Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
03/23/2022 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 | |
| SB230 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 230 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 230-TRAPPING CABINS: FEE FOR CONSTRUCTION
3:36:05 PM
CHAIR REVAK announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 230
"An Act establishing a $25 fee to construct or use a trapping
cabin on state land; and exempting trapping cabin permittees
from additional land use fees."
3:36:45 PM
INTIMAYO HARBISON, Staff, Senator Josh Revak, Alaska State
Legislature, Anchorage, Alaska, presented SB 130 on behalf of
the committee. He paraphrased the following sponsor statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Senate Bill 230 would resolve a number of issues that
have arisen since Trapping Cabin Construction Permits
and their fees were first established in the 1970's.
Statute currently authorizes DNR to collect a $10
annual fee for Trapping Cabin Construction Permits.
However, because this Statute has not been revised
since inception, the Department does not have the
authority to issue Trapping Cabin Construction Permits
for already constructed trapping cabins. As a result,
many cabins originally constructed for trapping must
be reauthorized as a Land Use Permit. Land Use Permits
come with higher associated costs and places undue
burden on the trappers in the State.
SB 230 would raise the permit fee from $10 to $25,
clarify that the Department could not issue further
associated fees on top of the $25 permit fee, and
further clarify that trapping cabins must be issued
under the Trapping Cabin Construction Permit program.
MR. HARBISON presented the following sectional analysis for SB
230:
Section 1
Establishes a fee schedule subject to AS 38.95.075(b),
38.95.080(f). These Statutes relate to Trapping Cabin
Construction Permits and their associated fees.
Section 2
Amends the current Trapping Cabin Construction Permit
fee from $10 to $25.
Section 3
Creates a new subsection that disallows the Department
from charging additional fees to permits issued under
this section.
Section 4
Conditions for issuing permits are amended to clarify
the number of cabins a person "may construct" per
permit, rather than a number of cabins "per person"
per permit. Clarifies the fee per permit is $25.
Section 5
Adds a new subsection to clarify the department may
not charge additional fees for Trapping Cabin
Construction Permits.
Section 6
Clarifies that the Department is the Department of
Natural Resources.
3:39:58 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked why the cost of the permit was $25
instead of an inflation-based increase.
MR. HARBISON deferred the question to the department.
3:40:37 PM
CHRISTY COLLES, Chief of Operations, Division of Mining, Land,
and Water, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska,
said she was unable to explain the derivation of the $25 fee; it
did not come from the department.
CHAIR REVAK interjected that his office had a number of
conversations with user groups and this was an effort to find
the sweet spot that was satisfactory to the department and the
trappers, some of whom might not be as affluent as others. He
added that the trapping community generally wanted to make sure
they contributed to the processes necessary to make the program
work.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked what it costs the department to
administer these permits and how that compares to the cost of
the permit itself.
CHAIR REVAK asked Ms. Colles to answer Senator Kawasaki's
question and what the total upfront cost of the lease would be
if the fee were raised to $25.
3:43:27 PM
MS. COLLES provided the following response:
So the total cost that somebody would have to pay
upfront, you were correct in stating that the current
$10 thats set in statute under 38.05.075 is paid up
front and so that would be a fee of $100. So that's
for the $10 set in statute, but we do have other fees
currently. But I think that might be maybe a different
question that I could answer. But then when it comes
to Senator Kawasaki's question in regards to the cost
to administer the program - we do have some fees that
we set up in regulation so we have the fee set in
statute under 38.05 - oh sorry 38.95.080, which sets
it at $10 and we look at that as $10 annually for the
actual use of the land. But then we have actually
added in an application fee under our regulations.
We have two application fees so under the 38.95.075,
which is for preexisting cabins, we have an
application fee of $160. So that would be for
administering or adjudicating an application that
comes in to us every ten years somebody can apply for
this, so it'd be $160. And for a new construction
cabin, that would be $400 for an application fee.
That's where you'd get the cost I guess that the
department has for administering the program. Most of
the initial administration comes up front when we're
doing the adjudication of the application. We still do
work on those annually, maybe look at what people have
for pictures theyll send to us or other information
to show they're still using the cabin for trapping.
But those fees are our annual fees and those do vary
based off of which statute they are currently
authorized under.
So if they have the existing cabin statute, that one
is set at $240 annually. That one they would not have
to pay up front. That one we could set that up as an
annual payment that they could pay every year. But
under the construction cabin statute, since the fee is
in statute and it's $10 and it would probably be more
difficult of somebody being reminded every year to pay
$10, we do have them pay that upfront.
3:44:03 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF joined the meeting.
3:46:19 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked what the $10 fee is used for if the $160
fee in regulation is for adjudicating an application for a
trapping cabin construction permit.
MS. COLLES answered that the $10 annual fee is the cost to have
the structure on state land.
3:47:07 PM
SENATOR KIEHL offered his understanding that there are two kinds
of permits for trapping cabins. One is for cabins that existed
in the 80s and earlier and the other is for building a new
trapping cabin. He asked how many of each of these two types of
permits exist.
MS. COLLES answered that there are 71 permits on the books for
trapping cabins. The statute for existing cabins has the
prescriptive requirement that the applicant had to have used the
cabin for trapping on a regular basis prior to August 1, 1984,
so not many permits are issued under that statute anymore.
Because that date is set in statute, the department is issuing
most permits under AS 38.95.080 and there is nothing in that
statute that specifically speaks to existing cabins. That
statute is about building a trapping cabin. It's been a problem
for the department to issue authorizations to people for
existing trapping cabins that either don't have an owner or the
owner doesn't trap anymore and wants to give their cabin to
somebody else to use.
3:49:06 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked if she said the cost of the use permit for
cabins that were built prior to August 1, 1984 was $240 per year
or $240 every ten years.
MS. COLLES answered that the $240 is an annual fee. Because the
statute doesnt have an associated fee, it is set in regulation
and treated similar to other authorizations.
SENATOR KIEHL observed that the fiscal note says that on average
the department issues just one authorization per year under AS
38.95.075 so the annual income for that is $240 per year. For
the trapping cabin construction permits under AS 38.95.080, the
statute says it's a 10 year permit with succeeding 10-year
renewal options. He asked how many times a permit under that
statute could be renewed.
MS. COLLES answered that there is no limitation on the number of
renewals the department could issue; it is dependent on the
applicant's use of the site.
3:51:02 PM
SENATOR KIEHL noted that the bill does not allow any additional
land use fee under either AS 38.95.075 or AS 38.95.080, but both
Ms. Colles and the trapper's association letter described an
application fee. He asked if the application fee was a land use
fee and whether or not the bill would prohibit that fee.
MS. COLLES answered that the department interprets land use fees
as the annual fee charged for the use of the land. The bill
would prevent the department from employing square footage or
visitor day use fees that it has for other programs, but it
would be able to charge an application fee since that is a one-
time fee for the adjudication of that application.
CHAIR REVAK added that the idea was to allay user group concerns
by preventing the department from potentially imposing
unreasonable fees.
SENATOR KIEHL responded that if there is a $400 fee to apply for
a permit that currently costs $100 for ten years (and $250 for
ten years if the bill were to pass), then the fee itself might
be out of line.
3:52:54 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if the cost for the other personal use
cabin types on state land was still $300 per year or if those
had gone up over time. He specifically mentioned the program
that no longer exists for personal use cabins on state land.
MS. COLLES answered that those fees have increased but she
didn't have the exact numbers with her. She recalled that the
fee started at $100 and was raised to $400 or $500, and perhaps
an associated square footage.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he mentioned it to provide a comparison,
because the fees associated with the trapper cabin program are
much lower.
CHAIR REVAK asked the record to reflect that Senator von Imhof
had joined the committee some time ago.
3:54:03 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked where he could find all the different
programs that provide an opportunity for Alaskans to use state
lands, the associated fees and lease terms, and the caveats for
each of the programs.
CHAIR REVAK asked Ms. Calles to send the information to his
office and he would see that it was distributed to the members.
MS. COLLES agreed to compile the information that DNR had for
cabin programs on state land.
CHAIR REVAK turned to invited testimony on SB 230.
3:55:53 PM
RANDALL ZARNKE, President, Alaska Trappers Association (ATA),
Fairbanks, Alaska, stated that ATA represents trappers statewide
and he was speaking in support of SB 230. He highlighted that
trapping is an Alaskan lifestyle and that the cabins the bill
talks about are not luxurious. Some are little more than a rough
shelter, but in remote rural areas they can be crucial to the
success and sometimes survival of the trapper.
MR. ZARNKE said ATA has been involved with the cabin permit
system since its inception in the 1970s and at that time the DNR
policies and staff were reasonable. That changed about five
years ago. The first he heard about it was when a rural ATA
member said his application for the renewal of a cabin permit
had been rejected. The explanation was that DNR was no longer
authorized to renew permits. He said it was a surprise that
after 40 years of issuing and renewing permits, DNR determined
that the statute did not allow it to issue renewals. It was a
further surprise that what should have been a simple fix was
not.
MR. ZARNKE relayed that DNR instituted the application fee a few
years ago, but ATA members didnt receive any information about
the reason for the changes. What they did learn was that the
procedures were weren't the same in all regions. DNR staff gave
trappers in Southcentral different messages than the trappers in
the Interior. He said ATA has been searching for a fix for
several years and the current draft of SB 230 is not entirely
satisfactory. ATA would like to have permits be transferable
within a family or to a trapping partner, and for the cabin size
limit to be adjustable to accommodate a family that wanted to
live together on the trapline. The advice ATA received was that
those additions might jeopardize passage, so the bill was scaled
back to the current draft.
MR. ZARNKE said that ATA supports SB 230 because it will bring
meaningful reforms and get the trapping cabin permit program
back in line with the original legislative intent. He expressed
appreciation for the committee taking the lead role in resolving
the problem.
3:59:49 PM
CHAIR REVAK asked him to speak to how likely it is that trappers
have multiple cabins for safety because of severely cold weather
and long traplines.
4:00:50 PM
MR. ZARNKE answered that every trapline is a little different,
but the longer traplines may have a home cabin and smaller line
cabins along the trail. Line cabins are often little more than a
10' x 10' windowless box with a small woodstove, but they
provide a place to spend the night along a long trail.
CHAIR REVAK asked how many line cabins a trapper typically might
have.
MR. ZARNKE replied it depends on the length of the trail the
trapper travels, but a trail that is longer than 50 miles would
probably have one line cabin and a 100 mile trail would likely
have two or three line cabins.
4:02:20 PM
CHAIR REVAK opened public testimony on SB 230.
4:02:42 PM
LYNN KEOGH JR., Representing Self, Wasilla, Alaska, stated that
he was a fulltime trapper during the winter and he was speaking
in support of SB 230. The bill gives DNR clear direction to the
legislature's intent that trapping cabin permits are issued
under their own statutes, and it establishes consistent permit
requirements. He said it has been well documented that other
user groups have benefited from these cabins as emergency
shelters, potentially saving lives. He relayed his own
experience of being mauled by a grizzly bear and making his way
to a cabin to wait by a warm stove for a flight instead of
waiting out in the elements. He urged the committee to support
SB 230.
4:04:00 PM
CANDY CARAWAY, Representing Self, Beluga, Alaska, stated that
her husband Joe is a trapper and they both support SB 230. His
trapper's cabin is referred to as the 911 cabin because it's
been his rescue multiple times. Today he typically runs the
trapline with his grandchildren and it gives the family an added
measure of comfort knowing that they have access to needed
warmth and shelter. When they renewed the permit after a decade
they were shocked to learn that the cost had increased greatly.
The details and the process seemed unnecessary for a renewal.
She didn't know about inconsistent policies between regions, but
isn't surprised. One thing SB 230 doesn't do is allow for
transfer of the permit. Their kids and grandkids have spent a
lot of time at the cabin and consider it their own because they
helped build it. To think that the cabin can't be passed along
to the family when her husband passes is a major flaw in the
program. She expressed hope that the committee seriously
considers the bill and makes the necessary changes to align with
the original intent.
4:06:20 PM
PETE BUIST, Representing Self, Fairbanks, Alaska, stated support
for SB 230 that seeks to restore the original intent of the
trapper cabin construction statute. He relayed that he helped
draft the original legislation and has considerable insight in
the way DNR has administered the law. As a retiree with 30
experience working with DNR, he knows how DNR managers and
employees feel about the law. He said DNR's corporate culture is
part of the problem; many seem to hate the idea that trappers
are able to legally build cabins on state land. With notable
exceptions, DNR employees do their best to avoid issuing these
permits. He said they slow walk adjudications, they invent
terms, conditions and fees, and generally discourage trappers
from applying. But as others have said, these cabins are needed
for safety.
MR. BUIST recounted that DNR was unwilling to work with trappers
even in the early 1970s. Trappers looking for a way to build a
legal line cabin were told that there was no legal way to issue
such an interest in state land. The Alaska Trappers Association
got involved and helped draft the legal framework for the
statute to allow the legal construction of trapper cabins. DNR's
response was to take two years to promulgate regulations and use
the lack of regulations as an excuse to avoid issuing permits.
Trappers who tried to apply were told there wasn't an
application form. Trapper Larry Hensley from McGrath sent a
letter threatening to sue DNR and stating that the letter should
be considered a formal application for a permit. Months later
Mr. Hensley was issued the first trapper cabin construction
permit. DNR eventually developed a formal application and
regulations, but even then DNR employees continued to make it
difficult. The problems persist to this day. ATA has met with
DNR several times at the regional, division, and commissioner
levels and administrative changes have been promised, but it
hasn't happened.
MR. BUIST stated that if DNR would accept applications and issue
permits according to the existing statute there would be no need
to ask the legislature for help. That hasn't happened and SB 230
addresses the most pressing concerns.
4:10:28 PM
AL BARRETTE, Representing Self, Fairbanks, Alaska, stated that
he had trapped for more than 30 years in the Interior and he
found the discussion today interesting because the committee got
caught in the terminology the way the trapping community has.
People use the terms land use permits, trapping cabin permit,
land use statutes that are separate from trapping cabin
statutes, and then there are separate regulations for each
statute. He maintained that even if SB 230 were to pass, DNR
could still issue an application fee, even though the bill was
written to specifically not allow that.
MR. BARRETTE highlighted the importance of trap line cabins with
reasonable fees to support the cultural and economic aspects of
trapping, particularly in rural areas. These cabins allow the
trapper to look for fur in areas that are farther than 10-15
miles from their house or off the road system entirely.
MR. BARRETTE offered his perspective that DNR publicly noticed
the increases, but neither the current permit holders nor the
Alaska Trappers Association were notified. He pointed out that
many Alaskans don't read public notices every day, so many were
unaware of the change until they applied for a renewal. DNR
argues that it went through the proper process and nobody
challenged it, so thats how the new fee increases came about.
4:14:31 PM
CHAIR REVAK closed public testimony on SB 230.
SENATOR MICCICHE commented on the longstanding frustration the
various user groups have had with the department's attitude
toward the use of these and other types of cabins on state
lands, and that it was something that needed to be worked
through together. He said the legislature has been clear on the
appropriate uses of cabins on specifically designated state
lands and as such he appreciates the bill.
CHAIR REVAK relayed that the idea was to find a reasonable
balance between the use of state land and the cost of
administration. He agreed with the previous comment that there
were a number of issues related to the permitting process for
use of cabins on state lands. Some of the issues are specific to
individual permits, other solutions discussed in committee could
be applied more broadly. He expressed his hope to improve the
bills the committee had heard and strike a reasonable balance.
4:17:35 PM
CHAIR REVAK held the SB 230 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 230 Letter of Support, Alaska Trappers Association 3.15.2022.pdf |
SRES 3/23/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 230 |
| SB 230 Fiscal Note DNR 3.19.2022.pdf |
SRES 3/23/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 230 |
| SB 230 Sponsor Statement 3.23.2022.pdf |
SRES 3/23/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 230 |
| SB 230 Sectional Analysis 3.23.2022.pdf |
SRES 3/23/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 230 |