Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
02/21/2020 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB171 | |
| SB150 | |
| SB161 | |
| SB155 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 171 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 161 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 150 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 150-INTENSIVE MGMT SURCHARGE/REPEAL TERM DATE
4:04:26 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE announced that the next order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 150, "An Act repealing the termination date
for the intensive management hunting license surcharge."
4:04:57 PM
DUSTIN ELSBERRY, Intern, Senator Joshua Revak, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said hunting is an essential piece
of Alaskan life and it is of the utmost importance to protect
wildlife for future Alaskans. The state needs wildlife
management to maintain the special connection Alaskans have with
wildlife.
He explained that the moment a moose, caribou or deer population
is determined to be at risk of falling below a sustainable
level, the work of intensive management (IM) begins to identify
the root cause. Enacted action plans using quotas or habitat
management that are based on science and population analysis
ensure sustainable populations.
MR. ELSBERRY said since 2016, the IM program received funds from
a surcharge placed on hunting licenses. However, the surcharge
had a sunset date in 2022. SB 150 repeals the surcharge sunset
date and allows the IM program to be self-sustaining. Prior to
2016, appropriations from the capital budget funded the IM
program. However, the IM program is currently self-funded via
the license surcharge. IM funds leverage federal money through
the Pittman-Robertson Act (P-R Act), a 75/25 formula match where
the 25 percent comes from the state's surcharge funds.
He emphasized that the IM surcharge does not impact true
subsistence hunters or senior hunters, both groups are exempt
from the surcharge.
He summarized that SB 150 ensures that the IM program is
sustainable, protects wildlife populations, promotes food
security across the state, and assures that Alaska's cultures
carry on to future generations.
4:08:02 PM
At ease.
4:09:09 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE called the committee back to order. He said the
committee will first hear from invited testimony.
4:09:30 PM
RON SOMERVILLE, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 150. He detailed that he is a former Alaska
Department of Fish and Game employee, former director for the
Division of Wildlife Conservation, and former chairman for the
Alaska Board of Game. He said his previous duties on the Alaska
Board of Game might help in setting the background on SB 150.
He recalled that the IM law passed in 1994 and the instructions
were clear that the intent was to focus on moose, caribou, and
deer throughout the state.
He emphasized that predator control is not the only form of IM,
funding supports a variety of activities including habitat
manipulation and controlled burning. He admitted that predator
control is necessary in some cases. However, predator control
cannot use P-R Act funds.
MR. SOMERVILLE noted that he also represents Territorial
Sportsmen and the organization supports SB 150.
CHAIR MICCICHE commented that the Kenai Peninsula would like a
break on habitat manipulation due to forest fires that burned
4,000 acres during the last 4 years.
4:14:59 PM
EDDIE GRASSER, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Palmer, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 150. He said the bill is simple and straight
forward where the legislation takes away the sunset clause for
the IM program.
He said the IM law ensures that Alaskans have an opportunity to
feed their families. He added that the department is currently
pursuing an initiative called The Wild Harvest Initiative to
provide food security, especially in rural Alaska.
He said the IM program adds another tool to the department's
toolbelt to create more opportunities for people to feed their
families. The IM program is not just about predator control, the
department does a lot of habitat work as well. For example, the
department purchased a roller-chopper in 2019 for habitat
enhancement projects without using fire. He noted that the
department has not heard from the general public on anything
negative about the IM program.
MR. GRASSER recalled a time when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service used poison baiting for predator control, the department
does not support that drastic measure. The department supports
science-based management of wildlife that maximizes the
opportunities for Alaskans to feed their families.
He detailed that the revenue stream from the IM licensing
surcharge has grown to approximately $1 million per year. The
surcharge is an important revenue stream for research and
surveys on wildlife populations to define objectives to get
people out hunting.
MR. GRASSER said the department feels that based on observations
from other states regarding cost of licenses and tags, most
states charge a tag fee, but Alaska does not charge for tags
other than muskox and brown bear.
MR. GRASSER summarized that the IM license surcharge is an
important revenue stream to the department. They would like to
see the surcharge enshrined in statute and the sunset clause
eliminated.
4:17:40 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if the $1 million annual revenue stream is
from the IM surcharge or the combination with P-R Act funds.
MR. GRASSER answered that the revenue is strictly from the IM
surcharge.
SENATOR KIEHL REFERRED TO a pie chart on IM spending activities.
He asked how much spending occurs on predator control versus
habitat enhancement within the research and management portion.
MR. GRASSER answered that the department receives $4 million
from the IM surcharge with the P-R Act dollars. Most of the work
done to support predator control occurs within survey and
inventory work. The IM law specifies steps in the process to
implement different measures.
He emphasized that survey and inventory work sometimes indicate
clearly that predators are not the limiting factor. Predator
control is one of the limiting factors that the department has
the most control over in its toolbox. However, the department
cannot always have a fire because it might jeopardize a
community. Predator control does not occur until the department
does the survey and inventory work to verify the landscape,
remaining population objectives, and if the harvestable
objectives meet the intent of the IM law.
4:20:09 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to a map that showed approximately 90
percent of Alaska land with a positive IM determination. He
asked if the IM management fee just funds what wildlife
conservation is going to need anyway.
MR. GRASSER answered that the IM surcharge funds have specific
goals within the IM statutes. He noted that the department is
currently looking at a $1.7 million deficit for FY 2021 in its
budget. Without the surcharge funding, the department would have
difficulty doing its survey and inventory work.
CHAIR MICCICHE said he has a couple of comments related to
constitutionality. The 1994 IM law connects with Article XIII,
Section 4 in the Alaska Constitution. He paraphrased AS
16.05.255(k):
Alaska's wildlife along with all other renewable
resources shall be utilized, developed, and maintained
on the sustained yield principle. Statutory support as
the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity the
ability to support a high level of human harvest of
game subject to preferences among beneficial uses on
an annual periodic basis.
CHAIR MICCICHE remarked that challenges to the bill would have
occurred if there was a lot of resistance to the IM program in
the past.
4:22:55 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE opened public testimony on SB 150.
4:23:18 PM
JAKE FLETCHER, representing self, Talkeetna, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 150. He said he is a registered guide and a
member of the Alaska Professional Hunters Association (APHA).
Being good land stewards is one of Alaskans' biggest duties and
part of being a steward is using conservation. The bill provides
money so that the department can practice conservation.
4:24:37 PM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, Palmer,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 150. He explained that the
council and other reputable hunting conservation organizations
got together in 2016 when they realized that the amount of
general funds that were available to the state for their
programs was on the decline.
He emphasized that Alaskan hunters are not looking for a free
ride. The group agreed on raising resident and nonresident fees
to fund wildlife conservation without general funds.
He detailed the following annual hunting license data:
• 65,000 Alaskans buy hunting licenses
• 10,000 nonresidents
• 700-800 aliens
• 3,000 military
• 16,000 low income and 6,000 senior Alaskans who don't
buy a license
MR. ARNO noted that there are some exempt license holders who
continue to buy a license just so that they are contributing to
the fund.
4:27:15 PM
PAUL CLAUS, owner, Ultima Thule Outfitters, Chugiak, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 150. He said the legislation has
already proven itself after three years.
SENATOR BISHOP asked Mr. Grasser for examples of how the fund
has improved habitat.
MR. GRASSER answered that the Division of Wildlife Conservation
has done quite a bit of work in the Tok area with its roller
chopper and various prescribed burns.
CHAIR MICCICHE noted that he drove a chopper tractor when he was
young and asked if the division's roller chopper is similar.
MR. GRASSER answer yes. He detailed that the division's roller
chopper is a trailer that hooks on a Caterpillar bulldozer.
CHAIR MICCICHE commented that the chopper tractor he drove was
self-contained.
4:30:27 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE closed public testimony.
SENATOR KIEHL noted that the legislature uses sunset dates to
ensure program and board review, make sure things are
efficiently following the statutes, and to safeguard from boards
having mission creep. He asked why the bill deletes the sunset
date rather than extending it.
MR. GRASSER answered that the program is well established, and
funding should be continuous. Managing wildlife never stops,
especially to meet harvestable objectives. Managing wildlife is
integral work by the department that requires a consistent
funding stream with certainty.
4:32:10 PM
At ease.
4:32:44 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE called the committee back to order. He asked if
management work would cease if the discontinuation of the IM
surcharge fund collection occurs.
MR. GRASSER answered that management work would not totally
stop, but it would be severely impacted. He said discontinuation
would remove $4 million from the department's budget.
CHAIR MICCICHE asked if similar work would continue but at a
smaller proportion.
MR. GRASSER answered correct.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if discontinuing the surcharge would leave
$3 million of P-R Act money unutilized by the State of Alaska.
MR. GRASSER answered not necessarily. He explained that
apportionment for the State of Alaska from P-R Act funds has
gone down by $2 million. Instead of $28 million for FY 2020, the
department is looking at $26 million. Discontinuing the
surcharge may have no impact on the department.
4:34:20 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE reopened public testimony.
4:34:47 PM
VIKKI JO KENNEDY, representing self, Kodiak, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 150. She said Alaskans pay for the intensive
management of wildlife through licenses and fees. She emphasized
that the program takes care of itself and puts money back into
it.
4:35:56 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE closed public testimony.
He commented that although the bill repeals the termination
date, the legislature retains the right to repeal the IM program
at any time if things are not working out. In some cases, the
legislature spends a lot of time on extending termination dates
for programs that are known to continue.
SENATOR REVAK, sponsor of SB 150, thanked those that testified,
especially those from communities that wanted to help take care
of the game that they manage regularly.
CHAIR MICCICHE thanked Senator Revak for bringing the
legislation forward.
4:37:09 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report SB 150, work order 31-LS1390\A,
from committee with individual recommendations and forthcoming
fiscal notes.
4:37:24 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE said there being no objection, SB 150 is reported
from the Senate Resources Standing Committee.