Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
02/05/2020 01:00 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 | |
| HB197 | |
| HB230 | |
| HB27 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 197 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 230 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 230-INTENSIVE MGMT SURCHARGE/REPEAL TERM DATE
1:35:53 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 230, "An Act repealing the termination date for
the intensive management hunting license surcharge."
1:37:24 PM
ELIZABETH FERGUSON, Staff, Representative John Lincoln, Alaska
State Legislature, speaking on behalf of Representative Lincoln,
sponsor of HB 230, informed the committee the bill repeals the
sunset date for the intensive management [hunting license]
surcharge. The surcharge was implemented in 2016 by [House Bill
137, passed in the Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature] which
authorized a collection rate of $10 per resident hunting license
and $30 per nonresident hunting license. In three years, the
surcharge has grossed approximately $3.1 million; HB 230 does
not increase or change the amount of the surcharge, or change
intensive management policy, but the surcharge funds activities
that allow the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) to use
federal matching funds. Ms. Ferguson pointed out the zero
fiscal note attached to the bill, fiscal note identifier:
HB230-DFG-DWC-1-31-20, indicates that without revenue from the
surcharge, ADFG may lose up to $4 million per year, which would
hamper management, research, inventory, and surveying.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for the purpose of the sunset
provision [in House Bill 137] and how repeal of the sunset
provision may affect the specific use of the revenue raised by
the surcharge.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN deferred to Representative Talerico to explain
the original purpose of the sunset provision. Regarding the use
of the revenue from the surcharge, he said the funds are
deposited in a specific fund that is subject to [legislative]
appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO explained House Bill 137 was complicated
thus the inclusion of a sunset date ensured that the legislation
would be reviewed to determine the efficacy of the program and
whether the rates were appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN directed attention to a map [provided by
ADFG and included in the committee packet] noting the areas of
intensive management (IM) relate to moose, caribou, and deer.
She surmised the funds are not used for "a specific deer, moose,
or caribou plan ...."
1:41:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO acknowledged IM is usually associated
strictly with predator control but IM includes habitat
improvement and gathering data to inform conservation measures
and ensure a continual supply of the resource; he opined without
[wildlife resource management] there would be impacts to all
residents, particularly subsistence hunters and others.
Speaking from his experience, Representative Talerico restated a
major facet of IM is gathering data related to maintaining
habitat at a level to provide the resources that are mandated
for the residents of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN observed IM in the next ten years will
focus on habitat due to changes in the typical ranges of the
migration of moose and caribou. She expressed support for the
bill.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked for clarification on the aforementioned
federal matching funds.
1:45:38 PM
EDDIE GRASSER, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
ADFG, stated a large part of IM revenue is directed to habitat
work, and survey and inventory work, to determine the abundance
of game populations such as moose, caribou, and deer. Further,
the IM surcharge revenue allows ADFG to match [Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Act, also known as the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Program (PR)] federal funds: every state
dollar raised from IM garners three federal dollars. All of the
revenue is directed to a dedicated PR fund that can only be used
for fish and wildlife issues. In further response to Co-Chair
Tarr, he confirmed these measures were implemented at statehood.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked for a description of the Pittman-
Robertson fund and of some of the habitat-related projects
funded by the surcharge.
MR. GRASSER explained the Pittman-Robertson (PR) fund was
created in 1937 by a national tax on the sale of firearms and
ammunition; the tax was promoted by hunters to raise funds for
wildlife management. House Bill 137 was also promoted by
Alaskan hunters. Since its inception, the PR fund has been used
for various activities; in addition, Alaska law [AS 16.05.100
Fish and Game Fund] requires the fund to be used primarily for
hunting management. Other programs funded by PR funds include
[Eagle River Nature Center] wildlife viewing and state refuges
and sanctuaries. Pittman-Robertson is a federal law which
creates a 3:1 match; this year PR funds to the state are
expected to be $26 million. Examples of wildlife habitat
restoration projects funded by the IM surcharge are projects in
Tok and Delta, and a prescribed burn in the Alphabet Hills near
Glennallen. In further response to Representative Spohnholz, he
said natural fires are a regeneration mechanism for successional
growth upon which most game species live; much of Alaska is
forested with black spruce which does not provide nutrition for
wildlife. So, prescribed burns are used to replace black spruce
with willow to create better habitat for moose and caribou.
1:50:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS questioned whether Alaska has directed
money to options and research such as preserving apex predators
and allowing them to cull herds, thereby preserving habitat, as
has been done successfully in some Lower 48 national parks.
MR. GRASSER agreed [the reintroduction of wolves] into
Yellowstone National Park caused some changes in habitat to
occur; however, in Alaska habitat covers large areas of land
that are not riparian in nature, and available data shows
management for abundant moose and caribou results in the
population of apex predators growing with the population of
moose and caribou.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether there has been long-term
research on the effect on herds in Alaska related to leaving
apex predators in place.
MR. GRASSER gave the example of the Fortymile Caribou Herd:
[due to predation by] apex predators, the herd was in a low
equilibrium predator pit and numbered approximately 2,000
animals for many years; [from 2000-2010], ADFG began predator
control programs and the caribou herd expanded.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired as to whether there is research
from Denali National Park and Preserve.
MR. GRASSER said yes. Where there are management programs, most
populations, including apex predators, are healthy; where there
are no management programs, ungulate populations are down, and
apex predators have migrated elsewhere.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked:
The [Teklanika] wolf pack around the Denali buffer
area, ... and looking at the populations in that ...
pack in that area, how has this money been spent on
researching the impacts of predator control in that
area and expansions of herds of moose.
MR. GRASSER expressed his understanding ADGF has no active IM
programs in that area and offered to provide further information
in this regard.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired as to how much IM money was
spent on predator control.
MR. GRASSER said in FY 18 ADFG spent $180,000 for predator
control, out of approximately $1 million collected by the
surcharge.
1:54:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS requested a breakdown of the amount of IM
money spent during the two previous fiscal years for research,
predator control, and habitat management. He expressed support
for the bill to further critical science-based research on
habitat, predator control, and IM.
1:55:32 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on HB 230.
1:56:26 PM
VIC VAN BALLENGBERGHE, PhD, informed the committee he is a moose
and wolf biologist who served three terms on the Board of Game
(BOG), ADFG, during two administrations. He said HB 230 seeks
to repeal the sunset of the IM surcharge, however, the issue
involves the state's public policy related to intensive
management. Twenty-six years after Alaska established an IM
law, it is known that IM has enabled controversial methods of
reducing predators, such as public aerial shooting of wolves and
bears, gassing of wolf pups in dens, and sales of bear body
parts. He characterized these practices as controversial even
among hunters, and hunting guides, and pointed out Alaska ballot
initiatives have restricted wolf control. Further known is that
intensive management is expensive, but its exact costs are not
readily available; in fact, there have been special legislative
appropriations and IM costs have been funded by ADFG's "regular"
budget for amounts from $1 million to $2 million per year, in
addition to the surcharge. He said, "... for every moose that
was produced through IM in recent years the cost was around
$7,000 per animal ...." He concluded IM is controversial and
costly and may not be effective. Dr. Van Ballengberghe urged
the committee to let the sunset provision prevail pending
further evaluation.
CO-CHAIR TARR surmised decisions on some of the aforementioned
practices would rest with the Board of Game and asked whether
BOG addresses issues satisfactorily.
2:01:03 PM
DR. VAN BALLENBERGHE recalled "things were different" when he
served on BOG; BOG had a more general view of wildlife
management prior to 2002. He acknowledged BOG has a tough job
to balance disparate views; however, recently some are critical
of BOG for being too narrowly focused and willing to adopt
controversial predator control methods, and unwilling to
consider a broader perspective, for example, using apex
predators to preserve an ecosystem rather than producing the
maximum number of animals for hunters.
2:03:03 PM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
expressed support for the repeal of the surcharge and informed
the committee AOC advocated for the passage of House Bill 137 in
2016. He said the money collected for the surcharge is paid by
the sale of hunting licenses, and well over one-half of the
funds is paid by approximately 10,000 nonresident hunters per
year. Mr. Arno noted the original legislation provides an
exemption that grants $5 licenses to 17,000 [hunters] and some
hunters are not charged. Over one-third of the surcharge is
paid by nonresidents, and he stressed nonresident and resident
hunters are willing to pay the surcharge if the money is used to
increase the abundance of harvestable surplus of the wild food
source for Alaskans. In fact, 34 million pounds of renewable
and wild food source is extremely important. He said AOC and
its 10,000 members are willing to continue to pay the surcharge
to support science and ensure game is available for Alaskans.
2:06:30 PM
DOUG LARSEN, President, Territorial Sportsman, Inc. (TSI),
informed the committee TSI was founded in 1945 and one of its
missions is to raise money for high school students' higher
education. He said he worked for ADFG for 30 years and provided
a brief work history which included experience with intensive
management; TSI supports HB 230. Mr. Larsen recalled at one
time IM was funded by ADFG capital improvement projects (CIPs);
however, CIP funding has been replaced by the IM surcharge. He
agreed with previous testifiers that although revenue from the
IM surcharge can be used for predator control, more often the
funding supports programs directed at habitat. For example, in
2014, in Ketchikan, and near Petersburg and Wrangell, there were
proposals to reduce the wolf population; however, ADFG invested
IM funds to assess the habitat in the areas and concluded, in
these situations, the problem was limited habitat and not the
wolf population. He said fisheries and wildlife managers need
data to make better decisions; he acknowledged that sometimes
reducing predators is appropriate, but without revenue from the
surcharge, data is difficult to obtain. He restated TSI's
support for HB 230.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK questioned whether the amount of the
surcharge is enough.
MR. LARSEN advised matching the PR funds was a challenge in the
past and deferred to Mr. Grasser.
CO-CHAIR TARR observed specific techniques of IM are what garner
negative attention and asked whether certain practices should be
limited by the legislature.
2:11:17 PM
MR. LARSEN stated the aforementioned issue is a "values issue."
There are many ways to reduce predators and ADFG seeks to
humanely reduce predators without any intent to be cruel. He
pointed out wildlife in Alaska is managed on a sustained yield
basis, as directed by the Alaska State Constitution, and needs
to be effective and cost-effective without regard for personal
values. Mr. Larsen remarked:
And again, what I would offer is as long as the
efforts that are being done are done humanely, and
with the right approach given the circumstances, I
think that's where the line should be. And I think,
honestly, the Board of Game has done a pretty good job
with that ... weighing the pros and cons of various
aspects of that ....
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked Mr. Larson if intensive management
is a standard wildlife management practice used to assess
[populations] or is IM targeted at [maintaining] harvestable
populations for consumption. She suggested politics affect
intensive management practices that are really BOG issues. She
pointed out if ADFG is responsible to ensure a sustained yield,
and IM is standard management practice, there must be a revenue
stream to support the program.
MR. LARSEN advised [Senate Bill 77, passed in the Eighteenth
Alaska State Legislature amending AS 16.05.255] was focused on
deer, moose, and caribou, and tasked BOG to identify populations
of moose, caribou, and deer that would be used for high levels
of human consumption. Prior to that, and currently, survey and
inventory work were done on many species; however, IM efforts
were specifically focused to identify populations of deer,
moose, and caribou. He pointed out not every area identified by
BOG has an active management program in place.
2:16:22 PM
MR. GRASSER, in response to Representative Tuck's earlier
question, indicated the current surcharge is sufficient to
support an effective program.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER surmised a prescribed burn would be
conducted in conjunction with the Division of Forestry,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and asked whether
surcharge revenue would be used.
MR. GRASSER advised prescribed burns are conducted by a team
from both divisions and costs are borne by both DNR and ADFG.
In further response to Representative Rauscher, he expressed his
belief costs are paid from general operating funds.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ questioned whether prescribed burns can
benefit wildlife management and fire suppression.
MR. GRASSER said yes; for example, ADFG, DNR, and federal
agencies worked as a team during the [2019 Swan Lake fire on the
Kenai Peninsula].
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK returned attention to PR federal matching
funds and asked whether the state could leverage more funds if
the state could contribute more.
MR. GRASSER said not at this time because there is a downturn of
available PR revenue from the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior. In further response to
Representative Tuck, he said, "The cap is whatever our
apportionment is going to be, so at this point, I guess, ...
we've probably hit the cap."
2:19:52 PM
RON SOMERVILLE informed the committee he is a Territorial
Sportsman Inc., member and is representing himself. He
cautioned HB 230 does not address the debate over predator
management and agreed with previous testimony that IM garners
controversary related to wolf or bear management. As
background, Mr. Somerville said he worked 24 years with ADFG and
while he was serving on the Board of Game, BOG reinstituted a
predator management program in Game Management Unit (GMU) 19,
under a new process to evaluate predator management programs
which specified four or five criterion: public support, local
support, money to evaluate the success of the program, and some
reasonable chance of success. He opined BOG mostly follows the
aforementioned criteria in its use of IM, and IM is not used
statewide; in fact, one-half of Alaska belongs to the federal
government which leads to conflict over the level of the state's
management authority in certain areas, and predator management
is prohibited in refuges and parks. One of the purposes of [the
surcharge] is to provide money to ADFG that is not limited by PR
matching fund regulations; he pointed out if [ADFG] decides to
harvest predators in certain areas, PR money cannot be used, and
ADFG must use general funds or fish and game funds. He spoke in
favor of legislative oversight over ADFG and encouraged the
committee to continue [the surcharge for] IM because the money
is needed to provide benefits to all Alaskans as the
constitution requires.
2:25:12 PM
THOR STACEY, Lobbyist, Alaska Professional Hunters Association
(APHA), informed the committee APHA is a professional
association representing hunting guides statewide. He said APHA
supports [HB 203] and further written testimony was provided in
the committee packet. He noted APHA participated in the
coalition of sporting groups that supported House Bill 137.
Also, APHA supports the current amount of the surcharge. Mr.
Stacey clarified intensive management statutes are a mandate for
managing, on state land, Alaska wildlife - moose, deer, and
caribou - for high levels of human consumption; historically,
general fund appropriations have been used in this regard. In
fact, the state must avoid using PR funds for activities
involving intensive management because federal policy now
prohibits predator control measures that were accepted when
Alaska was a territory. Therefore, the surcharge is a bright-
line accounting measure to demonstrate there is a funding
source, separate from PR funds, to fund IM programs. Mr. Stacey
pointed out most of Alaska is Fish and Wildlife and National
Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, lands, which are
managed under a program of non-intensive management. Further,
in the Denali Borough and Denali National Park and Preserve,
there is currently a "hands-off" approach to wildlife
management; however, on surrounding state land, state management
practices include IM. Currently, moose and wolves are more
abundant on state land because the low-equilibrium status of
ungulates has been avoided and most are consumed by wild
predators. He remarked:
As the Board of Game looks at an area, there's
different tiers are basically the carrying capacity
for the habitat, they have a population objective, so
you have a maximum carrying capacity, then you have an
objective, what the wildlife managers would like to
see the population at. And then if there's a positive
IM finding, you have the next stage is an IM threshold
and that's where intensive management would be
considered .... ... Finally, you have ANS which is
the amount necessary for subsistence, so you have your
population objective, you have your IM threshold, and
then you have the minimum amounts necessary for
subsistence. And then at some point below that,
there's not enough harvestable surplus for human
hunting to continue ....
MR. STACEY restated APHA's reasons for supporting HB 203.
2:31:10 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR, after ascertaining no one further wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
[HB 230 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB197 Additional Documents-2019 Alaska Seismicity Summary 2.01.20.pdf |
HFIN 3/5/2020 9:00:00 AM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/7/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB 230 Fiscal Note DFG-DWC 1.31.20.pdf |
HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/7/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 230 |
| HB 230 Sponsor Statement 1.31.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/7/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 230 |
| HB197 Sponsor Statement 1.22.20.pdf |
HFIN 3/5/2020 9:00:00 AM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/7/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 ver A 1.22.20.pdf |
HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/7/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Fiscal Note DNR-DGGS 2.01.20.pdf |
HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/7/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Supporting Document-Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission Audit.pdf |
HFIN 3/5/2020 9:00:00 AM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/7/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB197 Supporting Document-ASHSC 2018 Annual Report.pdf |
HFIN 3/5/2020 9:00:00 AM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/7/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 197 |
| HB 230 v. A 1.29.20.PDF |
HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/7/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 230 |
| HB 27 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Bill Version U 1.11.19.PDF |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Bill Version U 1.11.19Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 CS Version S 1.21.20.pdf |
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Flame Retardants - NIH Fact Sheet July 2016.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letters of Support from Firefighters 4.2.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 DEC Fiscal Note 01.17.20.pdf |
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 DOL Fiscal Note 01.17.20.pdf |
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Combined Letters and Emails in Support 1.21.20.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Explanation of Changes Ver U to Ver S 01.21.20.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Opposing Document - Letters of Opposition Combined 01.23.20.pdf |
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 v. S Amendment HRES 1.29.2020 #1.pdf |
HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 v. S Amendment HRES 1.29.2020 #2.pdf |
HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 v. S Amendment HRES 1.29.2020 #3.pdf |
HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 v. S Amendment HRES 1.29.2020 #4.pdf |
HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Staff Response to Member Questions 1.29.20.pdf |
HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 230 IM Species Determinations 12.17.2019.jpg |
HFIN 3/5/2020 9:00:00 AM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/7/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 230 |
| HB 230 Hunting License Surcharge Revenue CY17-CY19 2.4.2020.pdf |
HFIN 3/5/2020 9:00:00 AM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 230 |
| HB 230 Testimony - Support as of 2.5.20.pdf |
HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/7/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 230 |