes HB 137. He said the present downturn in the price of
oil has positioned the state's economy similar to what it was in
the 1980s when there were massive foreclosures on homes, high
unemployment rates, and bank closures. This is basically a tax,
and adding a tax of 15-20 percent such as this is a very onerous
situation in this economy. For a family of four this proposed
bill would result in an astounding cost of $280 to go hunting
for moose, with a 10 percent opportunity of harvesting an
animal. He understood the state needs to maintain the Pittman-
Robertson and Dingell-Johnson funds, but said increasing taxes
on residents at this time is not the way to do it. He urged the
committee to reconsider this portion of the bill, but said the
committee can do what it wants with the nonresident portion. He
further stated that requiring renewal of the free senior citizen
license every three years is ridiculous because it will cost the
state each time.
6:46:14 PM
VICK BISHOP spoke in favor of HB 137, Version N, and the raising
of the fishing, hunting, and trapping license fees. He said
every additional dollar raised can likely be matched by $3 from
federal aid to fish and wildlife restoration funds that are
annually distributed to the states. Even with the modest
increases proposed by the bill, both residents and nonresidents
get a good deal because Alaska has such great opportunities for
fishing, hunting, and trapping. He and his family have enjoyed
and benefitted from these opportunities since 1961, with fish
and game comprising almost all of his family's meat for over
five decades. Hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering gives
his family great food and great satisfaction. Alaska's fish and
game management programs are sound. Let the costs to sustain
them keep increasing along with almost everything else.
Fishers, hunters, and trappers have been willing to pay for fish
and wildlife management going back decades to the federal duck
stamp, the Pittman-Robertson Act, and the Dingell-Johnson Act,
not to mention territorial and state license fees. The results
have been outstanding and benefit not only the fish and wildlife
but also the fishers, hunters, trappers, and society at large.
The increased license and tag fees are appropriate, especially
now when state general funds are in short supply. He suggested
the legislature consider whether the fee structures in HB 137,
Version N, will adequately offset the potential loss of general
fund dollars to the sport fish and wildlife conservation
divisions. He further urged consideration of the state's
ability to match the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson
federal funds that are derived from hunters and fishers
nationally. He offered his appreciation for HB 137.
6:49:35 PM
WALTER SHERMAN stated he turns 60 years old this summer and is
supposed to get this license, but now 62 is the proposed age for
this. He requested there be an exception for the people who are
old and have been in the state for a while. He added that he is
a Doyon shareholder.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR pointed out to Mr. Sherman that, as
currently written, the bill's effective date is January 1, 2016,
so Mr. Sherman would get his lifetime license and be
grandfathered in.
MR. SHERMAN replied "great."
6:53:07 PM
MIKE MCCRARY testified he supports raising fees and particularly
supports incorporating the non-consumptive users into this fee
structure. He said raising the nonresident fees 100 percent
still undervalues the tags and licenses for nonresidents. He
said he opposes incorporating any kind of intensive management
tax fee structure into the bill because the Board of Game
continues to allow nonresidents to participate in hunts even
when the board knows that prey species populations are declining
- even after hunts go to intensive management the Board of Game
allows nonresidents to continue hunting prey species in those
areas. Along with the irrational behavior of the Board of Game
in allowing nonresidents to participate when the resources are
declining and Alaskans are having a harder opportunity, is the
must-be-guided law. This encourages nonresidents to come to
Alaska and "bought-hunt" a moose or caribou, he maintained, and
discourages nonresidents from coming to Alaska to hunt bears due
to the extra burden of having to hire a guide. That law should
be changed so that nonresidents are authorized in intensive
management areas to hunt bears without a guide. He clarified he
is not advocating a war on bears by nonresidents, but thinks the
Board of Game is mismanaging the resource and that is a big
reason why the state is going into intensive management.
Responding to Representative Josephson, Mr. McCrary confirmed he
wrote an e-mail to legislators and submitted written testimony.
6:56:39 PM
DIANNE DUBUC stated she is the vice chair of the fish and game
advisory committee in Seward and represents Seward at the Board
of Fisheries level, but is speaking today on behalf of herself.
She drew attention to HB 137, Version N, page 1, Section 1,
lines 6-8, and starting on line 12 in regard to the Board of
Fisheries establishing open and closed seasons and areas for the
taking of fish. She said that "open and closed seasons" is very
broad as written and that she believes this is being done now by
emergency order through the department. She brought attention
to page 2, lines 5-6, which states "setting quotas, bag limits,
harvest levels, and sex and size limitations on the taking of
fish". She said she sees a problem with this with in-season
management. Basically, Section 1(a) on page 1 through paragraph
(17) on page 3, puts a lot of onus on the Board of Fisheries and
she does not want to see ADF&G shut out of the process. There
are biological imperatives in fish management, she said, and
politics should be left aside.
6:58:55 PM
MATT ROBUS qualified that while he is a board member of the
Territorial Sportsmen, his testimony today is his personal
testimony. He further noted that before retiring from ADF&G he
was director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation from 2003-
2007, as was Doug Larsen who will be testifying after him. He
said that having held this position, he and Mr. Larsen have a
better than average feel for the puzzle for funding the wildlife
division and, to a certain extent, the Division of Sport Fish.
At the time that he became director, a big problem was the
virtual lack of general funding, which meant that there wasn't
very much flexibility. The fish and game fund license fee money
was largely used to match and pull in the $3 for every state
dollar of Pittman-Robertson federal aid monies. The division
had a very hard time finding funding to do other special
projects that were not covered by federal funds. He advised
that Alaska will be seeing more and more endangered species
petitions over time and for this type of thing the department
needs to gather a lot of information and do a lot of good
science to sustain the state's position and ensure the decisions
are made. However, that cannot be done with the federal aid
monies and neither can certain education activities and
intensive management. At first after a couple of years the
legislature responded to that issue with some general fund
"CIPs" and then eventually general funds in the regular division
budget. Ironically, the problem today is that in each of those
divisions the general fund portion of the budget has climbed to
13 percent. So, with the general fund being so obviously
vulnerable right now, it means that a substantial wedge out of
the pie that makes up those divisions' budget could go away in
large proportion pretty quickly.
7:01:52 PM
MR. ROBUS stated that reduction in the general fund will reduce
the ability of the Division of Wildlife Conservation to do field
research and inventories that allow the department to advise the
Board of Game on determining where intensive management programs
are needed, where they are feasible, and if they're defensible.
This work is in addition to the standard survey and inventory
work that the department funds with federal aid monies and fish
and game fund monies. An incredible amount of science is
necessary to do those intensive management programs properly and
the courts so far have upheld the division in its efforts when
it has been challenged because of that science. If the science
isn't there it isn't near as defensible. A question that has
come up is what the benefit is of gathering more fish and game
fund dollars and whether it is to expand intensive management
programs. The answer is no. The best that the department can
do is try to avoid losing progress that's been made through
intensive management programs to provide more wildlife to
Alaskans who need moose and caribou. He said another effect
that reduction in general funds is going to have on both
divisions is the ability to reach out and get those three
federal dollars for every state dollar that is put up for
Pittman-Robertson on the wildlife side and Dingell-Johnson on
the sport fish side. While many people are cautious about
grabbing federal money, that federal money combined with the
state's license dollars is an incredibly important foundation
for all of the survey and inventory research work that's done.
It is very flexible money, there are only a few things it cannot
be used for and the divisions would be hamstrung without that
money.
7:03:57 PM
MR. ROBUS continued, pointing out that, on the wildlife side,
available Pittman-Robertson grant monies are climbing radically.
Without an adequate boost to the wildlife funding, he advised,
the Division of Wildlife Conservation may be leaving Pittman-
Robertson dollars on the table. After a couple of years
accounting can be done to preserve those dollars for as long as
possible or they could revert to the federal government, which
seems silly when the state is hurting for funds. This is one
reason why he supports raising fees for the fish and game fund,
he said. Regarding the sport fish side, he advised that
Dingell-Johnson monies are either stagnant or declining
slightly, so there is more need to backfill that with fish and
game fund dollars if they can be acquired. He further pointed
out that there are wildlife education opportunities that need to
be funded for which federal funds cannot always be used. All in
all, there is the need to offset the diminishing of general
funds to as a great a degree as possible with asking users to
pay more. Research shows that the $25 hunting license in 1993,
the last time there was in increase, would cost $41 today just
because of inflation. So, while HB 137 is appreciated, the
prices in the bill are somewhat under the cost of inflation. It
is something that will have to be sorted out in the halls of the
legislature, but there is a great need for funding those
divisions because with general funds about to be taken away,
inflation alone has put the divisions in quite a sensitive spot.
7:06:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired whether this type of fee increase
has been tried before and asked how there can be better
communication with the public to explain how it will work.
MR. ROBUS replied that when he was director, and before that
when he was deputy director, and before that when he was an area
biologist, he always sincerely thought that he was getting
information out. He understood, though, that at the other end
there is some frustration that not everything is coming out.
Almost all the time, biologists, Board of Game members, and
[department] directors have to make decisions based on
incomplete information. When with the department he didn't
think information was being withheld, he said, but allowed that
the department may not have been as forthcoming as people would
have liked. At Board of Game meetings he had lots of
discussions in the hallways with people around the state, but
said this is something that is always a continuing challenge.
7:07:58 PM
DOUG LARSEN qualified that while he is a board member of the
Territorial Sportsmen, his testimony today is his personal view.
He offered his agreement with the testimony presented last week
by the coalition that includes Mr. Sommerville, Mr. Grasser, Mr.
Stacey, and Mr. Arno. He stated that the fees incorporated into
Version N are lower than what he would like to see just because
of the inflation if nothing else. Regarding intensive
management he said there are questions and misunderstandings
about how funding can be used, and is used, by ADF&G for
intensive management. There are many examples of where
intensive management funds are used to do predator control,
which is a part of intensive management but not the whole of
intensive management, but those funds are also used to do
habitat work and to assess the habitat condition to see whether
predator control or removal of some predator species is
appropriate or wanted. He said he can provide examples of many
times where intensive management was proposed for areas but in
the end was not implemented because the department was able to
take funding that was available, get the information that was
necessary, and show that going in and removing more predators
was not the answer in those particular situations. An example
of that is in southern Southeast Alaska around Ketchikan where
there has been talk in the last couple years about getting the
deer population increased because it doesn't meet the intensive
management population or harvest objectives. Staff did habitat
assessment and population assessment and concluded that with the
habitat that is available there, doing an intensive management
program to remove wolves did not make sense biologically. So,
having something like an intensive management surcharge is not
saying to the department that it can implement intensive
management helter skelter or even expand beyond what it is doing
now. Rather, it would allow for the information to be gathered
that would help to determine whether further actions would be
warranted or necessary. In the past the legislature has been
very generous in providing "CIP" funds, but today with the
revenue situation being what it is, the department anticipates
that that is not going to continue, at least not to the extent
that it has. [The surcharge] would be a way to supplant those
funds that wouldn't be available otherwise. The downside to not
having funds to those things is that the department would have
to be more conservative or could not even do what the 1994
intensive management law requires, which is to get that
information and see what actions be done.
7:11:16 PM
MR. LARSEN continued, noting that there are examples of where
endangered species petitions have impacted Alaska and Alaskans.
A petition he is currently familiar with is the petition to list
the Southeast Alaska Alexander Archipelago wolf as endangered.
From his experience as the regional supervisor for Southeast
Alaska before retiring, he advised that the information
necessary to withstand lawsuits and to be able to defend the
outcome of that situation necessitates an incredible amount of
funds to put people and resources on the ground to get the
information that will be used by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service (USFWS) to make that determination. Listings have huge
implications for hunting and trapping as well as for mineral and
timber development. So, the funding that is used by the
department to get that information has broad economic
implications beyond the hunting and fishing community.
MR. LARSEN noted he served on the wildlife team for the
transition program and in that group were people he interacted
with while director with whom he did not see eye-to-eye, and yet
everyone came together in the spirit of trying to find common
ground and a lot of common ground was found. One thing found
for common ground was the need to increase and diversify
revenue. The license fee increase was one of the things the
transition team supported strongly, along with diversity, which
is where this idea of a conservation pass or stamp or something
of that nature came into being. Many people would like to
contribute to wildlife conservation in the state of Alaska, but
don't feel they have a venue because they are not hunters and
are not necessarily anti-hunting or anti-fishing but they just
don't participate themselves and yet they want to contribute.
The transition team sees that as a potential opportunity to
capture more funding that could then be used for conservation.
That is very much in keeping with what was proposed years ago
through the federal Conservation and Reinvestment Act which did
not pass but transitioned into the state wildlife grants
program. Those funds would help with programs like education
and others for which the department is strapped. He offered his
appreciation for the sponsor bringing forth HB 137.
7:14:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON requested Mr. Larsen to explain where the
three-to-one match comes from.
MR. LARSEN replied that in 1939 American sportsmen and
sportswomen said a way was needed to fund wildlife conservation
and management in the U.S. A law was passed that is now known
as the Pittman-Robertson Act, after the two individuals
responsible for the bill. On the fisheries side there was a
similar act called the Dingell-Johnson Act. An excise tax was
put on the sale of firearms, ammunition, motor boat gas, and so
forth. Those dollars go into a federal pot that is then divvied
out to all the states on a formula. The maximum that any state
can get is 5 percent and it is based on numbers of people and
landmass. Alaska doesn't have that many people but it has a lot
of land so it gets 5 percent of that pot. With the recent
increase in the sale of firearms and ammunition there is a lot
more money in that Pittman-Robertson account. That is the $3
that comes into the state, but to get those $3 there must be $1
on the state side and that's where the fish and game fund is so
important. That fund is where license fees and tag fees go into
a pot and the $1 that comes out of the state pot is used to
match those $3 from the federal pot. Not having sufficient
dollars in that fish and game fund is what Mr. Robus was
referring to - if Alaska can't match all the federal dollars
then there'd be federal dollars that would perhaps go away and
not be used by the state.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he wants it to be clear that this is
a tax on sportsmen, a self-imposed tax, to preserve their
lifestyle and the habitat. It is not taking money out of the
treasury, it is taking money out of a voluntary system that
allows Alaska to tap that money.
7:17:55 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO closed public testimony after ascertaining no
one else wished to testify. He then opened committee discussion
on Version N, the proposed CS before the committee.
7:18:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 29-
LS0625\N.1, Bullard, 3/20/15, which read:
Page 1, line 4, following "trapping;":
Insert "replacing the permanent sport fishing,
hunting, or trapping identification card for certain
state residents with an identification card valid for
three years;"
Page 2, line 1:
Delete "62"
Insert "65"
Page 5, line 27:
Delete "62"
Insert "65"
Page 7, line 8:
Delete "62"
Insert "65"
Page 7, line 27, through page 8, line 6:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 19. AS 16.05.400 is amended to read:
Sec. 16.05.400. Persons exempt from annual
licensing requirements [LICENSE REQUIREMENT]. (a) A
license is not required of a resident under 18 years
of age or a nonresident [PERSON] under [THE AGE OF] 16
years of age for sport fishing nor is a license
required of a resident under 18 years of age [THE AGE
OF 16] for hunting or trapping.
(b) Upon request, and without charge, the
commissioner shall issue a sport fishing, hunting, and
trapping identification card to [A SPORT FISHING,
HUNTING, OR TRAPPING LICENSE IS NOT REQUIRED OF] a
resident who is 65 [60] years of age or older. An
identification card issued under this subsection is
valid for three years [MORE]. The commissioner shall
issue an [A PERMANENT] identification card without
charge to a person [PERSONS] who qualifies [QUALIFY]
by age and residence and who completes [COMPLETE] the
forms required by the commissioner for implementation
of this subsection. A person who is eligible for an
[ISSUED A PERMANENT] identification card under this
subsection may not sport fish, hunt, or trap without
having a valid identification card issued under this
subsection or the appropriate license [SHALL HAVE IT]
in possession [WHILE SPORT FISHING, HUNTING, OR
TRAPPING].
* Sec. 20. AS 16.05.403(c) is amended to read:
(c) A resident who is 65 years of age or older
may obtain from the department upon payment of the fee
prescribed in AS 16.05.330 - 16.05.430 and upon
submission of satisfactory proof of age a resident
hunting license, a resident sport fishing license, a
resident subsistence fishing permit, or a resident
personal use fishing permit indicating that the
purchaser is a person who is 65 years of age or older.
This subsection does not limit the right of a resident
person who is 65 years of age or older to obtain an
identification card [CLAIM AN EXEMPTION FROM HUNTING
OR SPORT FISHING LICENSE REQUIREMENTS] under
AS 16.05.400(b).
* Sec. 21. AS 16.05.405(b) is amended to read:
(b) Notwithstanding AS 16.05.420(c), a resident
holding a valid resident hunting license may take game
on behalf of a person who is blind, a person with
physical disabilities, or a person who is 65 years of
age or older if the resident possesses on the
resident's person
(1) a document signed by the person on whose
behalf the game is taken, stating that the resident
possesses the person's hunting license or [PERMANENT]
identification card issued under AS 16.05.400(b) in
order to take game on behalf of that person; and
(2) the person's
(A) resident hunting license issued under
AS 16.05.403 or [PERMANENT] identification card issued
under AS 16.05.400(b); and
(B) harvest ticket, tag, stamp, or other
document required by law as a condition of taking the
game being hunted.
* Sec. 22. AS 16.05.405(c) is amended to read:
(c) Notwithstanding AS 16.05.420(c), a resident
holding a valid noncommercial fishing license may take
fish on behalf of a person who is blind, a person with
physical disabilities, or a person who is 65 years of
age or older if the resident possesses on the
resident's person
(1) a document signed by the person on whose
behalf the fish is taken, stating that the resident
possesses the person's sport fishing license,
subsistence fishing permit, personal use fishing
permit, or [PERMANENT] identification card issued
under AS 16.05.400(b) in order to take fish on behalf
of that person;
(2) the person's
(A) resident sport fishing license issued
under AS 16.05.403 or [PERMANENT] identification card
issued under AS 16.05.400(b);
(B) resident subsistence fishing permit
issued under AS 16.05.403; or
(C) resident personal use fishing permit
issued under AS 16.05.403; and
(3) all other documents issued to the person
that are required by law as a condition of taking the
fish being pursued.
* Sec. 23. AS 16.05.405(e) is amended to read:
(e) A resident who takes, or attempts to take,
fish or game on behalf of a person under this section
may also simultaneously engage in fishing or hunting
for the resident's use; however, the resident may not
take or attempt to take fish or game by proxy for more
than one person at a time. For the purposes of this
subsection, a resident is engaged in taking, or
attempting to take, fish or game by proxy while the
resident has possession of
(1) another person's
(A) license, permit, or identification card
issued under AS 16.05.400(b) and all other documents
issued to the person that are required by law as a
condition of taking the fish or game being pursued;
and
(B) signed document under (b)(1) or (c)(1)
of this section; or
(2) fish or game taken on behalf of another
person.
* Sec. 24. AS 16.05.415(i) is amended to read:
(i) In this section, "license" means a license,
tag, permit, stamp, identification card issued under
AS 16.05.400(b), or other indicia of permission to
engage in an activity subject to AS 16.05.330 -
16.05.430."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 8, line 9:
Delete "APPLICABILITY."
Insert "APPLICABILITY AND TRANSITION. (a)"
Page 8, line 11:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 19"
Page 8, line 13:
Delete "continue to"
Page 8, lines 13 - 15:
Delete "the exemption under AS 16.05.400(b), as
that subsection read before the effective date of this
Act"
Insert "an identification card under
AS 16.05.400(b), as that subsection is amended by this
Act, notwithstanding the requirement under that
subsection that a resident must be 65 years of age or
older to obtain an identification card"
Page 8, following line 15:
Insert new subsections to read:
"(b) A permanent identification card issued
under AS 16.05.400(b), as that subsection read before
the effective date of this Act, shall continue to be
recognized as valid for the purposes issued until
January 1, 2019. On or after January 1, 2019, a
permanent identification card issued under
AS 16.05.400(b), as that subsection read before the
effective date of this Act, is void.
(c) The Department of Fish and Game shall
attempt to notify current holders of permanent
identification cards issued under AS 16.05.400(b), as
that subsection read before the effective date of this
Act, that
(1) they are eligible for identification
cards under AS 16.05.400(b), as that subsection is
amended by this Act; and
(2) permanent identification cards issued
under AS 16.05.400(b) before the effective date of
this Act are void on January 1, 2019."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON objected.
7:18:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained Amendment 1 looks at replacing
the current permanent sport fishing, hunting, and trapping
identification card for certain residents with an identification
card that is valid for three years. Several years ago he found
that there were 83,000 permanent cards, but ADF&G couldn't tell
him how many of those were current residents or how many were
permanent fund dividend recipients. Many people leave Alaska
and then return to the state carrying this card that says they
can hunt, fish, and trap for free, he said. There is no
requirement that they even carry the card. Therefore, a renewal
period is needed in which the people re-certify that they are
still residents of the state. Since residency is not identified
in this section the question is whether that means a person can
have a 30-day voter residency or live out of state and only come
back to Alaska in the summer. In that regard there is no
qualification at all on the permanent card. Amendment 1 would
ensure that there is a free renewal for people as they get older
but that they are residents of the state and that they be
required to carry the card with them when hunting or fishing.
Amendment 1 would also raise the age for this identification
card from 62 to 65. He pointed out that people can elect to
begin Social Security at age 62, but the normal age for Social
Security is 65. Additionally, under current statute the age at
which proxy hunting and fishing are allowed is 65. Therefore,
raising the age to 65 would make it consistent. Further,
Amendment 1 would provide that currently issued permanent
identification cards would be valid through January 1, 2019, at
which time the person will need to get a three-year renewal
card.
7:22:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired what it would cost to issue
these cards every three years instead of just once.
BEN MULLIGAN, Legislative Liaison, Special Assistant to the
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Alaska Department of
Fish & Game (ADF&G), confirmed that about 83,000 permanent
identifications have been issued, with 6,000 to 8,000 new ones
every year. Not knowing how many of those people would want to
re-apply, he said, it is hard to give a ballpark number at this
time, but it will have to be done underneath a new fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON understood this would qualify for
Pittman-Robertson.
MR. MULLIGAN replied that these are free, so Pittman-Robertson
would apply if a person didn't qualify and had to purchase a
license.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON surmised the expense [of issuing the free
cards] would be money out of the 3:1 match that the state could
get. So, he posited, if the fiscal note for issuing these cards
is $1,000, then the state would be potentially losing $3,000
from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson funds because the
state wouldn't have that potential match.
SUNNY HAIGHT, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), responded she is
unsure if that is accurate and offered to run an analysis. She
noted she is only just now seeing this amendment and therefore
she has not had a chance to go through the numbers.
7:24:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON surmised Amendment 1 would have some
administrative costs, but that some of the cost might be offset
by those [former Alaska residents] who will now have to purchase
a license that otherwise would have been free to them.
MR. MULLIGAN agreed there could be costs associated with the
amendment, but pointed out that those folks [who no longer
qualify as residents] but who still want to come back would have
to pay the higher nonresident fees, which might create a wash.
He said he will run some numbers and talk to ADF&G's licensing
folks.
7:25:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated the question here is what it will
cost to do these permanent identification cards. He pointed out
that a permanent identification card will not incur a vendor fee
because applicants must go to an ADF&G office rather than a
store and it is simply a piece of paperwork certifying that the
applicant is a resident.
7:27:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON understood that a person who has an "over
60 card" must be a resident to be able to use the card.
MS. HAIGHT replied correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON surmised that someone coming back to the
state who cannot prove he/she is a resident cannot use the card.
MS. HAIGHT responded correct.
7:27:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR posed a scenario in which a former resident
returns to the state because he/she has the card and picks a
species that doesn't require a guided service. In this case,
she pointed out, the potential exists that the person will have
no interaction at all with the department and there will be no
checking or verification of that person's residency.
MR. MULLIGAN answered correct, once a permanent identification
is issued a person has it and can come back. So unless stopped,
checked, and flagged by a trooper there is no way to know. A
law abiding citizen who is no longer a resident would purchase a
license, but there is no way to know how often that happens.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR drew attention to Amendment 1, page 5, lines
2-4, regarding currently issued permanent identification cards
being valid until January 1, 2019. She inquired whether there
is a problem with the giving of a benefit by the department and
then having it taken away or modified.
MR. MULLIGAN replied he cannot give a definitive answer at this
time without talking to the department's legal counsel.
7:30:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the bill was drafted by
the legislature's legal counsel. Because this card is free it
is different than if someone has purchased something of value.
He further noted that the other question being talked about is
residence. Enforcement officials don't enforce these because
there is nothing that says a person coming up in a motorhome
with a Washington or Idaho license plate doesn't mean the person
isn't a resident under the terms of maintaining his/her voting
rights in Alaska. A person doesn't even have to be a voter.
There is nothing in the current statute that says how a person
maintains residency. For example, there is nothing that says a
person must be a permanent fund resident. While it takes a year
to become a resident, there is nothing that says how a person
loses residency for fish and game. Troopers have a really hard
time because there is no clear statutory guideline on what kind
of residency must be maintained and whether a person coming up
in a motorhome every summer constitutes residency.
7:32:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said Title 1 states as little as 30-day
windows for residency with an intent to remain, so there are
different ways to define residency as noted by Representative
Seaton. In regard to the prospective versus retrospective
provision mentioned by Representative Tarr, he said he thinks
what Representative Seaton said is accurate - that under police
powers the making of changes is allowed and if there was no
investment it would be hard for a person to claim a suffering or
a deprivation of due process. He added that it sounds like
this is also the view of Legislative Legal and Research
Services.
7:33:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON maintained his objection to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON posed a scenario in which a former
resident comes up and uses his/her card and receives a citation.
He inquired whether under the Interstate Wildlife Violator
Compact that person would lose his/her license in his/her home
state and the right to fish in any of those other 38 states
[belonging to the compact].
MR. MULLIGAN responded he will have to check with the Alaska
Wildlife Troopers.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he thinks the person would lose
his/her license and it would be the same punishment in that
person's home state as here in Alaska. He opined that this is
being done for honest people and someone who is going to cheat
is going to cheat. He said he therefore maintains his objection
to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that losing a license is one
thing, but this isn't a license, it is just free access. Thus,
there may be some distinctions between what a person would lose
in Alaska - the ability to participate versus a purchased
license. He allowed he isn't sure, saying this is a unique
thing that Alaska has.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that if cited in
Alaska a person would have an equivalent punishment in his/her
home state. For example, a person unable to fish in Alaska
would be unable to fish in another state. It is a fairly
serious crime to violate in Alaska, he pointed out.
7:35:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON again maintained his objection, stating
there are a lot of unanswered questions, one being the money
question. He said he doesn't want to hold the bill up as he
supports the concept, but he is also concerned about upsetting
the balance and having groups that support the bill subsequently
pull out. He suggested there be no amendments and let the bill
go to the House Finance Committee where these things can be
hashed out and ADF&G come in to answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON spoke to his objection, saying he is
concerned with raising the age and so will be voting no on the
amendment.
7:36:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether holders of a permanent
identification card would receive something at their last best
address indicating that the privilege has become a three-year
privilege.
MS. HAIGHT answered yes, the department's licensing staff has
given thought to this and is prepared to reach out to every
permanent license holder with adequate notification.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON suggested checking against permanent fund
dividend applications and making it that a person ineligible for
a dividend is ineligible for a permanent license and giving that
person notice of such.
MS. HAIGHT replied she cannot address that, but she can confirm
that ADF&G's licensing staff, for purposes of checks and
balances, does check against the permanent fund to verify
residency when any new application is filled out. It is a
valuable tool that the department does use, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the department would have to
reach out to all 83,000 permanent card holders or whether there
is some other way to reduce the scope of that communication.
MS. HAIGHT responded she would have to work with the licensing
staff, but said the licensing staff regularly scrubs that list
to weed out deceased folks.
7:39:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON requested that Representative Seaton
repeat his reasoning for proposing Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated the permanent identification card
has the problem of unlimited time. There are participants who
have definitely left the state. Alaska Wildlife Troopers has
said these cards are unenforceable because they have no standard
of residency. At the time that he checked on these cards there
had not been any violations because no citations had been
issued, but that was a while ago and he doesn't know whether
there have been any violations or citations since then. He said
age 65 works well with all the fish and game statutes and
therefore it would clean up the statute and fish and game
procedures, would make laws enforceable, and would ensure the
cardholder is a resident of the state.
The committee took an at-ease from 7:41 p.m. to 7:44 p.m.
7:44:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew Amendment 1 and requested that a
fiscal note be drafted for the amendment.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO asked ADF&G to provide cost estimates in this
regard.
MS. HAIGHT agreed.
7:45:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 29-
LS0625\N.3, Bullard, 3/19/15, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "trapping;":
Insert "relating to fish and game conservation
decals;"
Page 7, following line 26:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 19. AS 16.05 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 16.05.352. Fish and game conservation decal.
The department shall annually produce and make
available to the public fish and game conservation
decals. The department shall, by appropriate means,
provide for the selection of designs for fish and game
conservation decals and for the production and sale of
the decals. The department may produce and sell
different decals in quantities that the commissioner
considers appropriate. Upon payment of a $20 fee, a
person may purchase a fish and game conservation decal
from the department."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 8, line 11:
Delete "sec. 20"
Insert "sec. 21"
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected to Amendment 2 for discussion.
7:45:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that many tourists, viewers,
photographers, and other non-consumptive users come to Alaska
and this would allow them to participate in maintaining fish and
wildlife conservation. Amendment 2 would allow the public to
participate in that by buying a fish and game conservation decal
for $20. It would be maintained like a license. If desired,
the department could limit this to online sales so it would be
reasonable and cheap to issue and a public record would be
established so it is known how many people want to support fish
and wildlife conservation but who aren't actually hunters,
fishers, or trappers.
7:46:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON inquired whether the decal would be
strictly voluntary.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON confirmed it would be strictly voluntary.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON surmised this is a contribution that
would not be tax deductible.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied yes, it could be like
organizations that give a mug or decal for donations. The
department, by appropriate means, would be able to solicit art
for decals and the decals could be donated. A person could buy
one or more decals. It is a fundraising opportunity for ADF&G
from residents and nonresidents who want to support fish and
wildlife conservation in Alaska, whether they are consumptive or
non-consumptive users.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON requested Representative Seaton to
explain what each section of Amendment 2 would do.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that a new section, Section 19,
would be inserted and the others consequently renumbered.
7:49:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted that an additional amendment
might be moved later in tonight's meeting. He posed a scenario
in which that amendment doesn't pass but Amendment 2 does and is
included in the bill signed by the governor, and asked whether
the [decal funds] could be used for intensive management and the
purchaser wouldn't know that.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded the committee would need to talk
to ADF&G, but he thinks ADF&G is aware that [decal purchasers]
are probably non-consumptive users and ADF&G would therefore use
the money in that way. He noted he will not be offering the
amendment labeled [29-LS0625\N.5, Bullard, 3/25/15]. He said
dedicated funding would be very complicated to do, so it is back
to the original idea of trying to allow ADF&G to generate
additional money from those people who want to voluntarily buy
[a decal] and support fish and wildlife conservation in Alaska.
Nothing directs the money into a dedicated fund, he added.
7:50:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would like to know whether money
from [decal sales] could be directed at intensive management.
MR. MULLIGAN answered that the way this would be put into
statute right now, it would go into the general fund and be open
for appropriation for any purpose because there are no
sideboards. He related that ADF&G has talked at length to
Representative Seaton about this and ADF&G understands his
intent, but there is nothing that is binding and so it cannot be
said with 100 percent certainty that that is how it would be
funded. However, during every [legislative] session money is
scrutinized and accounted for, so it would be known how much
money the decal brought in and a determination could be made
through the budget process for how to use it.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he brought this forward even though
it is not the perfect amendment because he thought the House
Resources Standing Committee should look at this and be speaking
on it. He said he hopes the House Finance Committee will be
able to put some sideboards on it so that [the money] goes to
the fish and game fund and that the correct directions are put
on [that money]. He offered his hope that the House Resources
Standing Committee will be looking at how to generate money for
fish and wildlife conservation.
7:52:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON understood that given that the state
constitution prohibits dedicated funds, these monies would
intermix with general fund monies and could end up paying for a
school teacher in Fairbanks or paving a road in Nome.
MR. MULLIGAN replied correct.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired whether a sentence could be
included that says funds from conservation decals shall be
directed towards education and wildlife conservation efforts.
She said she has seen this kind of language in other places in
statute - it is not dedicated, but is directive.
MR. MULLIGAN responded that according to legal counsel the
closest to get to this is to say "may" rather than "shall" spend
the monies on fish and wildlife education or fish and wildlife
diversity.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON surmised that the $15 he spends for a
fishing license does not return to ADF&G's coffers except by the
legislature's orders - the monies go to a general fund and ADF&G
must then make the case that those are monies that by custom and
practice should revert back to the department.
MS. HAIGHT answered that license revenue goes directly into the
fish and game fund, not the general fund.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired why license revenue is not a
prohibition on dedicated funds.
MS. HAIGHT replied it is constitutional.
7:55:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he supports Amendment 2 despite his
earlier statement that he would not be supporting any of these
amendments. He stated he has no problem with [decal] money
going to intensive management and that it be left to ADF&G to
decide. He removed his objection to Amendment 2.
7:55:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON objected to Amendment 2, saying he sees
two problems with it. A fundamental argument from people he
trusts, which is an argument that he agrees with, is that the
non-consumptive users must buy into this to have a seat at the
table. And, he continued, [non-consumptive users] would say
that they do by buying recreational gear and attending advisory
council meetings and all sorts of other things. A decal
purchaser would logically think that this would help him or her
to see wildlife or fish; however, that isn't the case, although
it might be the case. So, the first problem is that the money
doesn't go into the fish and game fund. The second problem is
that these monies could end up supporting intensive game
management. He said he is glad that Representative Seaton
expanded his statement about who would be buying this decal
because it could be all sorts of people, from the vegan to the
big game hunter and everything in between. Tens of thousands of
Alaskans are non-consumptive users and this is the group of
people that feels under-represented before the Board of Game.
Of the two problems, the first one is the most difficult because
the purchaser will believe he or she is helping wildlife because
that is what the decal is about, but it may not work out that
way. Therefore, he cannot support Amendment 2 even though he
thinks there needs to be more buy-in.
7:58:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood that the fish and game fund is
constitutional, but asked whether it is the constitution or
statute that says license fees will go to the fish and game fund
and, if it is statutory, could this same opportunity exist for
decal monies.
MR. MULLIGAN responded that the reason the fish and game fund is
a dedicated fund is because federal law requires there be a
dedicated fund in order to utilize Pittman-Robertson and
Dingell-Johnson funds, so the state constitution allows that.
7:59:17 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO commented that the purchase of licenses and
tags are receipts and not taxes. Taxes cannot be dedicated, but
he believes receipts can be directed and so that is why receipts
from those purchases can be put into that fund. While he is not
crazy about everything that intensive management does, he said,
he believes that sometimes intensive management actually
provides more opportunities for people to see game because of
the management of the populations and the ability to have those
populations thrive.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO noted that the objection to Amendment 2 is
still maintained.
8:00:24 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Herron, Johnson,
Olson, Seaton, and Talerico voted in favor of Amendment 2.
Representatives Josephson and Tarr voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 5-2.
8:01:49 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO invited discussion of the amended bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON expressed his concern with raising the
annual family gross income from less than $8,200 to less than
[$29,820]. He asked how many more Alaska residents will qualify
if this minimum income is raised as proposed.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO responded he doesn't know that answer,
but said he selected that number because $29,820 is the poverty
level for a family of four, which he thinks is a baseline level
for when those should be provided.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked what the fiscal impact would be on
the revenue stream if it is raised from $8,200 to $29,820.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO answered he is unsure.
MR. MULLIGAN said the best answer that can be given at this time
is that while the threshold level is raised, there is also the
removal of assistance eligibility, which kind of evens it out.
Currently, when a person comes in for a low income license,
ADF&G doesn't know whether that person is meeting the threshold
level for annual family gross income or qualifying because of
being on assistance. Therefore, there is no way to provide an
answer at this point in time.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON requested the sponsor to direct this
question to the House Finance Committee, saying it needs to be
known what the fiscal impact will be to the revenue stream.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO agreed to pass the question to the House
Finance Committee.
8:04:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the aforementioned is also of concern
to him because $29,820 is poverty level for a family of four but
not for a single person. He requested that this threshold level
be addressed separately for a family and for a single person
rather than a situation of one size fits all.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO agreed the House Finance Committee should look
into this. He shared that when he looked at this he was jolted
to find that in 2014 the level of income was $8,200 in order to
qualify for that license, which seems to be substantially low in
2014 dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she is pleased to see this provision
because she represents a district that is a moderate to low
income and many people in her district have the potential to
benefit from this increase in income threshold. She pointed out
that the committee did not deal today with the compromise
nonresident fee proposal brought forth by some of the hunting
groups, something she is very interested in. She said she had
an amendment drafted because there is the opportunity for
securing important federal dollars, but noted that there is
similar interest in the House Finance Committee where she hopes
to see the amendment happen rather than causing any delay with
the bill right now.
8:08:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute, version 29-LS0625\N, Bullard, 3/16/15, as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note and pending fiscal note. There being no objection,
CSHB 137(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing
Committee.