SENATE BILL NO. 22 "An Act repealing the termination date for the intensive management hunting license surcharge." 10:35:28 AM Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on file): Page 1, line 1: Delete "repealing" Insert "extending" Page 1, line 4: Delete all material and insert: "* Section 1. Section 33, ch. 18, SLA 2016, is amended to read: Sec. 33. AS 16.05.130(g) and 16.05.340(k) are repealed December 31, 2026 [2022]." Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Josephson relayed that the Intensive Management (IM) Program was a hotly disputed and contentious program. The commissioner and the department's Wildlife Conservation director, Eddie Grasser had concurred. Their testimony, when the bill was introduced, was that they applied a sunset date rather than making the program permanent because of its controversy. The concept of the bill had some merit because it broadly helped the state's general fund. However, he had concerns with the IM Program. He reminded members that in 1996 the voters of Alaska passed an initiative to outlaw aerial hunting. The legislature reversed part of the 1996 initiative in 1998. In 2000, Alaska rebuked the institution voting to allow aerial hunting through a ballot initiative. The Intensive Management Program encompassed much more which he would discuss. Representative Josephson continued that presently, the state allowed for the targeted hunting of APEX predators for the express goal of increasing undulate populations for human consumption. He suggested that with an eye on the narrow policy goal of increasing undulates for humans to eat, there were other concerns that arose. The state had spent millions of dollars to artificially deflate the population of wolves and bears around Alaska. The results had been mixed. The science also suggested that results had been incredibly mixed. Out of six distinct areas in which IM had occurred frequently in the last 10 years to 20 years, the state had spent in excess of $5.7 million on IM specifically and $10.6 million in total. The money was used to kill approximately 4,100 animals, most of which were wolves. Based on DFG spending over the last 8 years to 9 years and data on animals taken over the last 11 years to 17 years, the cost per animal killed under the program was about $2,600. Because the analysis included den animals during years without spending data, the average cost per animal was likely higher, potentially by hundreds or thousands of dollars. Representative Josephson reiterated that the goal of the IM Program was to increase undulate population. The forty-mile caribou heard that was near Alaska's border with the Yukon had increased but remained below the upper bounds for population and harvest objectives. Predator control had been suspended. The moose population around McGrath had increased, and the moose population in the Denali Highway area had generally increased. However, the population might have peaked in 2015. On the other hand, the Mulchatna caribou herd had continued to decline, and moose population in the Upper Kuskokwim was still low but was increasing. As mentioned previously, the program had spent a great amount of money with significantly variable results. The specifics of predator control were often controversial. He recalled photos that were spread on social media in 2017 depicting a single hunter legally taking an entire wolf pack in one day. Representative Josephson suggested that the IM Program was distinct from very liberalized hunting practices which DGF and the Board of Game had encouraged. He thought maintaining a sunset provision for the IM surcharge guaranteed the legislature the opportunity to review the program anew in a number of years. He was recommending an extension of 5 years. While there was some fiscal policy behind reducing the state's general fund, abolishing a sunset provision reduced the likelihood that future legislatures would review the policy behind the IM Program. Given the controversy, he thought it would be unfortunate. Representative Josephson commented that predator control was a subset of the overall expense of the IM Program. He claimed that the department deputized people by authorizing them to do land-and-shoot, the true purpose of predator control. He suggested that when the department was talking about predator control, it was really talking about DFG workers doing the controlling. However, he argued that the program was much more expansive, and the legislature needed to be aware of that. He had been in contact with Dr. Sterling Miller who worked for DFG for 20 years. Mr. Miller noted that IM was spread throughout 91 percent of the state and thought the department's comment about it not occurring on federal land was laughable. Mr. Miller stated, "In essentially none of these areas has there been any meaningful research done showing that IM has actually resulted in the harvest of more wild ungulates on any but the very short term." Representative Josephson continued that part of the issue was that almost annually there were reports provided to the Board of Game from the department about the efficacy of IM. He thought part of the reason to continue with the sunset was so that the legislature could participate in fact- finding relative to the reports. He also commented that the department had produced a brochure called, "Intensive  Management: Stories of Success." A review by Dr. Miller supported that the stories of success did not hold up, and the facts were cherry-picked. They failed to report illegal and unreported kills, the effect of which the kills were blamed on predators. However, human beings made the kills. He provided another example of how predator control bled into liberalized hunting practices. Dr. Miller reported that in Unit 13, northeast of Anchorage, bears might not be designated as predator control area target species, but the management objectives for brown bears in Unit 13 was to reduce them to 350 individuals, a 70 percent reduction. He was astounded guides had not questioned why wolves and bears were being taken through predator control. He suggested that wolves might be part of the liberalized take.  Representative Josephson relayed that when the department discussed how small the sliver was for predator control, they were doing so in a very constrained, narrow, and technical way. However, the program was much more widespread. He thought that the legislature should keep an eye on the issue. Dr. Miller noted that a Fairbanks biologist who currently worked for the department was working on a report on the efficacy of the IM Program that was not yet completed another reason to maintain a sunset date. Representative Josephson agreed that the legislature had not received significant testimony from the people of Alaska but suggested it was due to fatigue. He hypothesized that Alaskans and tourists who enjoyed seeing wildlife thought the system was rigged against them. If there was a greater understanding of the practices that the state authorized, quasi predator control, people would be astounded by the creative ways in which the state found ways to kill predators. They were not fair chases or the North American model. 10:44:45 AM Representative LeBon asked for the bill sponsor to comment on the amendment. SENATOR JOSH REVAK, SPONSOR, appreciated the sentiment of the amendment maker. However, he disagreed with the amendment because it created an unfunded mandate. It had come before the legislature a couple of times over the past 10 years. He thought that if the legislature wanted to address the issue of an unfunded mandate, it should be addressed in legislation. The idea behind the bill was to remove the sunset date completely because every time the issue was reviewed it cost the state time and money. He suggested that since the issue had been reviewed a few times and had overwhelming support, the sunset date should be removed. Ultimately, it would be up to the will of the committee. 10:46:50 AM Representative Rasmussen asked, if the legislature were to sunset the board as originally put forward, whether it would remove the legislature's statutory authority to change the predator control statutes in the future. Mr. Bullard replied that nothing would constrain a future legislature from making a change at a later time. Representative Rasmussen clarified that if the legislature repealed the sunset date on the bill, it would still have the authority in the future to revise the predator control statute. Mr. Bullard responded in the positive. Representative Rasmussen noted that there was broad support across the state from user groups including some conservation groups and hunters. She suggested it was a strong testimony to support the legislation as it stood because resident hunters of Alaska supported the termination date of the hunting license surcharge. In other words, they were asking the state to continue a surcharge with no end date in the future. She continued that the Alaska Professional Hunters Association supported the bill. She thought the amendment was unnecessary since there was support from the Safari Club, the Alaska Wild Sheep Foundation, the Territorial Sportsman Group, and many individual Alaskans that had weighed in on the matter. Representative Rasmussen argued that the predator control component was only two-tenths of a percent of the funding that went into IM activities. Whereas, research management made up 98 percent of the funding. She added that research management included surveys to determine abundance, assessments of nutritional conditions including calf weights, measurements, brows use, twining surveys, and investigating causes of mortality. The majority of the funding went to benefiting the various animals across the state. She would not be supporting the amendment. She looked forward to having a specific discussion on predator control if it was the will of the group and if a bill was put forth. Representative Wool noted a number of sunset cycles had occurred. He wondered how many there had been. Senator Revak replied 10 years. Representative Wool clarified that the sunset had been set 10 years prior and it was now coming up for review. He wondered if it had occurred previously. Senator Revak responded that it had been in effect for 10 years. He wondered whether the Department of Law or DFG were online to offer further clarification. Representative Merrick indicated Mr. Grasser from Wildlife Conservation was online. She invited him to respond to Representative Wool's question. EDDIE GRASSER, DIRECTOR, WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), replied that the IM surcharge was part of the bill package that passed in 2016. It would be the first time that the surcharge was up for sunset review. Representative Wool commented that based on the comments by Representative Rasmussen and the letters of support she received, it appeared that various hunting groups supported eliminating the sunset provision. He argued that although he understood the sentiment of reauthorizing a good program into perpetuity, he thought that it was good to reexamine a program every 3 or 4 years. He used the Technical and Vocational Education Program (TVEP) as an example. He thought it was important to look at the recipients and allocations every few years. In the case of the IM Program the allocation was .2 of 1 percent. However, in FY 18 the allocation was 4 percent. Representative Wool continued that if the facts presented by Representative Josephson were accurate, much of the predator control was outsourced. Therefore, individuals were allowed to trap, shoot, or kill some predators under the IM Program that would not necessarily be directly funded by the department. He supported the timeline and thought it would be helpful to have another conversation about the issue in a few years. He also believed that some of the controversial issues should come up before future legislatures and different administrations, as they would have different goals. He believed it would force a conversation. He would be supporting the amendment. Co-Chair Merrick MAINTAINED her OBJECTION. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, Ortiz, Foster OPPOSED: Thompson, Carpenter, Johnson, LeBon, Rasmussen, Merrick The MOTION FAILED (5/6). Amendment 1 FAILED to be ADOPTED. Co-Chair Foster MOVED to report SB 22 out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. Representative Josephson OBJECTED. Representative Josephson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Carpenter, Edgmon, Johnson, LeBon, Ortiz, Rasmussen, Thompson, Wool, Foster, Merrick OPPOSED: Josephson The MOTION PASSED (10/1). SB 22 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one previously published fiscal impact note: FN2 (DFG). 10:56:08 AM AT EASE 10:58:59 AM RECONVENED