HOUSE BILL NO. 125 "An Act relating to trapping cabins on state land; and relating to trapping cabin permit fees." 2:29:04 PM Co-Chair Foster noted that the committee would be hearing HB 125 and invited the sponsor to introduce the bill. REPRESENTATIVE TOM MCKAY, SPONSOR, introduced HB 125. He read the sponsor statement (copy on file): Alaska has a rich history of trapping which far pre- dates the founding of our state. Trappers who run long lines in remote areas need cabins for shelter. These cabins are small, basic domiciles which serve as shelter in Alaska's harsh weather conditions. Roughly three decades ago, trapper advocates worked with the legislature to implement a program which allowed for the construction of trapper cabins on state lands (AS 38.95.075 AS 38.95.085). Over the years, issues have been identified with that program which require statutory amendments. This bill would address several problems relating to Trapping Cabin Construction Permits (TCCP). HB 125 updates the outdated statutes associated with receiving a TCCP and incorporates the use of existing trapping cabins on State lands. Current Statute does not allow the Department to issue permits for already constructed cabins. This bill would close that gap so all permits will be issued as Trapping Cabin Permits, covering both construction of a new cabin and allowing the continued use for an existing cabin. As Alaskans, we have a unique respect for traditional ways of life, such as trapping. I urge my fellow colleagues of the 33rd legislature to support this legislation to help Alaskan trappers. 2:32:19 PM TREVOR JEPSEN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TOM MCKAY, introduced the PowerPoint presentation "HB 125 Trapping Cabin Construction Permit Reform" dated April 27, 2023 (copy on file). He began on slide 2 and defined trapping cabins as small and basic domiciles along trap lines that were used for temporary shelter. The necessity of the cabins had to be proven before the cabins would be permitted to be built on state lands. Trapping cabin permits were currently issued under AS 38.95.075 and AS 38.95.080. The statutes were crafted over 40 years ago. He argued that statutes created unnecessary confusion in permitting process and restricted the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from permitting cabins under certain scenarios. Mr. Jepsen continued to slide 3 to expand upon AS 38.95.075. He explained that the statute demonstrated the process for DNR to issue permits for cabins that were already in existence. The individual seeking the permit had to prove that the cabin had been in regular use before August 1, 1984. Issues would arise when cabins had lapsed in ownership, use, or were abandoned. He explained that DNR had seen a pattern wherein individuals wanted to utilize trapping cabins, but DNR was not able to issue permits due to the limitations of the statute. Mr. Jepsen advanced to slide 4 to further detail AS 38.95.080, which authorized DNR to issue permits for the construction of new trapping cabins. He read the requirements for a permit for a new trapping cabin: 1. The person must have an established trapline with proof of regular use; 2. The person must have a trapline of sufficient length to justify the need for cabin construction Mr. Jepsen continued that AS 38.95.080 also outlined the responsibility of the department as well as other requirements and restrictions for trapping cabin construction permits. Mr. Jepsen moved to slide 5 and explained the ways in which HB 125 would address the problem. The bill would revise AS 38.95.080 to include all trapping cabin permit situations and repeal AS 38.95.075. It would allow DNR to permit existing cabins on state lands. It would also update the application fee schedule and set all related fees in statute and provide additional clarity on the permitting process. He noted that the bill was the result of a collaboration between the House Resources Committee, DNR, and the Alaska Trappers Association (ATA). 2:36:05 PM Co-Chair Foster suggested that Mr. Jepsen provide the sectional analysis. Mr. Jepsen read through the sectional (copy on file): Sec. 1 Conforming change to incorporate the new AS 38.95.080(g) (section 6 of this bill) into the fee schedule regulations under AS 38.05.850(a). Sec. 2 & 3 Restructures the existing AS 38.05.080(a) and (b), which authorize the commissioner to issue trapping cabin permits. Also clarifies who is entitled to a permit for existing cabins on state lands. Sec. 4 Clarifies the conditions for a permit that must be included in regulations. This clarification includes: 1. Providing more guidance on permit renewals 2. Detailing the process for multiple cabins under the same permit 3. Specifying a procedure for unowned cabins 4. Setting statutory fee limits for the permits 5. Making several technical drafting changes Sec. 5 Provides more explicit language to ensure that a use permit cannot be misinterpreted as providing ownership rights or preference rights to future ownership. Sec. 6 Creates two new subsections, which: 1. Further define the nonexclusive nature of the permit by stating that the director may issue multiple trapping cabin permits for the use of the same cabin. 2. Bars the department from charging additional land use fees for the use or construction of a trapping cabin. Sec. 7 Conforming and technical changes to the definitions section. Sec. 8 Repeals AS 38.95.075 (permits for the use of trapping cabins) to conform to the changes made in this bill and to remove the outdated August 1, 1984, reference point. Co-Chair Foster added that there was a representative from ATA online for questions. He asked if the individual had any comments. 2:38:50 PM RANDALL ZARNKE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), relayed that the process by which trapping cabins were permitted was created by ATA and DNR and it seemed to have worked well for nearly 40 years. He recently started to hear complaints from ATA members who were unable to get their permits renewed. He relayed that DNR staff reported that the original legislation did not authorize the department to renew permits. The association worked in collaboration with DNR to craft HB 125 to solve the problem. The bill would bring stability back to the process as well as increase the original permit fee, which ATA supported. He emphasized that not all trappers needed a cabin, but cabins were essential for trappers in remote locations. The bill would benefit both urban and rural trappers. He warned that if the bill did not pass, trappers with existing cabins would be left "in limbo" and without a process by which cabin permits could be renewed. Co-Chair Foster thanked Mr. Zarnke. He added that there were other testifiers available if members had additional questions. 2:42:04 PM Representative Hannan noted that Section 1 of the bill would incorporate the new AS 38.95.080(g) into the existing AS 38.05.850(a). She understood that most of the existing statute related to permitting new trapping cabins for use. The current statute gave permit preference for use to uplands users on the track of tidelands. She was curious how the statutory preference would intersect with the new proposed statute relating to trapping cabins. She was under the impression that the cabins in question were trapping cabins, not tideland cabins or duck hunting cabins. There had been some conflicts about duck hunting cabins encroaching on state tidelands and she wanted to ensure that the bill focused purely on trapping cabins. Mr. Jepsen responded that the only change made by HB 125 in Section 1 was adding AS 38.95.080(g), which were the stipulations listed in Section 6 relating to permit fees and allowing multiple permits to be issued for the same cabin. The bill did not change any other language in AS 38.05.850(a). Representative Stapp referred to language on page 3 of the bill disallowing shelters exceeding 400 square feet to be built without authorization. He asked Mr. Jepsen if there were existing structures that could theoretically be used as trapping cabins but could not be permitted because the cabins were built without prior authorization. Mr. Jepsen responded that the issue mentioned by Representative Stapp was one of the reasons for the bill. There were cabins on state lands that trappers would like to use but were unable to due to the current statute. The bill would allow previously built cabins that exceeded 400 square feet to be permitted for trapping as long as the individual applying for the permit did not build the cabin without prior authorization. He added that unutilized trespassing cabins that could be a liability for DNR could be eligible for trapping cabin permits. Representative Stapp understood that if a person constructed a cabin without authorization prior to the bill, there was no way the cabin could be permitted. Mr. Jepsen responded in the affirmative. He clarified that if an individual built a cabin without authorization, the individual could not get a trapping cabin permit. Representative Cronk asked Mr. Jepsen for a description of "proof of regular use." Mr. Jepsen responded that there were multiple ways to provide proof of regular use, such as a verified trapping license issued by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), fur receipts, or proof of income related to trapping activities. Representative Cronk thanked the sponsor for bringing forth the legislation. 2:47:22 PM Representative Josephson understood that if there was a trespassing cabin constructed on state land that was greater than 400 square feet, the cabin would be permittable under the bill. He asked Mr. Jepsen if his understanding was correct. He recalled that DFG was previously involved in trying to eliminate shoreline cabins on hazardous sites and all of the cabins that were not eliminated were grandfathered in to permitting in 2022. He understood that HB 125 would take similar actions, but the cabins would not be privately held. He thought the bill would "bless" some cabins that would not have been previously authorized in the past. Mr. Jepsen responded in the affirmative. If the cabin was built without authorization and was abandoned or there was a lapse in ownership, the cabin would be permittable under the bill. He understood that DNR would like there to be a party responsible for some of the cabins. He asked a representative from DNR to confirm his understanding. MEGAN HILLGARTNER, DIVISION OF MINING LAND AND WATER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via teleconference), responded that Mr. Jepsen was correct and DNR would prefer that any existing and unauthorized cabins be captured under a permit. The bill would give the department the ability to ensure that existing cabins would be accounted for through an authorization. Representative Josephson asked Ms. Hillgartner what the department was doing to address future unauthorized cabins. Ms. Hillgartner responded that the department did its best to work with trappers that had interest in utilizing existing cabins or seeking authorization for unauthorized cabins. For example, other entities such as DFG had sought use of existing trespass cabins on state lands. There were also other ways in which a cabin could be permitted under a different authority, such as a guide program. The department made efforts to permit the cabins under existing authorizations, but it had removed some of the cabins that were not permittable. It would be helpful to the department to have the ability to permit cabins for the use of trapping. 2:50:56 PM Representative Hannan relayed that the bill referenced "regular use" and on page 3, line 5, the term "periodic use" was used. She wanted to ensure that an individual with a ten-year trapping cabin permit would not be required to use the cabin every year in order to prove it was being utilized on a regular or periodic basis. She asked Ms. Hillgartner to provide DNR's definition of regular use and periodic use. She asked how many trapping cabins currently existed. Ms. Hillgartner replied that there were currently 83 existing trapping cabins on state lands. She relayed that regular use required that there be evidence that a trapper was using the cabin in association with trapping activities. If an individual was issued a ten-year trapping cabin permit, the department would determine regular use by examining elements such as proof of income as a result of the trapping. The department would not necessarily mandate that there be proof of annual use of a cabin, but for a trapper to provide proof that the cabin was being used in association with trapping activities during the term of the permit. Representative Hannan asked for clarification that to prove regular use, there would need to be evidence that an individual used the cabin throughout the permit period, but there did not need to be evidence of selling furs. She shared that the trapper she worked with would hold furs for several years if the price of fur declined and would sell the furs again once the price increased. Ms. Hillgartner would verify the information and follow up. Representative Cronk commented that he had a personal conflict because he held a permit. He shared that he submitted ceilings receipts to DFG as proof that he was using the cabin. Many cabins were in remote locations: one of his cabins was 14 miles off the road and another was 26 miles off the road. It could become a safety issue when trappers were in remote locations and the temperatures dropped and individuals had nowhere to go to seek shelter. He relayed that the cabins could also be for survival purposes. 2:55:21 PM Representative Tomaszewski asked about the requirement for a trap line to be sufficient length to justify the need for the cabin. He asked Mr. Jepsen for more information on sufficient length. Mr. Jepsen responded that sufficient length was generally regarded as any length that would be hazardous to run the trapline without the presence of a nearby shelter. Sufficient length was subjective and dependent upon each trapper's individual circumstances, topography, and weather. The main deciding factor was whether it would be hazardous to run the trapline without the availability of a shelter. Co-Chair Foster noted that the meeting was intended to be an introduction of the bill. He asked if the bill sponsor had any closing comments. Representative McKay thanked the committee for its time. HB 125 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.