SB 144-MUSK OXEN PERMITS & FEES  1:18:57 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the next order of business is CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 144(FIN), "An Act relating to hunting permits and tag fees for musk oxen." 1:19:22 PM TIM BENINTENDI, Staff, Senator Donny Olson, Alaska State Legislature, provided the following testimony: At its core, Senate Bill 144 would authorize a second permit hunt for resident and subsistence hunters for the taking of musk ox. It would double the chances of taking an animal, but it would not change the bag limit which currently stands at one animal, either a bull or a cow. Nonresident hunters would not qualify. If a hunter did not harvest a musk ox under the first permit, then a second permit could be issued upon application for another chance in a different hunt area or in a different game management unit. Musk oxen are the only game animals in Alaska for which the one permit restriction still applies. There are four game management units in the state where these animals are found. Unit 18 is on both Nunivak and Nelson Islands, Unit 22 and 23 are on the Seward Peninsula and in the Northwest, and Unit 26 is in the Northeast. The wild musk ox population is currently estimated to be at 4,400 animals; and annually between 325 and 350 are available for harvest. Wildlife biologists and regulators within the Department of Fish & Game have determined that the health and size of the state's herd is well past the threshold for expanding hunting opportunities. They estimate that a minimum number of permits will be issued under this bill and perhaps 25 more animals might be harvested annually. Under Senate Bill 144, the Board of Game would have the authority to reduce or eliminate subsistence tag and fee requirements. And because Senate Bill 144 changes a year from a calendar year to a regulatory year, which is July 1st to June 30th, the department would be able to issue permits for seasons which straddle the calendar year and not have to charge a hunter twice and issue two permits for the same season. If passed, this legislation would take effect in August. And the bill carries a zero fiscal note, has the support of the department, support of the hunting community in the Northwest Alaska, including the Northern and Southern Norton Sound Advisory Committees, and the Seward Peninsula Musk Ox Cooperators Group. 1:21:47 PM MR. BENINTENDI, in response to Co-Chair Johnson, stated that the next committee of referral for SB 144 is the House Finance Committee. 1:21:59 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON then inquired as to how one permit, rather than two, can be issued due to straddling the year without having an impact. MR. BENINTENDI informed the committee that currently there is a season from August until March. Currently, the hunter would have to apply and obtain a permit. Assuming that hunter doesn't take an animal by January 1st, that hunter would have to apply for the permit again and pay again. This legislation would change the year basis upon which that structure is based. In further response to Co-Chair Johnson, Mr. Benintendi confirmed that there could be a negligible revenue factor. He related that [the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)] estimated that under the proposed system there would be less than 50 permits. However, they estimate that the increased amount of animals taken will be about 25. 1:23:18 PM CO-CHAIR NEUMAN related his understanding that hunters will still have to purchase a hunting license each year, [but under SB 144] a hunter who doesn't harvest an animal will continue to have a permit that will carry through. Co-Chair Neuman opined that there wouldn't be any fiscal impact since the hunter will have to purchase a hunting license the next year in order to use that [tag] they already have [through the permit they already have]. 1:24:03 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON clarified that SB 144 only extends the tags, not the hunting license through the permit period. MR. BENINTENDI noted his agreement. He then added that this doesn't impede any of the Board of Game's current authority, in fact it provides the board a bit more liberty. 1:24:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised then that a person who purchases a $500 resident tag is entitled to a bag limit of one. That person can then apply for another permit and purchase it for another $500. He further surmised that the bag limit for the permit is one, but he questioned whether the bag limit of the season is increased to as many multiples of the $500 as the person purchases. MR. BENINTENDI replied no, and added that the person doesn't pay a second time. If SB 144 passes, then a person would have the opportunity to have a second permit. The Board of Game would determine the fee structure. 1:25:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that on page 2, line 5, of SB 144 the language "a person is not eligible for more than one musk oxen permit a year." is being eliminated. He asked if that means a person can take two or three musk oxen. "The question is can a person, at the same time, hold more than one permit and get one animal on the bag limit for that permit, if we eliminate lines 5-6, ... on page 2," he asked. MR. BENINTENDI related that his understanding is no. He opined that a person is allowed one animal per year regardless of the number of attempts or location. 1:26:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, referring to the sectional analysis, surmised that SB 144 would allow an individual who holds a permit but didn't harvest an animal to have another chance [to harvest an animal. MR. BENINTENDI replied yes, the legislation would provide one more chance. 1:27:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that he understands the intent, but he expressed concern with deleting the language on page 2, lines 5-6, because it's essentially saying a person can have more than one musk ox permit a year. MR. BENINTENDI responded that would likely still fall to the Board of Game to regulate. He related that he hasn't heard any concern for the taking of multiple animals. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN pointed out that the regulations for each game management unit can be different and can be changed [per the Board of Game]. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON remarked that although he believes [the legislation] would do what Representative Seaton is concerned about, he indicated that it's a decision for the Board of Game. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that he raised the issue because the language was in statute to ensure there wasn't a multiple safari hunt or multiple game animals [harvested]. He said that although he didn't want to hold the legislation, he did want the sponsor to make sure what the legislation achieves prior to being forwarded to the House Finance Committee. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON requested that Mr. Benintendi pass on this concern to the sponsor. 1:31:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI expressed concern that portions of the sponsor's statement seem ambiguous. He opined that he's unclear as to whether Representative Seaton's concern is correct. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON reiterated that he has asked the sponsor, Senator Olson, to clearly spell out the intent of the legislation. He related his intention to forward the legislation with the aforementioned caveat. 1:33:15 PM MR. BENINTENDI remarked that it's a valid question that deserves an answer, which he could forward to the committee. 1:33:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON opined that it seems implicit that the Board of Game is being given another tool through SB 144. There are four far flung game management units and animals that are likely growing beyond their threshold. In the event it's necessary to allow harvesting more than one animal, there would be the authority to do so. 1:33:56 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON remarked that although he believes [the taking of more than one animal] should be an option, it should be discussed. 1:34:13 PM CO-CHAIR NEUMAN pointed out that there are many areas in the state where multiple animals can be harvested, it depends upon the population in a given area. The aforementioned is a decision for the Board of Game to make and the legislation clearly refers to the regulations. 1:35:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI remarked that he wouldn't have a problem moving SB 144 if he's assured that it will be forwarded to the House Finance Committee with a zero fiscal note. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said that SB 144 does have a referral to the House Finance Committee because it involves fees. MR. BENINTENDI interjected that the sponsor isn't interested in waiving SB 144 from the House Finance Committee. 1:35:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON remarked that although he has full confidence in the Board of Game, the board may not have addressed this in the regulations because the statute says not more than one animal a year can be taken. Therefore, he wanted to raise the issue so that the Board of Game will be on notice that its regulations may not address this. 1:36:23 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON, upon determining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony. 1:36:51 PM CO-CHAIR NEUMAN clarified that SB 144 would allow people to use their permit to harvest game when that game is still available, the season is still open, [and the person didn't harvest under their initial permit]. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI commented that other units, such as the Central Arctic herd, have similar rules and regulations. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON surmised that this legislation is in response to a constituent who came forward with a problem. 1:38:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to report CSSB 144(FIN) from committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered.