SB 150-INTENSIVE MGMT SURCHARGE/REPEAL TERM DATE  4:04:26 PM CHAIR MICCICHE announced that the next order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 150, "An Act repealing the termination date for the intensive management hunting license surcharge." 4:04:57 PM DUSTIN ELSBERRY, Intern, Senator Joshua Revak, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said hunting is an essential piece of Alaskan life and it is of the utmost importance to protect wildlife for future Alaskans. The state needs wildlife management to maintain the special connection Alaskans have with wildlife. He explained that the moment a moose, caribou or deer population is determined to be at risk of falling below a sustainable level, the work of intensive management (IM) begins to identify the root cause. Enacted action plans using quotas or habitat management that are based on science and population analysis ensure sustainable populations. MR. ELSBERRY said since 2016, the IM program received funds from a surcharge placed on hunting licenses. However, the surcharge had a sunset date in 2022. SB 150 repeals the surcharge sunset date and allows the IM program to be self-sustaining. Prior to 2016, appropriations from the capital budget funded the IM program. However, the IM program is currently self-funded via the license surcharge. IM funds leverage federal money through the Pittman-Robertson Act (P-R Act), a 75/25 formula match where the 25 percent comes from the state's surcharge funds. He emphasized that the IM surcharge does not impact true subsistence hunters or senior hunters, both groups are exempt from the surcharge. He summarized that SB 150 ensures that the IM program is sustainable, protects wildlife populations, promotes food security across the state, and assures that Alaska's cultures carry on to future generations. 4:08:02 PM At ease. 4:09:09 PM CHAIR MICCICHE called the committee back to order. He said the committee will first hear from invited testimony. 4:09:30 PM RON SOMERVILLE, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in support of SB 150. He detailed that he is a former Alaska Department of Fish and Game employee, former director for the Division of Wildlife Conservation, and former chairman for the Alaska Board of Game. He said his previous duties on the Alaska Board of Game might help in setting the background on SB 150. He recalled that the IM law passed in 1994 and the instructions were clear that the intent was to focus on moose, caribou, and deer throughout the state. He emphasized that predator control is not the only form of IM, funding supports a variety of activities including habitat manipulation and controlled burning. He admitted that predator control is necessary in some cases. However, predator control cannot use P-R Act funds. MR. SOMERVILLE noted that he also represents Territorial Sportsmen and the organization supports SB 150. CHAIR MICCICHE commented that the Kenai Peninsula would like a break on habitat manipulation due to forest fires that burned 4,000 acres during the last 4 years. 4:14:59 PM EDDIE GRASSER, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Palmer, Alaska, testified in support of SB 150. He said the bill is simple and straight forward where the legislation takes away the sunset clause for the IM program. He said the IM law ensures that Alaskans have an opportunity to feed their families. He added that the department is currently pursuing an initiative called The Wild Harvest Initiative to provide food security, especially in rural Alaska. He said the IM program adds another tool to the department's toolbelt to create more opportunities for people to feed their families. The IM program is not just about predator control, the department does a lot of habitat work as well. For example, the department purchased a roller-chopper in 2019 for habitat enhancement projects without using fire. He noted that the department has not heard from the general public on anything negative about the IM program. MR. GRASSER recalled a time when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service used poison baiting for predator control, the department does not support that drastic measure. The department supports science-based management of wildlife that maximizes the opportunities for Alaskans to feed their families. He detailed that the revenue stream from the IM licensing surcharge has grown to approximately $1 million per year. The surcharge is an important revenue stream for research and surveys on wildlife populations to define objectives to get people out hunting. MR. GRASSER said the department feels that based on observations from other states regarding cost of licenses and tags, most states charge a tag fee, but Alaska does not charge for tags other than muskox and brown bear. MR. GRASSER summarized that the IM license surcharge is an important revenue stream to the department. They would like to see the surcharge enshrined in statute and the sunset clause eliminated. 4:17:40 PM SENATOR GIESSEL asked if the $1 million annual revenue stream is from the IM surcharge or the combination with P-R Act funds. MR. GRASSER answered that the revenue is strictly from the IM surcharge. SENATOR KIEHL REFERRED TO a pie chart on IM spending activities. He asked how much spending occurs on predator control versus habitat enhancement within the research and management portion. MR. GRASSER answered that the department receives $4 million from the IM surcharge with the P-R Act dollars. Most of the work done to support predator control occurs within survey and inventory work. The IM law specifies steps in the process to implement different measures. He emphasized that survey and inventory work sometimes indicate clearly that predators are not the limiting factor. Predator control is one of the limiting factors that the department has the most control over in its toolbox. However, the department cannot always have a fire because it might jeopardize a community. Predator control does not occur until the department does the survey and inventory work to verify the landscape, remaining population objectives, and if the harvestable objectives meet the intent of the IM law. 4:20:09 PM SENATOR KIEHL referred to a map that showed approximately 90 percent of Alaska land with a positive IM determination. He asked if the IM management fee just funds what wildlife conservation is going to need anyway. MR. GRASSER answered that the IM surcharge funds have specific goals within the IM statutes. He noted that the department is currently looking at a $1.7 million deficit for FY 2021 in its budget. Without the surcharge funding, the department would have difficulty doing its survey and inventory work. CHAIR MICCICHE said he has a couple of comments related to constitutionality. The 1994 IM law connects with Article XIII, Section 4 in the Alaska Constitution. He paraphrased AS 16.05.255(k): Alaska's wildlife along with all other renewable resources shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle. Statutory support as the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity the ability to support a high level of human harvest of game subject to preferences among beneficial uses on an annual periodic basis. CHAIR MICCICHE remarked that challenges to the bill would have occurred if there was a lot of resistance to the IM program in the past. 4:22:55 PM CHAIR MICCICHE opened public testimony on SB 150. 4:23:18 PM JAKE FLETCHER, representing self, Talkeetna, Alaska, testified in support of SB 150. He said he is a registered guide and a member of the Alaska Professional Hunters Association (APHA). Being good land stewards is one of Alaskans' biggest duties and part of being a steward is using conservation. The bill provides money so that the department can practice conservation. 4:24:37 PM ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, Palmer, Alaska, testified in support of SB 150. He explained that the council and other reputable hunting conservation organizations got together in 2016 when they realized that the amount of general funds that were available to the state for their programs was on the decline. He emphasized that Alaskan hunters are not looking for a free ride. The group agreed on raising resident and nonresident fees to fund wildlife conservation without general funds. He detailed the following annual hunting license data: • 65,000 Alaskans buy hunting licenses • 10,000 nonresidents • 700-800 aliens • 3,000 military • 16,000 low income and 6,000 senior Alaskans who don't buy a license MR. ARNO noted that there are some exempt license holders who continue to buy a license just so that they are contributing to the fund. 4:27:15 PM PAUL CLAUS, owner, Ultima Thule Outfitters, Chugiak, Alaska, testified in support of SB 150. He said the legislation has already proven itself after three years. SENATOR BISHOP asked Mr. Grasser for examples of how the fund has improved habitat. MR. GRASSER answered that the Division of Wildlife Conservation has done quite a bit of work in the Tok area with its roller chopper and various prescribed burns. CHAIR MICCICHE noted that he drove a chopper tractor when he was young and asked if the division's roller chopper is similar. MR. GRASSER answer yes. He detailed that the division's roller chopper is a trailer that hooks on a Caterpillar bulldozer. CHAIR MICCICHE commented that the chopper tractor he drove was self-contained. 4:30:27 PM CHAIR MICCICHE closed public testimony. SENATOR KIEHL noted that the legislature uses sunset dates to ensure program and board review, make sure things are efficiently following the statutes, and to safeguard from boards having mission creep. He asked why the bill deletes the sunset date rather than extending it. MR. GRASSER answered that the program is well established, and funding should be continuous. Managing wildlife never stops, especially to meet harvestable objectives. Managing wildlife is integral work by the department that requires a consistent funding stream with certainty. 4:32:10 PM At ease. 4:32:44 PM CHAIR MICCICHE called the committee back to order. He asked if management work would cease if the discontinuation of the IM surcharge fund collection occurs. MR. GRASSER answered that management work would not totally stop, but it would be severely impacted. He said discontinuation would remove $4 million from the department's budget. CHAIR MICCICHE asked if similar work would continue but at a smaller proportion. MR. GRASSER answered correct. SENATOR GIESSEL asked if discontinuing the surcharge would leave $3 million of P-R Act money unutilized by the State of Alaska. MR. GRASSER answered not necessarily. He explained that apportionment for the State of Alaska from P-R Act funds has gone down by $2 million. Instead of $28 million for FY 2020, the department is looking at $26 million. Discontinuing the surcharge may have no impact on the department. 4:34:20 PM CHAIR MICCICHE reopened public testimony. 4:34:47 PM VIKKI JO KENNEDY, representing self, Kodiak, Alaska, testified in support of SB 150. She said Alaskans pay for the intensive management of wildlife through licenses and fees. She emphasized that the program takes care of itself and puts money back into it. 4:35:56 PM CHAIR MICCICHE closed public testimony. He commented that although the bill repeals the termination date, the legislature retains the right to repeal the IM program at any time if things are not working out. In some cases, the legislature spends a lot of time on extending termination dates for programs that are known to continue. SENATOR REVAK, sponsor of SB 150, thanked those that testified, especially those from communities that wanted to help take care of the game that they manage regularly. CHAIR MICCICHE thanked Senator Revak for bringing the legislation forward. 4:37:09 PM SENATOR COGHILL moved to report SB 150, work order 31-LS1390\A, from committee with individual recommendations and forthcoming fiscal notes. 4:37:24 PM CHAIR MICCICHE said there being no objection, SB 150 is reported from the Senate Resources Standing Committee.