SENATE BILL NO. 22 "An Act repealing the termination date for the intensive management hunting license surcharge." 2:03:02 PM SENATOR JOSH REVAK, SPONSOR, introduced himself. He was honored to present SB 22. The bill was an act repealing the termination date of the intensive management hunting license surcharge. He shared that the bill was asked for by the sportsman community. He thought it meant a lot when a group indicated they wanted to pay their own way. He stated the bill would bring in matching funds for the state. The bill would mean intensive management would continue to be directly sourced from the surcharge as opposed to general fund appropriations. He noted the state had an obligation to conduct intensive management in Alaska. The bill would be used to leverage Pittman Robertson's 75/25 matching funds. He detailed that $1 million from the surcharge would bring in $3 million [in federal funds]. Given tourism, he believed it was more important at present than ever before for the Department of Fish and Game. Senator Revak reported that the program had been working well and the bill would merely eliminate the sunset for the program. He relayed that he had not heard any opposition to the bill. He stated that most importantly, the program helped support healthy game populations for moose, caribou, and deer in the state so Alaskans could continue to harvest the animals to feed their families. 2:05:19 PM EMMA TORKELSON, STAFF, SENATOR REVAK, stated that SB 22 removed the sunset date of the intensive management surcharge placed on hunting licenses. She explained that the program identified when a moose, caribou, or deer population became at risk of falling below a sustainable level to allow for hunting of the particular population. She elaborated that the program identified the root cause of the population decrease and developed and implemented a plan for rectifying the issue. She stated that most often the plans were focused on research and could also include management such as habitat enhancement. Prior to 2016 the program was funded by capital project appropriations; however, since 2016, the surcharge on hunting licenses plus the matched federal dollars, completely covered the cost. In total, the surcharge brought in $1 million in user fees that were leveraged to receive an additional $3 million in Pittman Robertson funds. Ms. Torkelson relayed that the $4 million paid for all of the work of intensive management; however, the state would have to assume the cost if the surcharge sunset. She highlighted that the program protected the state's wildlife populations and promoted food security across the state by allowing hunters to access healthy herds. She stated that the bill ensured the program could continue to be self- sustainable and user funded. She asked for the committee's support. 2:07:10 PM Representative Josephson stated that he had been told repeatedly that Pittman-Robertson funds could not be used to match predator control and could only be used for other parts of the program. He asked if the information was accurate. Senator Revak deferred to the department. 2:07:44 PM DOUG VINCENT-LANG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), responded that in certain instances federal funds could be used for predator control; however, the natural diversity guidelines driving much of federal management in the State of Alaska, precluded the use of federal funds to do predator control on federal lands. He explained that doing predator control on state lands using federal dollars fell under federal review, which could be cumbersome. The department leveraged federal dollars to conduct much of the science associated with predator control activities on state lands; however, the removal of predators was done with state dollars to avoid interference and oversight from the federal government. 2:08:47 PM Representative Josephson noted he had heard the commissioner mention that intensive management (IM) was not done on federal land. He was puzzled by the statement because intensive management was done on federal lands, frequently over the objection of the federal government. He asked for the accuracy of his understanding. He remarked that the issue was in the newspaper monthly. Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that the department was not currently doing any intensive management on federal land. He relayed that DFG had approached the federal government the previous year about doing intensive management on federal land near the Mulchatna caribou herd because the herd was in a predator pit and not providing for any subsistence uses; however, the department had not heard back on whether it could enter into a cooperative agreement to do predator control on federal lands. He reiterated that the department was doing predator control on state lands, but not on federal lands. Representative Josephson highlighted that the National Park Service had noted the shooting of its collared wolves in research programs. He remarked that wolves did not know the boundaries [between state and federal lands]. He asked for verification that there had been huge disputes about the topic between the two governments. Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied that there were wolves the National Park Service had collared on federal land in Tetlin Park that had been shot on state land in predator control areas. He confirmed there had been conflict between the state and federal governments over predator control programs. He relayed that DFG was operating under the state intensive management law and the federal government was managing under natural diversity guidelines. The federal guidelines did not endorse predator control on their landscapes. He emphasized that the state was not doing predator control on federal lands, some of the state predator control areas were adjacent to federal lands. 2:10:54 PM Representative Josephson asked the commissioner to explain the difference between intensive management and predator control. He assumed predator control was a subset of intensive management. Commissioner Vincent-Lang explained that intensive management was anything the state did to intensively manage populations to increase productivity for human use. He stated that in some cases, the state was doing intensive management on federal lands, but not predator control. For example, the department was conducting habitat restoration programs on the Kenai Peninsula in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service aimed at fire breaks and a variety of other habitat improvements that would hopefully result in greater moose populations over the long-term. He stated that DFG was not doing any wolf population control on federal lands on the Kenai Peninsula. He relayed that intensive management was a broader spectrum that could include habitat manipulation, fire controls, and the removal of predators. He stated that predator removal was one subset of intensive management. 2:12:01 PM Representative Josephson asked at what point the liberalizing of brown bear baiting on the Kenai became de facto predator control. Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that he had been part of the discussions regarding brown bear baiting on the Kenai Peninsula and it was a more complex discussion than intensive management of bears. He stated it had been more focused on trying to deal with the number of bears on state land that were causing human-bear interactions on the Kenai Peninsula. There had been a large outcry from citizens on the peninsula with the number of bears around. He relayed that the Board of Game had decided to do some bear removal to try to reduce the human-bear interactions. He stated that the board recognized the action would potentially benefit the moose population on the Kenai Peninsula due to the reduction in bears. He believed the board's primary driver was to remove the number of bears to reduce human- bear interactions, given that the state could not do intensive management across the entire peninsula on federal lands. 2:13:26 PM Representative Josephson was concerned that when people paid the surcharge, they may not be aware of the variety of ways invented and enhanced since 1994 to undergo predator control. He asked if the commissioner believed hunters were aware of all of the liberal practices as legalized hunting and predator control. Commissioner Vincent-Lang believed there was a relatively good awareness on the subject based on the number of emails and calls he received about it. He noted that the topic was in the newspapers quite a bit. He provided background on intensive management. He explained that the department had a statutory obligation to report back to the Board of Game when a population was not meeting its population or harvest objectives. The department reported to the board when [population or harvest] objectives set by the board were underachieving. He explained that the board then tasked the department with coming up with an intensive management plan. He detailed that DFG evaluated the population and the intensive management strategies at the department's disposal. He relayed that if the land was mostly federal and there was little chance to improve habitat, the department likely reported back to the Board of Game that intensive management was not feasible in the area. He stated that at that point "it moves off and they deal with it through other levels of means to get the population back up." In other cases, when the department determined predator control may work, it put together a proposal for review by the Board of Game and advisory committees across the state were given an opportunity to weigh in. Commissioner Vincent-Lang stated that the department moved into the implementation phase of an intensive management program after it was approved by the board. He stated that if the plan included reducing the number of wolves or bears on a landscape, the department moved to implement the plan. The department had an obligation to report back annually on progress on the plan. He relayed that if the plan was not working, the board could reverse the plan as it had in Unit 16 about eight to ten years back. He summarized that a plan was initiated by the Board of Game, and it was constantly reviewed by DFG and the board to ensure it was meeting the objectives. He stated that if a plan was not working, the department walked away from it and moved on to the next area. He added that the public had an opportunity to weigh in throughout the process. 2:16:36 PM Representative Carpenter stated that he did not think the Kenai residents' understanding of the current regulations and how management was conducted was germane to the bill discussion. He thought the people of Kenai were likely fully aware of how the state was managing resources. He did not believe the committee should be questioning whether the people of Kenai did or did not know. Senator Revak thought it was important to remember that predator control was a small piece of intensive management. He stated that intensive management included a variety of things such as research, controlled burns, and all different aspects of habitat. He believed under 1 percent of intensive management the previous year went to predator control. Co-Chair Merrick relayed that the committee would hear invited testimony. 2:17:54 PM DOUG VINCENT-LANG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), provided testimony on HB 80. He read a prepared statement: 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 law in 1994. This law requires 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 to Alaskans to an adequate sustained harvest. Recognizing the potential for federal interference and state IM programs, the department funded its IM programs under the IM law from a series of capital budgets. As the capital funds were expended and new funds were not allocated, hunters became concerned about the future of intensive management in Alaska. Because of the success of several state-run conducted IM programs in increasing ungulates, principally caribou and moose populations on state lands, hunters requested an intensive management surcharge be added to their licenses. This was at the request of hunters across the State of Alaska. The request was made to ensure the funds were dedicated and available to assess and conduct intensive management activities, especially given the reluctance of federal managers to conduct intensive management on their lands or using federal funds. The legislature agreed and added an intensive management surcharge to hunting licenses in 2016 and the surcharge has been collected since January 1, 2017 and has been used to fulfill our obligations under the state IM law. Intensive management programs and enhanced habitat [inaudible] predators are a core element of game management on state lands. I emphasize that IM programs also include habitat enhancement in addition to predator control. We have done several habitat enhancement projects across Alaska aimed at improving ungulate numbers. In addition to reliable funding, careful planning is essential to ensuring our state IM programs are both effective and defendable. All state intensive management programs are guided by an intensive management protocol that ensures decisions are based on the best available science. Intensive management allows us to put food on the table of Alaskans and is one of the priorities of me as commissioner and are essential to meeting subsistence needs, the department's first priority. Just look at the success we have had in meeting the food needs of Alaskans in the 40-mile caribou herd. This herd, restored through our IM efforts, put over 2.6 million of healthy meat in the freezers of Alaskans. I refer to a handout each of you should have. These surcharge funds also ensure that we can implement the state IM law without interference of federal oversight, and I remind you that two-thirds of Alaska lands are federal lands and are off limits to intensive management activities as they are managed for their natural diversity, not human use, despite a rural subsistence priority and there is no assurance one can feed one's family under natural diversity objectives. The legislation before you today repeals the sunset on the intensive management surcharge. This proposal does not have any additional costs to the department. Should the surcharge sunset, the department will see a significant decrease in revenue to pay for intensive management and our ability to meet our obligations under the intensive management law. Revenue from the IM surcharge totals approximately $1 million in each of the last three calendar years. Most of those funds are used to match Pittman Robertson dollars at a one to three ratio. That means absent an appropriation for the match, the department could stand to lose nearly $4 million hampering the department's ability to conduct IM activities. With that, I urge your support for this important piece of legislation. 2:21:48 PM Representative Wool referenced Ms. Torkelson's testimony that funds were used for research, management, and habitat enhancement. He did not believe he had heard her list predator control. He did not know whether it was a deliberate or accidental omission. He understood predator control accounted for a small percentage in FY 20. He pointed out that it accounted for a larger percentage in FY 18 and FY 19. He highlighted the controversial nature of the topic. He referenced a couple of costs. He thought it was important to touch upon the issue because many legislators heard from constituents who did not agree with the aerial hunting of wolves or gassing of wolf pups in their dens. He believed it was what Representative Josephson had been referring to when he had asked if everyone realized some of the funds went to those methodologies. He knew it had been going on and that it had been controversial. He noted the topic had come up in the commissioner's confirmation and it would continue to be an issue. He thought if the sponsor was going to list what the funds would be used for that predator control should be on the list with habitat enhancement and research and management. He stated that while it was not a large part of the budget, it was part of the budget and he believed it should be discussed in the open. Senator Revak responded that the programs were statutory, and DFG had to fund intensive management. He felt it would be appropriate to address the issue separately. He stated that currently intensive management had to be funded. He believed it would be better for it to be funded with a user fee rather than UGF. Representative Rasmussen referred to Representative Carpenter's point of order. She did not feel like the conversation was germane to the topic. Representative Wool countered that the committee had received a handout for the bill that mentioned the aforementioned items. He disagreed with the previous comment and stated that the topic was germane. Co-Chair Merrick noted the committee had been joined by Representative Mike Cronk. 2:25:29 PM Vice-Chair Ortiz asked why a sunset date had been included when the fee had been put forward in 2016. Senator Revak replied that he was not in the legislature when the initial bill had passed. He deferred to the commissioner. Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that there had been the same amount of angst about predator control and a variety of other things when the law had originally passed. He believed the compromise had been made to leave a sunset in place to review whether the program was or was not working. 2:26:30 PM Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony. ROD ARNO, POLICY DIRECTOR, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, PALMER (via teleconference), shared that the Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC) had been on hand in Juneau in 2016 with the other major conservation organizations in the state to come together and agree to have hunting license fees increased to help pay for management of fish and game. He detailed that Section 22 of HB 137 had created the intensive management surcharge. The bill had also created how the funding source could be gathered and used specifically for intensive management projects. He relayed that the bill had created a sustainable wildlife account. He reported that AOC members and those of other major conservation organizations had willingly agreed to be part of the legislation and to pay more for the opportunity to gather a wild food harvest. The sunset had been included due to the apprehension from some people over how intensive management would be implemented by different administrations and how it would be received by the public through the board process. Mr. Arno stated that AOC members were pleased with the way DFG had dispensed the funds from the special subaccount. He noted that individuals who purchased the $5 low income resident hunting license did not have to pay the $10 fee. He added that nonresidents paid an additional $30 fee on top of their hunting or trapping license. He relayed that the AOC's 10,000 members were more than willing to help pay for the state's management that allowed for an increase in harvestable surplus. He emphasized that food security was much more important than the concerns over some of the methods of predator control. Co-Chair Merrick noted Representative Kevin McCabe had joined the meeting. 2:30:15 PM MARK RICHARDS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESIDENT HUNTERS OF ALASKA, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in support of HB 80. He understood and respected that some legislators had issues with predator control in general. He was happy to discuss those issues with anyone outside of the meeting. However, he pointed out that intensive management was a law, and the Board of Game was mandated to follow the law and do intensive management when necessary. He stated that most of what went into intensive management did not involve predator control efforts and could be funded in part by matching three to one federal Pittman Robertson dollars. He noted the dollars were growing substantially with the new [federal] administration. The continuation of the surcharge helped with the continuation of work including aerial population surveys, animal health monitoring, habitat surveys, and other. He stated the work was necessary in order for the department to inform the Board of Game about what kind of opportunities hunters could have and how much game could be taken sustainably. He encouraged members to support the legislation. He remarked that opposing the bill would only result in less Pittman Robertson funding coming into the state. Co-Chair Merrick indicated the committee had been joined by Representative George Rauscher. 2:32:59 PM JOHN STURGEON, DIRECTOR, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL, ALASKA CHAPTER, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of SB 22 and believed it should be made permanent. The organization believed the law had been of great assistance to DFG and the proper management of Alaska's wildlife resources. He stated that harvesting wild game was a practice steeped in tradition and was extremely important to Alaska families. He shared that his family almost exclusively relied on wild game for their freezer. He highlighted that without the funds to properly manage wildlife as a food source, the food source could be drastically reduced or in some cases lost. He noted it was very important in rural Alaska. Mr. Sturgeon stated that an intensive surcharge had been added to hunting licenses in 2016 and had been collected since January 1, 2017. He stated that because the programs had proven successful in increasing caribou, moose, and deer populations, hunters requested the surcharge to ensure the funds were dedicated and available to assess and conduct intensive management activities. He stated that the license revenue allowed DFG to carry out projects free of interference from the federal government and freed up Pittman Robertson funds for the state in a three-to-one match. He stated that most hunters paid the surcharge without hesitation or regret. He relayed hunters realized the value of proper management of the state's wildlife resources. He expressed strong support of the intensive management program and urged making it permanent. 2:35:31 PM Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony. She asked the department to review the fiscal note. RACHEL HANKE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), reviewed the fiscal note. The fiscal note reflected the changes in revenues to the Fish and Game Fund starting in FY 23 at $500,000 beginning on December 22. The note reflected $1 million in the outyears. Co-Chair Merrick indicated amendments were due in her office by the end of Saturday, April 17, 2021. SB 22 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. 2:36:42 PM AT EASE 2:37:55 PM RECONVENED