Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
02/15/2021 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 | |
| SB22 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 22-INTENSIVE MGMT SURCHARGE/REPEAL TERM DATE
3:31:56 PM
CHAIR REVAK announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 22
"An Act repealing the termination date for the intensive
management hunting license surcharge."
CHAIR REVAK noted some of the committee members heard the
legislation during the previous session, but COVID-19
interrupted its progress. He stated his intention to hear and
move the bill.
3:33:00 PM
EMMA TORKELSON, Staff, Senator Joshua Revak, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that SB 22 repeals the
termination date of the intensive management hunting license
surcharge.
She said hunting is an essential part of many Alaskan's lives,
but to maintain sustainable wildlife populations for future
generations, careful management of these populations is
necessary, which is where intensive management (IM) comes in.
The moment caribou, moose, or deer population becomes at risk of
falling below a sustainable level, the IM program identifies the
root cause of the population decrease and then develops and
implements a plan to rectify the issue. Most often the IM plans
focus on research and management, but they can also include
habitat enhancement.
She noted prior to 2016, the IM program received funding via
capital project appropriations, but since 2016 the program has
received funding via a surcharge placed on several types of
hunting license that federal grant money matchestrue
subsistence hunters and senior hunters are exempt from paying
this fee.
MS. TORKELSON detailed when the bill initially passed, the
surcharge included a sunset date that is set to expire soon, the
bill before the committee repeals that sunset date to keep the
successful program going into the future. Every year the
surcharge brings in approximately $1 million in user funds that
leverages another $3 million from the Pittman-Robertson (PR)
match grant in federal money.
She summarized that passage of SB 22 ensures that the IM program
can be self-sustainable and user-funded into the future so it
can continue to protect Alaska's wildlife populations and
promote food security across the state.
CHAIR REVAK invited Commissioner Vincent-Lang to address the
committee.
3:35:36 PM
DOUGLAS VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that the Alaska Legislature
recognized the importance of wild game meat to Alaskans as a
food source, and consistent with Article VIII, Section 4 of the
Alaska Constitution, passed the Intensive Management (IM) Law in
1994; this law requires the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) and the Alaska Board of Game to identify moose, caribou,
and deer populations that are especially important food sources
and to ensure that the populations remain large enough to
provide food security for Alaskans through an adequate sustained
harvest.
He said recognizing the potential for federal interference in
state IM programs, the department funded its IM program under
the IM law from a series of capital projects. However, as the
department expended capital funds and new funds were not
allocated, hunters became concerned about the future of IM in
Alaska.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG noted because of the success of the
state IM programs and increasing ungulateprincipally caribou
and moosepopulations on state land, hunters requested the
addition of an IM surcharge to their licenses. The hunters made
their request to ensure that dedicated funds were available for
assessing and conducting IM activities, especially given the
reluctance of federal managers to conduct IM on their lands or
using federal funds to conduct IM.
He detailed the legislature added an IM surcharge to hunting
licenses in 2016. The department has collected surcharges since
January 1, 2017 and used the funds to fulfill its obligations
under the state's IM law. IM programs that enhance habitat or
manage predators are a core element of game management on state
lands. He emphasized IM programs also include habitat
enhancement in addition to predator control. The department has
done several habitat enhancement projects across Alaska aimed at
improving ungulate numbers.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG noted in addition to reliable funding,
careful planning is essential to ensuring the state's IM
programs are both effective and defendable. IM protocol guides
all IM programs to ensure decisions are based on the best
available science. IM allows the department to put food on the
table of Alaskansone of his priorities as commissionerand is
essential to meeting subsistence needsthe department's first
priority.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG asked the committee to consider the
success the department has had in meeting the food needs of
Alaskans via the Fortymile caribou herd; this herdrestored
through IM effortsput over $2.6 million of healthy meat in the
freezers of Alaskans.
He added the IM surcharge funds also ensures the department can
implement the state's IM law without interference from federal
oversight. He pointed out two thirds of Alaskan lands are
federal and are off limits to IM activities as the federal
government manages for natural diversity and not human use,
despite a rural subsistence priority. There is no assurance one
can feed one's family under a natural diversity objective.
3:36:24 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the committee meeting.
3:38:59 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG explained that SB 22 repeals the
sunset of the IM surcharge. The IM proposal does not have any
additional cost to the department. However, should the surcharge
sunset, the department will see a significant decrease in its
revenue to pay for IM and its ability to meet it obligations
under the IM law.
He detailed revenue from the IM surcharge totaled approximately
$1 million in each of the last 3 calendar years with most funds
used to match Pittman-Robertson (PR) dollars at a 1:3 ratio to
conduct and defend the science the department uses to implement
IM; that means absent of an appropriation for the match, the
department could stand to lose nearly $4 million, hampering its
ability to conduct IM activities.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said he urges the committee's support
for SB 22, an important piece of legislation.
CHAIR REVAK thanked the commissioner for his comments.
SENATOR KIEHL noted that the department's materials contain
references to research by the Division of Subsistence. He asked
if any portion of the surcharge helps fund the division's
activities on which some of those materials rely on.
3:40:35 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered the department has not funded
the actual collection of subsistence information using the
surcharge. However, the department focuses on providing animals
to meet the subsistence needs because the department is
collecting the research information irrespective of whether an
IM law is on the books, and funds come from other sources.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG added once the department has
determined [amounts reasonably necessary for subsistence] (ANS)
for each of the department's hunts across Alaska, the department
then looks at whether there are defined-problem cases with the
IM law, then the department deals with it though the collected
IM funds to provide food on the landscape for those subsistence
hunters.
SENATOR KIEHL noted the commissioner considered the [Fortymile
caribou herd] as a successful IM program. He said he thinks the
Alaska Peninsula caribou herd is another IM success.
He asked Commissioner Vincent-Lang to highlight some of the
lessons the department has learned from less successful IM
programs and how the department is avoiding those problems in
its current programs.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG detailed he has been involved with IM
since its protocol development when the law passed. He said one
of the things he has learned is not to underestimate the
necessity for local support in the IM programs because too often
the IM requirement relies solely on the department. However, a
successful IM program must have community engagementthe
department's most successful programs had community-level
engagements.
3:42:58 PM
SENATOR STEVENS noted habitat enhancement is a fairly small bit
of the overall spending from the IM program, although it seems
really important. He asked what the department has used the
money for in habitat enhancement and what the future plans are
for that money.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered when the IM law first passed,
the department focused on predation control. However, the second
critical equal element towards improving ungulate numbers on the
landscape is habitat.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG noted habitat can degrade over time
largely due to the desire to not let fires burn on the
landscape. One of the things the department has focused on is
trying to find areas where fire can occur for landscape
restoration. However, a lot of people do not like smoke around
Fairbanks, Anchorage, or getting into villagesthe department
certainly does not want cabins to burn down.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said one of the things the department
did last year in the Kenai Peninsula was to look at building
firebreaks. The firebreaks allow for controlling naturally
caused fires to protect community health and hopefully restore
habitat for moose and caribou to thrive. The federal government
is not excited about killing predators on their lands. However,
the department has found ways to deal with firebreaks and
habitat manipulation with its federal partners.
He noted the department is looking at different opportunities in
the Alphabet Hillsthat have some fires thereto improve
habitat. Also, a patchwork of landownership requires cooperation
to look at habitat manipulation for the Mulchatna caribou herd
which is dismally downwhere just predator removal will not
solve that.
3:45:26 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if the capital and general fund spending
[for the IM program] prior to FY2018 was roughly $1 million.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered yes. He detailed that about 8
years ago there was a capital project for about $4 million that
the department could spend over 4 yearsapproximately $1 million
a year.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked the following questions:
• When the [surcharge] first started three or four years, was
the idea to capture the existing PR funds?
• Does the state anticipate the same level of support for PR
funds coming from the federal government in the future?
• Is the State leaving dollars on the table by not supporting
a higher surcharge to capture the federal funds that are
not in the current capital or operation budgets?
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG noted he was involved in the effort as
a private citizen to get the surcharge in place. He said he
thinks there were two rationales that the private sector was
look at. One was to use PR funds to match surcharge funds to
conduct the science that must go into making sure the predator
control programs are effective and defendable. However, the
intent was not to tie federal funding to actual predator removal
and federal thoughts on that process.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG explained there was a desireat least
from the public's point of viewto have a pot of money to do the
actual predator removal using state license dollars and have
enough money for the science with PR matching funds. He said, "I
think we have done a pretty good job over time on that match."
3:47:57 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted there was a rush during the Obama
administration to buy firearms and ammunition. He asked if he
anticipates another rush purchase firearms and ammunition, which
would increase the size of the PR fund at the federal and state
levels.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied he thinks a rush to buy
ammunition and guns is starting, and he suspects that the PR
fund will increase again, especially with increased talks for
potential gun regulation.
SENATOR KIEHL remarked the increase [in purchasing ammunition
and guns] has been since October, at least.
He said since the bill would eliminate a sunset date, he looked
at the department's website and noted several programs that had
either ended, gone inactive, or have been active for a very long
time. He asked what the department's decision-making process is
for those programs.
3:49:41 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG noted the Alaska Board of Game's
adoption of IM targets across the state is not in regulation for
various caribou, moose, and deer population. When the department
is not meeting its IM targets, the department has a statutory
obligation to report back to the Board of Game about why the
department thinks it is not meeting those targets. The
department conducts an assessment as whether it believes its
limiting factor to meet the Board of Game targets are habitat
limited, predator limited, or other factors.
He stated if the factors for not meeting targets is predator or
habitat limited, the department comes back with a plan to the
Board of Game to address what the department thinks is necessary
to get ungulate populations up to its harvest objectives that
the board specifies. The department has an obligation every year
to report back to the Board of Game as to how well it is doing
towards an adopted IM plan.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG noted some casesfor instance the
Mulchatna caribou herdthe department has an IM plan in place.
The department was conducting IM on the landscape for wolves,
but in some respects the department is unsuccessful in some
programs simply because the amount of state land versus the
amount of federal land, the department is not making the
difference alone with that. The department goes back and
reevaluates whether habitat improvement could be a mechanism to
start touching some of those federal lands.
He pointed out programs turn on and off based on whether the
department is meeting its population and harvest objectives, but
secondarily if the department can fulfill its IM plan. He said
if the department cannot [fulfill its IM plan], the department
turns the program off because, "Why should the department spend
money on it?"
3:51:44 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked, should the bill pass and hypothetically
things go great and the department hits its management targets
in the vast majority of areas in the state, if he has the
ability to switch off the surcharge and if so, what happens to
the money.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered he does not see the surcharge
going away simply because the IM statute is there. If the
legislature repeals the IM statute and the foundation for it,
then he agrees that there is very little need for the IM
surcharge. However, the IM law is in the booksit is kind of an
unfunded mandate to the department to fulfill its obligations
under that statuteand the surcharge helps the department
fulfill its mandate under the IM law.
SENATOR KIEHL referenced the rosy scenario he previously painted
and asked him to explain the department's requirement for the
[surcharge] if the department does not have predator removal or
habitat manipulation costs. He said, "Then we are talking about,
if memory serves, eight to nine percent of the wildlife
conservation's fund source."
3:53:37 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered he is not seeing that rosy
picture in the next decade and a half. He said he sees a growing
population, an increased demand for ungulates on state land, and
an increased desire by the state's federal partners to not
manage for need on the landscape.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG added he does not believe the state is
going to be able to meet the [ungulate] demand without some type
of active management program. He said he sees the necessity of
having the [management program] tool in the toolbox, but without
money the tool is useless. He noted he watches the program
carefully. He added he thinks the department has the safeguards
in place to ensure the program is employed in a scientific and
discretionary manner.
He said what he has seen over his two-and-a-half-decade
involvement in wildlife is that [management programs] work and
are something he supports to put food on Alaskans' tables while
meeting the state's subsistence needs in rural Alaska.
SENATOR MICCICHE noted he talked earlier about the increased
willingness for the refuge and federal land managers to work
towards solutions, particularly in the wildland that is more
adjacent to populated areas like on the Kenai Peninsula. He
added when the commissioner talked about potential growing
demand, he does not think that is going to happen overnight.
He asked if demand does occur, have the [management plans] been
active enough to not only reduce the threat to communities, but
to create more habitat. He explained he asked the question
because he has been in those conversations and said, "Things
that were not only a no but a hell no a few years back have
become things that seem possible today."
3:56:12 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered he is more optimistic than he
was in the past. He noted the Kenai Peninsula has some fire
burning because they recognized [fires] got out of control and
they now need some firebreaks. When dealing with diversity
mandates that means letting nature run its course, which means
having fires with the realization for having some controls
around those fires. He said he is optimistic that the [state] is
moving towards a commonality in management regimes that
hopefully results in increased moose numbers on the Kenai
Peninsula that goes into people's freezers.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG referenced the demand comments and
noted how amazed he is in Alaskans' desire to put meat in their
freezers based on what happened at the Fortymile hunt this year.
The Fortymile hunt clearly showed a pent-up demand for Alaskans
to put food in their freezers.
SENATOR MICCICHE stated he would not have supported removing a
termination date in 2016, and he would not have supported the
legislation without the legislature's ability to experiment with
the functionality of the program and how successful it could be.
However, with four years he is very comfortable moving SB 22 at
this point.
He noted in 2016 he was concerned with not providing the
department with a certain level of funding and what its outcome
would look like. However, he is no longer concerned and thinks
the program is positive and needs to go forward.
CHAIR REVAK explained he brought SB 22 forward for many of the
reasons [Senator Micciche] addressed. He added now is not the
time to leave federal dollars on the table. The [IM program]
definitely fills a gap.
3:59:04 PM
CHAIR REVAK opened public testimony on HB 22.
[A technical difficulty occurred with public testimony.]
4:01:32 PM
At ease
4:01:45 PM
CHAIR REVAK called the committee back to order.
4:02:00 PM
RONALD SOMERVILLE, representative, Territorial Sportsmen,
Juneau, Alaska, testified in support of SB 22. He noted that
Senator Kiehl asked him to present the organization's comments
on Senate Bill 150 from the previous legislative session, which
mirrors SB 22.
He said Territorial Sportsmen supports SB 22 for a variety of
reasons. One reasonillustrated by the commissioneris the
program requires funding to keep meeting the responsibility
dictated in the IM law.
MR. SOMERVILLE detailed his background as follows:
• 24 years with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
o Deputy Commissioner
o Director of Wildlife
• Served on the Board of Game for six years
MR. SOMERVILLE noted the new IM program started while he served
on the Board of Game, the program that is still in effect today.
The board stressed the need for funds continually through the
process to determine if predator control or predator management
is necessary, to look at other alternatives, and to determine
whether they were successful.
He addressed the question posed earlier in the committee meeting
on what happens if the program needs money if everything is
okay. He explained constant populations monitoringespecially
extreme deer and moose drops due to weather conditionsrequires
constant funding to provideif neededa recovery process and
plan.
4:04:14 PM
JOHN STURGEON, advocate, Safari Club International-Alaska
Chapter, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of SB 22. He
stated wild food sources such as moose and caribou are extremely
important for Alaskans40 percent for rural Alaska and is
becoming an important organic and heathy protein source for
urban Alaskans. He said, "You cannot beat the wild game for
being healthy and organic."
He noted the IM program has proven to be a very good way to
increase game numbers for use as food sources for both urban and
rural Alaskans. Also, with the fiscal short falls facing
Alaskans, whenever possible, user groups should pay their own
way; the funds generated from hunting license surcharges does
exactly that and is a small price to pay for proper management
of Alaska's wildlife.
4:06:00 PM
SAM ROHRER, President, Alaska Professional Hunters Association,
Kodiak, Alaska, testified in support of SB 22. He said IM is a
critical management tool for putting food on the table of
Alaskans and designed to prevent ungulate populations from
decliningsuch as a disequilibrium with predator populationsand
cannot provide a harvestable surplus.
He stated the Alaska Professional Hunters Association (APHA)
believes that wildlife managers need the tools that IM provides
to monitor and potentially adjust the ratios of predator to
prey. Meeting human needsmost critically subsistence needswill
not occur without those tools. IM programs require extensive and
exhaustive population assessments as well as analysis of the
factors leading up to the severe ungulate population declines
efforts that cost money.
MR. ROHRER noted APHA was part of the 2015 collation that
rallied behind Representative Dave Talerico's legislation that
raised hunting licenses and tag fees; that legislation, in
addition to doubling non-resident fees, created a revenue stream
to fund IM. The IM surcharge started out as an experiment but
now it has become a critical revenue stream to support healthy
and productive ungulate populations statewide.
He said APHA supports the current IM surcharge of $10 for
residents and $30 for nonresidents, and the removal of the
sunset clause offered in SB 22.
4:08:15 PM
MARK RICHARDS, Executive Director, Resident Hunters of Alaska,
Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in support of SB 22. He said he
agrees with the commissioner that if the IM statute is still
law, the law requires the Board of Game to implement IM programs
under certain conditions.
He said Resident Hunters of Alaska (RHAK) understands that some
may not agree with predator control programs overall, but the
design of the programs help put food on the tables of Alaskans
and RHAK certainly supports that.
He addressed not having a termination date and noted the
legislature has given the Board of Game authority to exempt such
things as brown bear tags to residents. He suggested if the
termination date came up later, the legislature may consider
providing the board with the authority to exempt the surcharge
if the department no longer needs it.
MR. RICHARDS agreed with Senator Kiehl on limited ammunition
supplies. He said the state needs to use the additional PR funds
and the IM program is a prime way to use those funds.
4:10:18 PM
ROD ARNO, Policy Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, Palmer,
Alaska, testified in support of moving SB 22 through the
legislature so there is no lapse in funding. The council worked
on the IM statute in the 1990swhen food security was not a buzz
wordand SB 22 tries to make sure that the people who benefit
from it continue to help putting into it.
MR. ARNO thanked Senator Micciche for addressing a safeguard for
the surcharge to prove itself out. He added the surcharge has
received the support of the people who are paying the surcharge
money.
MR. ARNO said a good thing to think aboutas Senator Micciche
saidis taking care of rural subsistence needs. He added low-
income licenses have increased in rural and urban Alaska, they
do not pay the surcharge, but they benefit from it. He noted
low-income urban hunters can only hunt in areas close to town
that are road connected, that is where the conflicts are, but
those areas need harvestable surpluses to take care of all
Alaskans equally.
He commended the committee members for their knowledge about
what the IM statute was supposed to be and for asking the
department to speak to the fire.
4:14:21 PM
CHAIR REVAK closed public testimony on SB 22.
He noted that identical legislation made it through the Senate
unanimously last year.
4:14:45 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to report SB 22, work order 32-LS0208\A,
out of committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
4:14:59 PM
CHAIR REVAK found no objection and SB 22 moved from the Senate
Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 22 Sponsor Statement 2-12-21.pdf |
HRES 3/24/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2021 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/2/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 2/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 22 |
| SB 22 ADFG Letter of Support 2.9.21.pdf |
SRES 2/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 22 |
| SB 22 APHA Letter of Support 2.4.21.pdf |
SFIN 3/2/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 2/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 22 |
| SB 22 DWC IM Activities and Spending FY18-FY20 Support 2.10.21.pdf |
HRES 3/24/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2021 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/2/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 2/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 22 |
| SB 22 RHAK Letter of Support 1.27.21.pdf |
SFIN 3/2/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 2/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 22 |
| SB 22 Fiscal Note DF&G WLC.pdf |
SRES 2/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 22 |
| SB22 DF&G IM Info Sheet Support 2.5.21.pdf |
HRES 3/24/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2021 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/2/2021 9:00:00 AM SRES 2/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 22 |
| SB 22 DF&G Hunting License Surcharge Revenue 1.21.21.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2021 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 22 |
| SB 22 FAC Support letter 2.12.21.pdf |
SRES 2/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 22 |
| SB22 SCI Support Letter 2.15.21.pdf |
SRES 2/15/2021 3:30:00 PM |
SB 22 |