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." 2:52:13 PM Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee substitute for HB 137, Work Draft 29-LS0625\G (Bullard, 4/9/15). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, discussed the changes in the CS. She highlighted the first change that appeared in the bill title (page 1, lines 2 through 5) and read a segment of the title: "...the fish and game fund; providing for the repeal of the sport fishing surcharge and sport fishing facility revenue bonds; replacing the permanent sport fishing, hunting, or trapping..." The language meant that the $9 surcharge for hatcheries in Anchorage and Fairbanks, which was due to expire around 2021, would go directly on top of fishing licenses. The impact of the language change appeared in Sections 4, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 32. She directed attention to Section 34 and explained that the revisors of statute would be notified when the bond was paid off; the sections [Sections 4, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 32] were conditional and would only take effect when the bonds were paid off as shown in Section 35. Ms. Pierson pointed to lines 3 through 5 (page 1) related to replacing the permanent sport fishing, hunting, or trapping identification card for certain residents with an identification card that would be valid for three years. She explained that the senior card (for ages 62 and older) that was currently good for life, would require renewal every three years; the card would remain free of charge. Ms. Pierson moved to page 5, lines 1 through 4 and addressed language related to the low income license. She detailed there was a slightly different way for accounting for the specific license, which would be based on the most recent poverty guidelines set by the U.S. Department of Health and Social Services (instead of a set number) for the previous year. The next change was also on page 5 and related to the surcharge increase. The following change appeared on page 5, line 31 and related to nonresident hunting and fishing licenses. She stated that "there was now a 75 percent raise" in the licenses. She pointed to the difference shown on the entire page. Ms. Pierson addressed a change on page 6 associated with nonresident big game tags, which would receive a fee increase of 100 percent. She moved to a change on page 9 related to the fish and game conservation decal. She read from lines 15 through 19 on page 6: Subject to appropriation by the legislature, money received under this section may be used by the department to fund programs benefiting fish and wildlife conservation. Those programs may include fish and wildlife viewing, fish and wildlife education, and programs relating to fish and wildlife diversity. 2:57:24 PM Ms. Pierson continued to address the changes in the CS. She highlighted language on page 9 (lines 21 through 31) related to the renewal of free licenses for seniors. Co-Chair Thompson asked the bill sponsor to address the committee. He noted that public testimony would be heard at 9:00 a.m. the following Monday if it was not completed during the current meeting. REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, SPONSOR, explained that he had been inspired to offer the legislation because it was about the opportunity for Alaska residents to continue to enjoy the state's resources and to have the ability to participate in its hunting and fishing activities. He supported the changes made to the legislation and was happy with the CS. Co-Chair Thompson noted that there were multiple people from the department available to answer questions. Representative Kawasaki requested an updated fee spreadsheet showing current statute compared to different versions of the bill. Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony. 3:01:09 PM MIKE PETERSON, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in opposition to pages 4 through 6 of the CS pertaining to resident and nonresident fees. He believed the resident and nonresident fees could be doubled across the board. He shared that he hunted in Oregon and paid $148.50 for a nonresident hunting fee. He did not "blink an eye" at the charge because the money went towards keeping game up. He stated that it had been 20 years since the fees had been raised in Alaska and surmised that it could be another 20 years. 3:03:05 PM MITCH FALK, SELF, JUNEAU, supported the bill's premise, but opposed the recent CS. He agreed that the state needed to start raising money for its fish and game efforts. He believed residents should be included. He stated that there was a lot of money left on the table through the federal Pittman Robertson funds. He detailed that everyone throughout the U.S. paid the taxes on all sporting goods. He stressed that other states would use the funds if Alaska did not. He relayed that the federal money was a three to one matching fund. He stated that the $10 would bring in $30. He spoke to the lifetime licenses. He stated that most people in their 60s had much more money than people in their 20s. He thought the time may have come to sunset the free licenses for seniors. He had been told there had been 87,000 of the free licenses issued. He surmised that if a $10 renewal fee was charged every few years it was not too much to ask, especially given that residents received the annual Permanent Fund Dividend. 3:05:25 PM EDDY GRASSER, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL - ALASKA CHAPTER, JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to the current version of the bill. He relayed that a broad coalition of outdoor groups throughout the state had come together in support of an increase for fish and game licenses and tags. He appreciated the bill and Representative Talerico's efforts. He discussed that America had one of the best wildlife conservation programs in the world called the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation. He shared that the program had been instituted by various people including Teddy Roosevelt and others. He explained that a user-pay system had been created. He relayed that users had come before the legislature in the past to ask for an increase or to institute a license fee. He shared that sportsmen had talked Congress into creating the Pittman Robertson Act in 1937. He stressed that the act was passed during the Great Depression and individuals had much less money than people did in present times. He agreed with the prior testifiers that the fees in the CS were not high enough to capture federal Pittman Robertson funds. He believed the bill left significant money on the table in Pittman Robertson funds. He recommended increasing the fees. 3:08:49 PM RON SOMERVILLE, TERRITORIAL SPORTSMAN, JUNEAU, discussed that there had been two different proposals during the current session that both looked for a certain amount of money to match general fund money that may disappear from sport fish and wildlife. He stated that there were currently $12 million to $13 million in general funds in the two divisions. He shared that he had been the deputy commissioner for the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) under the Walter Hickel Administration and had been responsible for the budget. He discussed that the divisions competed with others and had lost all of their general funding during his time with the department. He explained that the sportsmen wanted the programs to continue and were willing to pay for them. He explained that one of the proposals had included resident tag fees; however, sportsmen believed it was more workable to move forward with a fairly sizable increase in license fees for residents and nonresidents in addition to an intensive management surcharge of $10 for all hunting licenses, which would sunset in three years. He shared two graphs with the committee (copy on file). He explained that the first graph showed Pittman Robertson money that was available at a ratio of 3 to 1 for wildlife. He detailed that the obligated money for fish and game was not sufficient to match the federal money (there was about $10 million in federal funds remaining on the table). He stated that there was a good chance a similar amount would remain in the current year. Mr. Somerville respected the bill sponsor's option, but he felt it was necessary to increase fees even more. He stated that the Territorial Sportsmen had consistently communicated the amount of money they wanted to generate and how to achieve the goal. He stated that there were many things that federal aid was not capable of funding, such as predator control. He discussed that the legislature had passed a law called intensive management requiring the department, where possible, to control predators to produce more game (particularly moose and caribou) for harvest by Alaskans. He highlighted the second graph relating to the current predator control program. Additionally, federal aid would not fund conflicts related to endangered species. He stated that endangered species conflicts related to much of the economic development concerns the state had about the expansion of the listing of endangered species in the state. He stressed that the regulatory process was complicated in Alaska and most of the Board of Fish and Board of Game processes; information and education programs; and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) implementation program could not be funded by federal aid. He spoke to federal overreach in the state. He stressed that it was important to generate enough fish and game money in order to pick up some of the critical programs. He emphasized that the contents of the current legislation was not sufficient. Mr. Somerville stated that the issue was not about urban versus rural areas. He stated that the predator control programs had been very successful in some areas. He used Unit 9 as a successful area where a decline in the caribou population had been stopped. He wanted the legislature to tell the departments which one of the programs it would like to see disappear if the funds could not be generated. He stressed that the programs were currently funded with general funds; it was necessary to generate additional fish and game funds to pick the programs up. 3:15:11 PM Representative Kawasaki referred to Mr. Grasser's comment about raising the non-resident fees. He observed that the original outdoor caucus's suggestions had been much higher. He referred to case law in the bill packet addressing that it was legal to charge nonresidents higher fees than residents. He specifically spoke to elk hunting and noted that nonresidents paid 25 times more than a resident. He wondered if the numbers were similar or in line with those in other states. Mr. Grasser replied that the organization he represented [Safari Club International] had offices nationwide. He relayed that there were states where the resident/nonresident ratio was far greater than 25 to 1. For example, a nonresident mule deer hunting tag in Arizona was $2,500. Representative Kawasaki stated that in version P [House Judiciary Committee CS] the suggestion was to increase the resident hunting fee to $40 and the nonresident fee to $125, which was roughly 3.5 to 4 times more. He believed the idea may be something to consider. He wondered if there were groups who thought that adding to the nonresident fees would reduce the number of out of state hunters in Alaska. Mr. Grasser answered that as long as raises for nonresidents were reasonable he did not see it as a road block to participation in hunting activities in Alaska. He noted that another member of the public signed up to testify may have a better answer as he was currently a hunting guide. Representative Gara spoke to the nonresident fees that seemed low. He asked if the group had a proposal on how much to increase the nonresident fees that would act as a disincentive to nonresident sportspersons. Mr. Grasser answered that the coalition had suggested a 100 percent increase in nonresident tag fees, rather than the 75 percent in the CS. For example, a brown bear tag would increase from $500 to $1000. He surmised that it could probably be even higher for brown bear tags, but not for all species. He noted there were other destinations people could hunt in North America; therefore, if the fee was increased too high, hunters would go to other locations. For example, hunting was available in British Columbia and Yukon Territories for Alaska Yukon moose, caribou, grizzly bear, Dall sheep, and mountain goat. 3:19:20 PM MATT ROBUS, SELF, JUNEAU, relayed that he was a board member of Territorial Sportsmen Inc., which was a local group; additionally, previously he served as the director of the Division of Wildlife with DFG. He believed the bill did not increase fees enough. He opined that at a minimum, the increases in the bill needed to account for inflation that had occurred since the last license fee increase 1993, which amounted to a 63 percent correction. He detailed that a $25 resident hunting license in 1993 was worth $41 at present; however, the state was still only collecting $25. He stated that the proposed increases in the CS and in the prior bill version were well below that level. He believed it was true that there would not be another chance to increase revenue to the Fish and Game Fund for another decade or two. He felt it was a substantial problem to not even catch up with inflation. He pointed out that the department needed to have sufficient money in the fund to match all of the federal Pittman Robertson and Dingle Johnson funds (wildlife and sport fish funds respectively) in order to maintain the heart of the survey and inventory programs that allowed the department to recommend to the boards how to set seasons and bag limits and to preserve as much opportunity as possible for Alaskans and nonresidents. He stated that if the federal money (that had increased radically in the past several years) was left on the table, the state would lose out on funds paid by sportspersons. The money was administered by the federal government, but it was generated by users. He reasoned that at a time when the state was having financial problems, the federal aid money would be a boon to the state. He believed the bill should be set at a level that would enable the state to take advantage of all of the federal money available. Mr. Robus shared that in the early 2000s the Wildlife Division had been depleted of all general funds; however, currently 13 percent of the wildlife and sport fish budgets were composed of general funds. He believed the general fund money would probably disappear; however, the jobs mandated by the legislature, such as intensive management, would not be possible without funding. He addressed the ability of the state to deal with endangered species initiatives or petitions (some of which he believed to be frivolous or mischievous) represented a real cost to the state. He detailed that it was difficult for the state to defend against them without the ability to do research to prove its side of the argument. He believed it was a unique moment, where an unprecedented coalition of outdoor oriented people were all asking to have the license and tag fees increased to the level shown in a coalition letter (copy on file). He noted that the coalition had included the fee level it believed was appropriate in order for the department to properly do its job and provide wildlife and fisheries opportunity to Alaskans and nonresident visitors. Co-Chair Thompson gave the gavel to Vice-Chair Saddler. 3:25:07 PM DOUG LARSEN, SELF, JUNEAU, believed the fees in the existing bill were not sufficient. He relayed that he had served as the director of the Division of Wildlife Conservation with DFG in the past. He relayed that based on his past work he had a good understanding of the budget challenges the division faced. I support the coalition's proposed rates and feel that the amounts in the existing bill are insufficient as others have testified to. I've heard there may be concerns among legislators about not wanting to raise resident fees too much. As a resident I appreciate that. However, if you look at the resident and nonresident fees and contributions, nonresident hunters have historically made up about 20 percent of the hunters that come to Alaska each year; however, they contribute about 75 percent of the funds to the Fish and Game Fund. Residents on the other hand, make up about 80 percent of the hunters in Alaska each year, but they contribute about 25 percent of the funds to the Fish and Game Fund. A similar relationship exists with the sports fishing fees. This isn't so much a reflection of inappropriately high nonresident fees, in fact as you heard from Mr. Grasser and others, compared to other states, Alaska was pretty reasonable in that regard. Rather, it's a reflection of inappropriately low resident fees. That's why I'm supporting the fee increases proposed by the coalition. I retired last October from the Department of Fish and Game and my income is now less than it was while I was working. Nonetheless, like many other Alaskans, I'm willing and prepared to dig deeper into my pocket to pay a higher amount to ensure that programs like surveying inventory, intensive management, ESA, and access defense remain viable. This is not the first time, I think it's important to note, that this fee increase idea has come forward. Efforts were contemplated during Mr. Robus's tenure and during mine, and more recently during Doug Vincent-Lang's tenure as director. However, as has been noted, up until now we couldn't find agreement among the user groups. At this point, there is strong support for higher both resident and nonresident fees. In my mind, as Mr. Robus said, this is a huge difference from what we've faced in the past. I think it's important to make a quick note about the IM surcharge concept. I'm not sure whether IM surcharge is the correct terminology to use, quite frankly I know that some people get very anxious when they hear the term intensive management. Just like others get anxious when they hear the term conservation pass or decal. The reality is that funds that go into the Fish and Game Fund will and should be used for surveying inventory, intensive management, and wildlife diversity. Intensive management was a broader application than just predator control; it involves habitat assessment, predator/prey assessments to determine whether in fact predator control would even be a useful way to increase populations as Mr. Somerville related earlier. The state receives $2 million to $3 million annually from federal state wildlife grants funds. Those funds, like Pittman Robertson must be matched by state funds. Absent sufficient GF or CIPs that means a need for more GF funds, which means sufficient increases in the fees. Money deposited into the Fish and Game Fund from a conservation pass or decal can be used to match state wildlife grants (SWG) dollars. In the past SWG dollars were matched by state funds to conduct research on a variety of un-hunted species and has been successful at preempting ESA listings. Examples include, yellow- billed loons, black oyster catchers, bats, [indecipherable], murrelets, stellar sea lions. More recently funds are being used to study Southeast Alaska wolves to inform a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Listings of game or non-game species have huge implications for hunting and trapping as well as for mineral and well exploration and extraction and timber harvesting. Obviously huge economic implications. Mr. Chairman, the last thing I want to highlight is, I had the privilege a few months ago to serve on the governor's transition team for wildlife. While we had a number of individuals that came to the table with very different opinions about things and backgrounds, the thing was that there were several points that there was consensus and agreement on. That included the need to increase and diversify revenue to the Division of Wildlife Conservation specifically (it was a wildlife committee). The conservation pass that has been contemplated is a way to do that; to diversify and bring other users into fold to help with the funding. Also, the group said that there was a need to expand and enhance intensive management. Specifically, expand intensive management aspects not just for predator control, but for habitat assessment and to look at the predator/prey relationships that are so important to that whole program. That's what intensive management entails. That's where the concept of an IM surcharge, or a wildlife conservation surcharge, or something to that effect could be very valuable. That's the reason for its inclusion in some of the discussions that have occurred relative to the fee increases. Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony. 3:31:12 PM THOR STACEY, ALASKA PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS' ASSOCIATION, JUNEAU, shared information about the association that represented hunting guides in Alaska. He communicated that the state's hunting guiding industry brought in approximately $80 million per year; half of the economic effects were felt in rural Alaska. He relayed that according to a recent McDowell Group report, 89 percent of Alaska's active hunting guides were Alaska residents; however, 95-plus percent of clients were nonresidents. He stated that as part of the coalition of sporting groups, the association was comfortable supporting a 100 percent increase in nonresident hunter license and tags. Additionally, the association was comfortable supporting or slightly exceeding the inflation rate from 1993 until present. He explained that guides had to buy a resident hunting and professional hunting license biannually. There were two primary concepts at the core that the association participated in continuously, including federal overreach. He stated that without an adequately funded DFG and without the ability to exert the association's role as stewards of Alaska's resources, land, and animals, the state fell victim to federal encroachment. He addressed that without the ability to self-fund wildlife programs, the guides were at the mercy of other factors that contribute to the general fund, such as oil taxation. The association wanted good, sound wildlife management to continue regardless of oil flow and pricing. He stated that by increasing the fees to the higher amount, sportsmen had the ability to isolate the state's programs from the vagaries of oil production and price. 3:33:56 PM AL BARRETT, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in opposition to the current version of the bill. He addressed what had been communicated about the CS earlier. He had heard that page 4, Section 10 would be the current proposal; however, page 5 included language about gross income of less than $29,800. He stated that it had been put on the record that some of the language would be removed from the bill. He asked if his assessment was correct. Vice-Chair Saddler asked for Mr. Barrett to repeat the question. Mr. Barrett believed it had been put on the record that Section 10 would be amended by Section 11. JOSHUA BANKS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, believed there may have been a drafting error. He relayed the sponsor's intent to use the language under Section 10. He thought a conceptual amendment may be necessary. Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification that the sponsor's intent was to have the language in Section 10 remain. Mr. Banks replied in the affirmative. Mr. Barrett was glad the issue had been cleared up. He shared that he had only hunted outside of Alaska once; therefore, he did not know about the affordability of hunting in other locations. He shared that his income was very limited, but he had looked at the concept of increasing licensing fees for the past couple of years. He believed many nongovernmental organizations and legislators had looked at the 50 or so licenses sold in the state with blinders on. He discussed that there were many licenses sold for $5 or less (e.g. waterfowl, low income, and drawing hunts). He continued that it cost the department approximately $2 just to issue and produce the licenses, which was only a net of $3. He communicated that the cost of most drawing hunts was between $5 and $10. He stressed that licenses were too cheap. He provided examples about how to increase funds by almost $1 million. He suggested combining the 3, 7, and 14-day nonresident licenses. He believed revenue could be increased by $513,000. He discussed a similar strategy with the king salmon stamp that could generate $465,000. He believed the low income should be reconsidered; it was a $5 that cost $2 to produce. He believed a $10 to $20 increase in the specific license would be feasible. 3:40:23 PM MIKE TINKER, SELF, ESTHER (via teleconference), shared that he had retired from a 25-year guiding career in 2000 and had been a member of the Fairbanks Advisory Committee for over 25 years. He relayed that he and most of his colleagues supported raising license and tag fees. However, he believed there were some black holes. He recommended using it as an opportunity for other changes and looking at the whole picture. He applauded Representative Talerico's efforts; however, he believed there were some important focus issues. For example, he stated a change would be needed in AS 16.05.130(d) in order to keep the concepts that Mr. Somerville and Mr. Larson discussed. He explained that currently there was a requirement that license fees directly benefitted the user. The legislation impacted over 250,000 Alaskan license purchasers and the coalition represented approximately 4 percent of that number. He implored the committee to make some room for the other 96 percent of users. For example, many of the advisory committees had been waiting for the bill to settle. He spoke to the concept of making DFG healthy. He reasoned that a nonresident musk ox tag could be increased to $35,000 because the state had not sold one in eight years. He continued that there were many other types of licenses or tags that the state only sold 10 to 20 per year. He believed it was important to determine how many of each license sold before increasing a fee by 100 percent or other. He believed the bill should provide the starting point for the discussion. He noted that there were many other ways to raise money without making huge increases to fees. He stated that currently most of the trapping licenses sold were sold as part of combinations. He stated that when the combination tag fee was increased to the point where a person could save the money they would have put into supporting trapping by paying for hunting and fishing, the state would lose the money. He appreciated Representatives Talerico, Munoz, and Keller for putting the bill forward. 3:45:04 PM WAYNE KUBAT, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He read from a statement: I have lived year-round in Alaska for 39 years, 31 in the Mat-Su Valley. I became a registered guide in 1986 and started my own guide business that same year. Almost all of the money my clients pay for their hunts is new money to Alaska and stays here. License fee increases will always be a tough sell, but with falling oil revenues I hope you will move this bill on with sufficient increases to adequately fund Alaska's wildlife management into the future. The $10 intensive management surcharge is a great idea. I'm disappointed not to see it in this final draft. The wildlife initiatives of the 90s stop same-day airborne wolf hunting and moose populations plummeted throughout the state. General moose seasons where I guide closed for several years. Rural residents of Skwentna had to eat black bear meat instead of moose. I'm a resident hunter too. Even if resident licenses double a 12- month license to hunt multiple species of some of the world premiere big game animals will still cost less than a 20 count box of 338 Winchester Magnum ammunition. What a bargain. As a longtime Alaskan guide I support the concept of a minor percentage of nonresident hunters paying the bulk of our wildlife management. I think Alaska's wildlife and residents benefit from this arrangement. I can live with increasing nonresident tag fees even up to 100 percent if it results in effective game management. Thank you. 3:46:48 PM GARY MCCARTHY, SELF, CHUGIAK (via teleconference), shared that he had moved to Alaska in 1972 in pursuit of hunting and fishing. He supported increasing the fees above the figures in the CS. As a sheep hunter, he was saddened to see the number and quality of the sheep declining over the years. He stated that the department was reluctant to act on many proposals put forward in the past year because there was not adequate scientific data to support what was occurring with the state's sheep populations. He stated that following the crash in oil prices in the late 1980s almost all sheep studies had been eliminated. He continued that fortunately because of federal Pittman Robertson funds the studies had picked up in the past several years. He hated to see the money go away and to have inadequate wildlife management just because the information was not available. 3:48:31 PM DICK ROHRER, SELF, KODIAK (via teleconference), shared that he had moved to Alaska 50 years earlier. He spoke in support of the previous testimony provided to the committee by coalition members. He believed resident fees should be higher than those listed in the current CS. He had no hesitation to pay higher fees. He thought it was good idea to look at the senior license every three years. He noted that if the legislature chose to eliminate the free senior license he would not be concerned. His greatest concern was federal overreach. He stated that if there was not enough money to properly fund management statewide he could assure that federal agencies would take over management. 3:50:25 PM SAM ROHRER, SELF, KODIAK (via teleconference), shared that he had a guiding license and was president of the Alaska Professional Hunters' Association. He agreed with most of the testimony provided during the present meeting. He stated that there had not been an increase to the licensing fee since 1993, which he believed was long overdue. He did not believe the current CS increased the fees sufficiently. He strongly encouraged the idea of the $10 intensive management surcharge on all hunting licenses sold. He stressed that the current $5 increase for resident hunting licenses was insufficient. He believed a substantive increase was needed and recommended an increase of at least $15. He stated that a resident license for $40 was still less than a box of ammunition; it was affordable. 3:52:16 PM MIKE CRAWFORD, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), believed the license fees in the CS should be increased. He agreed with testimony provided by Mr. Somerville and Mr. Grasser. He opined that the Pittman Robertson funds should not be left on the table. He spoke against federal overreach. He believed DFG needed to be kept informed. He thought that most hunters and fishermen in the state were more than willing to pay their way. He communicated that a goat, sheep, or moose tag for nonresidents in Washington State was $1,652, a deer tag was $531, a small game tag was $183, a freshwater fishing license was $84.50, a saltwater license was $35, and so on. He noted that Montana and Idaho also had much higher fees. He believed nonresident hunters should help to pay for the management of Alaska's wildlife and fish resources. 3:54:23 PM KEITH BAXTER, KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), encouraged the committee to include a sockeye stamp in the bill. He stated that currently the bill proposed prudent increases to existing license fees and the board believed the inclusion of a sockeye stamp would also be a prudent measure. He shared that in recent years many anglers who had previously targeted king salmon on the Kenai River had shifted their focus to sockeye. He stated that the growing interest in the sockeye fishery presented management, habitat, and enforcement challenges that required funding to address. He reasoned that a statewide sockeye stamp would go a long way towards providing the needed funding to address the challenges. The board believed that adequate funding for the rehabilitation, enhancement, and development of Alaska's sport and personal-use fisheries were essential to ensure their sustained health going forward. He believed it was imperative that the vitality of Alaska's fisheries was not jeopardized by fiscal uncertainty in its state government. The board hoped that a statewide sockeye stamp modeled closely after the existing chinook stamp would provide a secure source of funding for the essential fisheries programs well into the future. 3:55:40 PM NANCY HILLSTRAND, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), shared that she was the owner of a seafood processing plant in Homer; the business had been a fisheries corporation for 51 years and it paid into the federal Dingle Johnson and Pittman Robertson funds. She relayed that she did not harvest wildlife or fish. She proposed a license for people not harvesting wildlife of around $5. She explained that it was a matter of trying to bring in funds from out of state visitors and for Alaskan wildlife viewers. She discussed that viewers brought $231 million in tax revenue to the state, representing double the amount brought in by harvesters. She supported bringing in the group of people to diversify and help to match the Pittman Robertson funds. She believed the state was missing a huge segment of income derived from people that utilize wildlife, but did not harvest them. She continued that individuals who photographed animals, made money, and guided people to view wildlife did not pay anything into the coffers. She stated that there were 12,000 non-game species. She elaborated that the wildlife action plans and state wildlife grants needed matching funds. She stated that if there was some way to keep common species common and prevent animals from reaching endangered status, the state would prevent federal oversight. She relayed that there were 18 million birders in the U.S. who traveled. She stated that wildlife viewers brought $2.7 billion in spending to Alaska. She reasoned the visitors could pay a $5 license fee. She did not believe wildlife viewers understood how it worked because they had never been given the opportunity to contribute to wildlife management. She did not believe the license would cost the department anything. She reiterated her support for a viewer license and a wildlife conservation decal. She agreed that the state currently had "bargain basement" license fees that needed to be increased. She supported the idea of the inclusion of a sockeye stamp in the bill. Representative Wilson queried how to charge a tax for animal viewing. She wondered if it would include a tour- type setting. She asked if any other states had a similar tax. Ms. Hillstrand replied that many other states had different programs such as license plates, badges, licenses, and decals. She stated that the primary point was her belief that the state should market to the individuals. She believed the state could figure out a way to attach some sort of fee to the numerous viewers brought to Alaska by the cruise ship industry. Vice-Chair Saddler relayed that public testimony on the bill would be continued on April 13, 2015. He discussed the schedule for the following day.