SRES-260512-0900

I call Senate Resources Committee meeting to order. This is our 54th meeting of the session, and today is May 12th, 2022. The time is 3:30 PM. Please turn off your cell phones.

I better do that too. There we go. All right. Members present today: Senator Rauscher, Senator Kawasaki, Senator Dunbar, Senator Myers, and Vice Chair Senator Wilkowski. I'm Senator Giesel.

Senator Clayman is presenting a bill in Senate Finance today. He'll be along probably later. We do have a quorum to conduct business. Today we have Maragwin. Helping us out with keeping the records, and Chloe is helping us with the audio.

We're going to hear 3 House bills this morning. We're going to hear House Bill 79, related to Vic Fisher Shoop Bay Marine Park. That'll be followed by House Bill 93, residency requirement, and then House Bill 117, commercial fishing. So I will invite Representative Zach Fields forward with his staff, Michael Noddy. Welcome.

To present House Bill 79.

I do have— let's see, this is the second hearing of this bill. So Representative Fields, if you could give us a brief recap, and then we have an amendment to be heard. Thank you. Zach Fields, House District 17. I appreciate the committee's time and apologize that the last committee I was buried on, I think it was a gas line.

So HB 79 would name Chute Bay Marine Park after Vic Fisher. Vic Fisher was instrumental in establishing the first set of marine parks throughout the state. A lot of people don't know that. And of course, Chute Bay is the closest of those to Valdez. Vic Fisher planned Valdez for reconstruction after the earthquake.

So just looking at the history, both of the marine park system And of Valdez, I thought it was a logical place to recognize his many contributions to the state. Very good. Any questions from committee members? Seeing none, I did set an amendment deadline of 5 PM yesterday, and we have one amendment. Senator Dunbar.

Thank you, Mr.— Madam Chair. I move Amendment A.1. And I'll object for purposes of discussion. Senator Dunbar. Thank you, Madam Chair.

When, uh, when Vic passed away a few years ago, a number of us started thinking about things that could be named after him to, to recognize his achievements in the state. And, um, I initially wanted to try and name the public policy school at UAA after him. Um, and I brought the idea to Jane Angvik, his former wife, and, um, she suggested instead that we name ISER. Um, Vic was, in addition to being the last living signatory of the Alaska Constitution, the first director of ISER. Um, and And I've spoken with folks in UA leadership, and no one has opposed it, I'll put it that way.

But in the last couple of years, I haven't gotten folks to sort of move forward with the idea. And so to me, this seems like a logical place to do it. We've got a naming bill for Vic headed to the floor. And so that is why I'd like to introduce this amendment to name it the Vic Fisher Institute of Social and Economic Research. So folks could still call it ISER, or they could call it the Fisher Institute.

Thank you, Madam Chair. All right. Any discussion?

Seeing none, I will remove my objection. Is there further objection? Seeing none, Amendment No. 1 Has been adopted. Representative Fields, do you have any comments related to the amendment?

I guess we've already adopted it, but in retrospect, have you any comments? I think the amendment offeror was aware that I supported it and I appreciate his coordination. There's not a better way to remember Vic's contributions than including through ICER. All right. Very good.

All right. At this time, we need to open public testimony. So public testimony is now open. Is there anyone here in the room that wishes to testify on House Bill 79? Seeing none, I'm looking here online and I see no one wishing to testify.

I will close public testimony. And I will look to the will of the committee. Senator Wielechowski. Madam Chair, I move House Bill 79, Work Order 34-LS,.

HB 795 backslash A as in Anchorage as amended from committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. Legislative Legal has the authority to make necessary technical and conforming changes. Seeing no objection, House Bill 79 is moved from committee with attached zero fiscal note. We'll sign the transmittal documents at the conclusion of our meeting. Thank you very much, Representative Fields.

With that, we'll move on to House Bill 93. This is a resident residency requirement for hunting, trapping, and fishing. This is our second hearing of this bill. The last time the bill was before us, we heard from the sponsor's staff, and looks like the staff is back again today because Representative Himschute is probably tied up elsewhere. So welcome, Thatcher Brower, staff to Representative Himschute.

Great. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Senate Resources Committee. For the record, Thatcher Brower, staff to Representative Himschute. Rep. Sahemschutz is co-chairing the House Committee on Regional Affairs Committee meeting right now and is not available but may be able to attend shortly. Madam Chair, would you like me to provide a brief recap of the bill?

Yes, please. Madam Chair, members of the committee, what HB 93 does is closely aligns the requirements to get a resident hunting and fishing or trapping license with the requirements to get a permanent fund dividend. And the reason to do this is that currently the definition to get a resident license is vague and difficult to enforce. And what HB 93 would do is create a standard that is enforceable and would ensure that Alaskans who spend the majority of the year, at least 6 months of the year here, or are absent for a lawful reason, are able to enjoy the benefits of a resident license. More liberal bag limits, reduced fees, and reduced cost tags.

Very good. Thank you and welcome, Representative Himschute. Hi, thank you. Good morning. Apologies.

No, no problem. We were just beginning. Committee members, any present— any questions for Representative Himschute or her staff related to the bill? Yes, Senator Kawasaki. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks for being here to present the bill again. I know we've had a lot of comments about this bill, but why are you using the dividend as the standard for residency as opposed to some other residency standard? I know there's a lot of them in statute.

Through the chair, Senator Kawasaki, thank you very much for the question. I think it's a really important question. The dividend standard has been tested in the courts. It's stood the test of time. It's been around for quite a while.

It's also adjustable, so we can add exemptions as needed going forward. And I'll just offer, in other states, in most other states, this is determined by income tax. So in the absence of an income tax, we're looking to find some kind of enforceable standard that we know will work, and this is a standard that's been used repeatedly.

Cool. Any other question, follow-up? Senator Kawasaki? Yeah, not a follow-up, but my question has to go to enforcement. And, you know, we've heard that it is somehow difficult to enforce the current law to figure out if a person is actually a real resident or not a real resident.

Can you tell me why that's the case?

Chair Giesel, if if we could go to the troopers with that question. I think they would be in the best position to answer that. Yes, online, Senator Kawasaki, we have Major Aaron Frenzel. Major Frenzel, welcome to the committee. Uh, if you could identify yourself for the record, and Senator Kawasaki could repeat his question, or if you didn't hear it.

So welcome. Thank you, Major Frenzel. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question had to do with investigating people who are, uh, whether they're residents or not, and whether they're prosecuting a particular fishery and how difficult that is. I, I just maybe I just don't understand exactly why it might be difficult to prosecute a fishery and then to to get violators of this residency requirement?

Thank you for the question. For the record, Aaron Frenzel. I'm the Deputy Director of Alaska Wildlife Troopers. Through the Chair, Sarah Kawasaki, you know, when we look at these cases, there's a couple things we're looking for. One is the smoking gun, and that's where an individual gains a resident's benefit in another state.

So if we can go down and see where they've gained a resident fishing license in Washington, maybe some kind of resident tax exemption on a place they own somewhere else, those are the ones that are pretty easy to prosecute. It's laid out very clearly in the current regulations. The ones that are more difficult are the people that do not obtain those benefits. They down there, but they're living out of state for 9, 10 months a year, coming up to just use Alaska's resources in July, maybe September while they're hunting. Their neighbors don't feel like they're residents.

They call us, they tell us, "Hey, this guy is never here." So we have to look into what their intent is, their intent to be here, because currently there is a set number of days in Alaska a resident has to be for hunting and fishing. The last thing we look at also is the 12 consecutive months prior to the purchase of the license. Has the person been here? Are they— did they come up here? Did they get their driver's license?

So if we can show that they only got up here 6 months ago, was their first time stepping into Alaska, we can show that they haven't been here for 12 months. But the big one is that just timeline of when they're not really here They might keep a house here. Is that their primary home? Is there an intention to return there indefinitely? Those become very difficult for us to answer.

[Speaker:COMMISSIONER ARKOOSH] Thank you. Follow-up, Senator Kawasucki? [Speaker:SENATOR KAWASUCKI] Yeah, sure. So, I just don't know the answer to this, but how long does it take for a person to become a resident of the state and to obtain a resident hunting or fishing license? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Thank you for the question.

Again, Major Aaron Frindle. The, um, it is 12 months, so if a person gets here, um, today, they are eligible on May 12th, 2027 to start gaining resident benefits in Alaska, as long as they don't gain a resident benefit in another state for the next 12 months. And they have an intent to make this their primary domicile and return there whenever they're gone.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Kawasaki. Senator Rauscher. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm not sure who the question goes to, but in years where I've made a lot of money because I had a— I have a business, I never applied for PFD.

Um, so there are cargo pilots and a lot of pilots that make $300,000, maybe $200,000 a year, who probably say, well, I'm not sure I need a PFD, but I do want to hunt. What, what's for them? How do they prove they are able to hunt this year is my question. And you wish to direct Representative Himschute? I don't know who to ask, but if you have, if you have the answer.

Representative. Through the chair, Senator Rauscher, we would go to the current system, which is fairly laborious. And so if someone chooses not to apply for the dividend and has a questioned residency under House Bill 93— and I want to make sure I'm correct about this, so Thatcher can back me up if I'm getting it wrong— that person could still be investigated, but they would use the current system, which is having to look at plane tickets and, and all the documentation that they currently need to use. So it's a really drawn-out process, whereas if someone gets the dividend, it's very straightforward. You can show your 1099 or you can show your My Alaska statement, and the troopers can actually check the dividend directly.

Mr. Brower, did you have additional comment? Yes, Madam Chair. Again, for the record, Thatcher Brower, staff director, and, uh, through the chair, Senator Rauscher, Either there's no obligation to get a permanent fund dividend to get a resident license. And as Rep. Sanhjem said, they would look at whether or not you were gone for an allowable reason, whether you're here for 12 months and if you were gone for some period of time during that 12 months, whether for an allowable reason. Follow-up, Senator Rauscher?

No, I'm good. Thank you. All right. Further questions? Senator Myers?

Representative Himschoot, it is my understanding that if you commit certain crimes even after you are out of prison, you are still ineligible for the dividend.

Are there any similar implications towards your hunting and fishing rights if you have been convicted of those crimes but you stay in state, you stay a resident? And then does that have any implication for determining residency?

In the case of a challenge. Thank you. Through the chair, great question, Senator Myers. And that's where the bill differs slightly from the standards of the dividend. There are a couple of things that are different.

One is that does not apply for hunting and fishing, where it does to, to the dividend. The other place would be the 12 months. So to get the dividend, you must be here January to December, and under this bill, it is one year. So as Major Frenzel said, it could be May 12th of 2028 or 2027, sorry, would be when you're eligible if you arrived in Alaska today rather than a full calendar year. So we align, but it's not exactly the same as the dividend.

Okay. Follow-up, Senator Myers. Yeah, so just effectively the laborious process you just described to Senator Rauscher would then apply in that case if there was a challenge to somebody's residency? Correct. Okay, thank you.

Further questions? All right, seeing none, thank you, Representative Himschute and staff. So we— I did set an amendment deadline for 5 o'clock yesterday and we did receive an amendment. Senator Rauscher. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I move amendment number 1. I'll object for purposes of discussion. Senator Rauscher. Thank you, Madam Chair. So in the previous meeting we had, I stated a lot of reasons that a person may or may not be in state because their job, they make a lot of money going in another country for a certain amount of time and home a certain amount of time as consultants, There are construction workers, there are pilots, cargo pilots, there are all kinds of people that actually leave the state to make an income.

They come back, they have a house, they have a mortgage, they have cars, they have registrations for their cars, they have insurance for their cars, they have— they buy groceries for their family, they pay for those bills for their family, they have a spouse, they have children, the children attend in schools. They're making a lot of money and they spend it here in Alaska. And if they're out of state while they're doing that for more than 180 days and maybe their mother gets sick, but she's not critically, according to the language in the statute, it has to be critical. And she's just sick. She broke her leg.

She can't get things right away. She has to get to a doctor. First couple of weeks, whatever. You're out for 180 days and you, you've got this big family here, you're paying a lot of bills, and there are other people who probably don't have a job, who are, are not as, uh, putting that much into the economy, and they're able to hunt. But these people should not lose their hunting rights, in my opinion.

And that's what this amendment does. It lists those and it allows them to be exempt from this 180 days because they are putting into the economic value of this state. They're helping out, and I just believe that they shouldn't be excluded. That's what this bill does— that amendment does. Discussion?

Senator Wilkowski? Yeah, thank you. I think some of these merit some consideration. I'm—. There's some huge gap.

There's some huge exemptions though that I see. The medical one is, is, is a tremendous broadening. I think the one that I'm most concerned about is on page 3, line 17 through 18, on working in a trade, consulting on a matter of professional expertise, or practicing a profession not otherwise addressed. I mean, that could basically mean you, you just get a job out of state and you continue to say you're an Alaskan resident. So I, I do have some concerns just over the breadth of that.

I'm curious if the If I could ask, Madam Chair, if the bill sponsor supports this amendment. Representative Himschute.

Thank you, Chair Giesel. Through the chair, I do not support the amendment. While these are worthy of consideration, all of this should be done through the dividend. And I think we should recognize with House Bill 93, there will be additional pressure on the dividend. I know the folks at the dividend want to give a check to as many people as they can.

They're not trying to withhold money from Alaskans. At the same time, it's up to us which exemptions are added. Those should be added through the dividend and then House Bill 93 is written to adjust to changes in the dividend. That way we don't have bits of statute in different places. It all works through the dividend statute.

Thank you. Further questions? Senator Wilkowski. Just to clarify, would the changes that we adopt now apply to the dividend as well? So in other words, if, if we say a person practicing a profession otherwise addressed in this subsection, that would mean that we potentially have hundreds or thousands of more people eligible for the dividend.

Through the chair, I don't know if it goes both directions. I will say if the person is unable to find the work that they want to do in the state, we could consider adding that as an exemption in the dividend, but I can't speak to whether a change in 93 would change what happens in the dividend. But yes, if this were changing the dividend statute, it would be a significant change. Mr. Brower? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thatcher Brower, staff representative, chief for the record. And just to clarify, I believe the way the amendment is written is it would change the dividend statute. It's updating the dividend statute. Apologies. Thank you.

Follow-up, Senator Wilkowski? That will diminish the value of people's dividends, because I think that on page 3 alone, 7 lines, 17 through 18, will probably allow hundreds if not thousands of new people to be eligible for a dividend, which would diminish the value of Alaskans' dividends. So I don't— I don't— I can't support this amendment as it's written. Senator Myers. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

On that note, let me tell you my own story on that. In 2018, I could not find a trucking job in this state to save my life because oil prices were down and there, there was very little activity on the slope. And, uh, I, I couldn't find work. Um, we just bought a house the year before and I needed a job, so I ended up hiring on with a trucking company, uh, based outside of Chicago. And, uh, I started off driving coast to coast, and then I switched, uh, duties and, um, I was hauling groceries from Washington State up to Alaska.

And I did that from about the middle of February of 2018 until the middle of August of 2018, and by the— until such time as I found a job here in-state, which is now my current employer. The, the following year, I went to go apply for my dividend, and I added up all of my days that I was gone, sat there on a calendar, kind of tried to figure it all out. I was gone for— in 6, approximately 6 months, I was gone 89 days.

My wife was here, my kids were here, my house was here. I was still paying a mortgage here. I was still paying my property taxes here, the whole 9 yards. I was still an Alaska resident, and I was never anywhere else long enough that I could ever have considered thinking of applying for residency or be— or being a resident anywhere else. I still had my Alaska driver's license.

The whole nine yards. And as I said, I was only gone 6 months— or excuse me, I was working those jobs for about 6 months. If I had worked a full calendar year, I could have been pushing that 180 days pretty easily. So I know that when this bill was over in the other body that, uh, commercial pilots were brought up a lot. Uh, truck driving is another issue.

If you're stationed here in Alaska and you're hauling groceries between Washington and here, it's about— it's a 7-day round trip, roughly. So you're spending about 5 of those days outside of the state. You continue doing that week after week, month after month, you're going to hit that 180 days. And again, this is somebody who does not in any way, shape, or form look like they're moving out of state, look like they're trying to change residency any, any at all. So it is almost— it is going to be almost impossible to try to list every profession that you could potentially be out of state for a long period of time.

Transportation industry, of course, is going to be rife with it, but you are going to be able to find it in other places, too.

So the concerns that Senator Wielekowski is bringing up, lines 17 and 18, To me, that is the fix. That is the fix that has to happen, whether we're talking about the dividend or whether we're talking about this bill with hunting and fishing rights.

So this is the amendment that needs to happen in order to make this bill workable in my mind. Thanks. Thank you. Senator Dunbar. Just very briefly, Madam Chair, because I think the maker of the amendment wants to speak, but, um, I'll just say I think these are all well-intentioned, but I believe some of these are already covered.

I only say that because on Section 16 on page 3, line 11, on a student.

Exchange program. I actually did a student exchange program that was a year long, and I was able to continue to receive a dividend because of number 20. Um, so I, or whoever it was, they, they seem to recognize that. Uh, granted I was in high school, so maybe they thought it was, uh, not a big deal. But, um, I, I, I, I do think that the Permanent Fund Office, while they, they are certainly very diligent, I think that they are not unreasonable in a lot of cases.

When people are clearly intending to remain in Alaska and remain an Alaskan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Dunbar. Further discussion about the amendment? Well, I too have some discuss— some concerns about the amendment being quite broad.

Serving as a missionary could actually be multiple years in length. I actually know some young people that have taught English abroad, again, years in length.

Significantly broadening the qualifications to receive a dividend, and certainly not, not necessarily meeting the intent of living here.

So I have concerns about it as well. Welcome, Senator Clayman. Further questions or discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, do you have closing remarks, Senator Roscher? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, there was a— I think kind of an oversight. I didn't realize it was pertaining to the PFD. It was supposed to be for hunting license only. That's what the intention was, so we wouldn't be changing the definition of the PFD. Um, I'm, I'm probably going to withdraw, uh, because my intention was for a hunting license.

Okay, so I think that it'd be a heavy lift to try and move it for the PFD. I just don't see that happening. But, and I'm going to recant. I'll just let it vote because a lot of people are hoping that this will get voted on and I can vote yes. And people can vote no.

Thank you. All right. Further discussion on the amendment? I am not going to remove my— I'm going to retain, maintain my objection. So, Mary Gwen, would you please call the roll?

We are voting now on the adoption of Amendment Number G-1.

No.

Senator Kawasaki. No. Senator Broussard. Yes. Senator Dunbar.

No. Senator Clayman. No. Senator Myers. Yes.

Senator Giesel. No.

5 Nays. And so on a vote of 2 yeas and 5 nays, Amendment Number G1 has failed to be adopted. This takes us back to the original bill. I have no further amendments. So we are now going to open public testimony on the bill.

Thank you very much, Representative Himschoot and staff. We're going to open public testimony on the bill. I will start here in the room. I see Steve Opening public testimony. I see Steve Bradford in the room wishing to testify.

Mr. Bradford, please come forward. After he speaks, we will go online. I see David Eggleston, Eggleston, in Thorn Bay.

So let me just set some guidelines here. Mr. Bradford and those of you online who wish to testify, I'm allowing 2 minutes. You will be asked to identify identify yourself by name and any affiliation with any particular groups that you might have. And it will be a 2-minute limit. We do have quite a few people lined up.

So when your 2 minutes is up, I will tell you your 2 minutes is up, and the audio— our LIO moderator will cut off the call so we can move on, so everyone can be heard. So welcome, Mr. Bradford, I'll let you begin. Thank you. Yes, my name is Steve Bradford. I'm a 51-year Alaska resident.

I'm residing here in Juneau, Alaska, and I'm representing myself today. I would like to offer this testimony on HB 93. I believe this legislation violates state and federal laws.

My first point is that Article 8, Section 3 of the Alaska Constitution states quote, "Whenever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use," unquote. My second point, Article 8, Section 17 of the Alaska Constitution states, quote, "Laws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources shall apply equally to all persons similarly situated, unquote. This means all residents shall have equal laws and regulations applied equally for Fish and Game purposes, not just residents that meet criteria for PFD eligible or residents who are gone for 180 days or more. Uh, point number 3, Alaska's common use doctrine is a key principle, legal A key legal principle that clearly states, and the courts have upheld, that fish and wildlife belong to all Alaskans collectively. Point 4, residency is defined in Alaska Statute 01.10.055.

In particular, I quote subparagraph C, quote, a person who establishes residency in the state remains a resident during an absence from the state unless during the absence the person establishes or claims residency in another state, territory, or country, or is absent under circumstances that are inconsistent with the intent required under (a) of this section to remain a resident of the state. Unquote. Is that my 2 minutes? That's your 2 minutes. Wow.

Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony. Yeah, thanks. All right. He has submitted in writing.

Yes, I believe it is in your packet of materials, but the secretary is right there and she can take your written testimony as well. And for the folks online, you can send in your testimony. There was a packet of testimony sent out, and I've heard— I actually read it, and I believe those statements were in the testimony. But you're welcome to also leave it with our secretary. Well, thank you for this opportunity.

Oh, Of course. Thank you for coming. Next up, we're hearing from David Eggleston in Thorne Bay. After Mr. Eggleston will be Cabot Pitts in Palmer. Mr. Eggleston, welcome.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is David Eggleston. My wife and I are residents of Southeast Alaska. I'm chairman of the East Prince of Wales Advisory Committee, the secretary of the Thorne Bay Fisheries Association, and a member of Southeast Alaska Guides Organization.

I strongly support HB 93. It will help tighten up the loopholes that are allowing thousands of people from improperly claiming residency in Alaska. It will give our Alaska troopers better tools to enforce our residency laws. In past testimony to legislative committees, I repeated much of what others have said, trying to explain why this bill needs to be passed. When I listened to questions from the committees, it struck me that many of the legislators do not hunt or fish and therefore couldn't fully understand the importance of this bill.

The short story is that residents are generally allowed to take more fish and game than non-residents. Rural residents are able to take certain fish and wildlife for subsistence use. This is very important for those off the major —road systems. What we see throughout the state are people coming to Alaska year after year claiming to be residents. They purchase resident sporting licenses instead of the more expensive non-resident licenses.

They take extra resources as residents or subsistence users. We see many boxes and sometimes freezers full of Fish and Game heading south on the ferries every year with fake residents. The state needs a better way to stop this misappropriation of resources. Not only will this bill save Fish and Game, but it will also push people to purchase the more expensive non-resident sporting licenses to help the F&G financially. I urge you to move this bill out of committee, and thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Uh, next up is Cabot Pitts calling in from Palmer. He'll be followed by Brett Bradford in Cordova. Mr. Pitts, welcome. Hi, yes, thank you.

Um, hopefully everybody can hear me. I'm calling remote from— I'm actually down in Naknek, Alaska right now. But, um, for the record, my name is Cabot Pitts. I'm a resident of Palmer, Alaska, and I'm representing myself in this testimony. I'm a hunting outfitter and an air taxi operator.

Here in the state, and I just appreciate you for allowing me to speak this morning. And I would just like to start by saying our wildlife resources are very valuable in our state and are very dear to me as well, as I make most of my living from non-resident hunters and hunters in the state wanting to access our wildlife resources. So I am in support of House Bill 93, aligning this residency requirement for residents and non-residents in the state. I can attest and speak very deeply about this issue and being— An Alaskan resident is a huge investment that one takes to actually living in the state full-time to benefit from these privileges we are allowed as Alaska residents. It's important for residents of Alaska to truly live in and contribute to the state in order to fully benefit from these resources that we have.

The liberal, you know, bag limits and allowances for residents benefits everybody, especially people living in remote villages and just being in the state alone. Our Alaska resources and opportunities, including more liberal subsistence fishing and hunting rights, are reserved for those people who actively live here. So, there's a need for a clear enforceable standard, I believe, on residency, and without that standard, it's a huge burden on our law enforcement and the burden of this enforcement keeps, you know, all of our law enforcement officials in the field to be able to make those calls and things that they need to do while they're out there. So, by simply holding an address here isn't enough. I generally We think the residency means supporting local businesses, engaging in the community, and investing in our future of the state.

And these benefits are designed to support those who call Alaska home, not just on paper, but in practice. Thank you very much, Mr. Pitts, for your testimony. Next is Brett Bradford. He will be followed by Mark Richards in Fairbanks. Mr. Bradford, welcome.

Thank you. Good morning. Brett Bradford, Cordova, Alaska, 51-year resident of the state. I'm chairman of the board of the Copper River Prince William Sound Marketing Association. I'm on the board of directors for Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation.

I'm also a member of the regional advisory committee here in Cordova. HB 93 puts an unreasonable burden on residents who spend time outside the state but still maintain residency in Alaska. One group of people affected by these are retirees who have spent most of their life, if not all of their lives, working raising families in Alaska and enjoy time outside in the wintertime. Now that they're retired, the sponsors of this bill aim to penalize these residents. Another group affected negatively are resident commercial fishermen who must, for economic reasons, continue to fish outside of the state during winter months in order to continue to make a living.

In the sponsor statement version G updated March 25th, the sponsors claim that current residency requirements are a, quote, loophole in regards to Alaska residents who hunt and fish. In the next paragraph, and I quote, it says— they use the word 'importantly'— this bill does not change the bag and possession limits for out-of-state hunters or fishermen who come to Alaska. And moving down, it says, in addition, the important guided hunting and fishing industries will not be impacted by this bill. It seems that the sponsors of this bill are prioritizing access of our Fish and Game resources to non-residents and the guided hunting and fishing industry over our lifelong residents. If we're concerned with resource availability, let's put restrictions on the charter operators and the guides and the non-resident users.

Please stop this bill from moving forward. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Next up is Mark Richards calling in from Fairbanks. He will be followed by Mark Keller, who is calling in from Minnesota.

Mr. Richards, welcome. Good morning, Chair Giesel, Vice Chair Wilkowski, and members of the Resources Committee. For the record, my name is Mark Richards, and I'm calling in today for Resident Hunters of Alaska, the hunting conservation organization that advocates for sustainable wildlife management policies with an emphasis on protecting and enhancing resident opportunities. Resident Hunters of Alaska opposes HB 93 as written. You should have the letter we sent in.

We certainly don't want non-residents to be able to hunt and fish up here under a resident license and bag limits. And we want to again sincerely thank Representative Himschuh for introducing this bill and trying to fix what is a real problem, especially in Southeast Alaska with fishing. But as we say in our letter, this is a big catch-22 for us because the way this bill would define who is a resident in terms of a hunting or fishing license It's going to negatively affect real Laffins who don't fall under the PFD exemptions. We had originally asked for amendments to exempt certain individuals who may work out of state more than 180 days and don't meet the PFD eligibility requirements, but they really do live here, have a spouse and children here, et cetera. Those amendments did not pass, but now we see some separate legislation that would modify the PFD eligibility requirements to get those exemptions.

We preferred to figure out first what workers should get an exemption and include those exemptions within this bill. Again, Madam Chair and members of the committee, while we certainly support the intent of this legislation, we just can't support it as written due to the number of real Alaskans who will be disenfranchised in holding a resident hunting or fishing license. There must be a better way of defining who is and isn't a resident in order to fix this problem. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Next up is Mark Keller calling in from Rochester, Minnesota. He'll be followed by Gary Hollier. Mr. Keller, welcome. Yes, thank you. Say, my name is Mark Keller and I represent myself, and I'm a resident of Anchorage, and I oppose, uh, HB 93, um, uh, just because I feel it's too restrictive.

I'm actually currently in Rochester, Minnesota, and I'm helping my dad with some pretty complicated medical issues that he's had over the last several years. So I did submit some testimony, and I'll read a little bit from it, but it says, um, it's reported that these changes would likely mirror the current requirements for the permanent dividend fund. If this Bill becomes law, it will take away my rights as a resident. Let me explain. Currently, I must provide care for my aging parents who live in Minnesota.

I am a durable power of attorney for my father and I must care for him as needed. It is not possible for my father to move to Alaska. His condition will not allow it. And Alaska does not offer interdisciplinary specialty and expert medical care that he requires. As a result, I may, from time to time, be absent from Alaska more than the proposed HB 93 requirement of 180 days.

I believe that the current version of HB 93 would— should either be rejected or revised. I would, at the very least, recommend that Alaska allow meritorious exemptions process for residents with special circumstances. This exemption should allow residents with special circumstances to be exempt from the 180-day requirement that's set forth in HB 93. This exemption already exists for members of the military, individuals serving, um, on a staff of, uh, United States Congress, and employees that— of the state that are in office in another location. And also, um, another—.

Thank you, Mr. Keller, for your testimony. Next up is Gary Hollier calling in from Kenai. He'll be followed by Al Barrett. Mr. Hollier, welcome.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Gary Hollier. I'm a 72-year-old lifelong resident of Alaska. I have a small business and two corporations in Alaska. I've qualified for every PFD.

I'm deeply concerned and opposed to HB 93. This bill fairly targets older Alaskans like me who spent a lifetime building Alaska, paying taxes, voting, raising families, contributing to our communities. Many seniors spend longer periods outside for medical care, to visit families, or simply to escape harsh winter conditions. This does not mean Alaska is no longer my home. I am an Alaskan.

The PFD already has strict requirements residency requirements. They examine whether a person maintains Alaska as their true and permanent home through a driver's license, voter registration, property ownership, vehicle registration, and many other factors. Residency is already carefully defined. A simple day count does not tell the full story of someone's real home, where it is. HB 93 would create a second class of Alaskans, particularly retirees and seniors, by punishing people for their age and lifestyle, but despite maintaining every legal tie to Alaska.

Younger working Alaskans may be able to stay year-round because of employment, while retirees have more flexibility. This flexibility should not cost them rights they've earned through decades of residency. Alaska has always valued independence and individual circumstances. This bill ignores those values and replaces them with an arbitrary number. A lifelong resident should not lose resident privilege just because they spend more time caring for their health, their grandchildren, Or their quality of life out there.

Outside of Alaska during part of the year. I urge you to oppose HB 93 and protect the rights of Alaska. It includes seniors and who proudly call Alaska home. I ask you, if I don't— I get zero benefits from another state, where should I be able to hunt and fish if I get zero benefits from another state? If you were a senior citizen, I ask these senators, and/or if their parents were, should they be cut off from the rights that they have actually had Thank you for your testimony, Mr.

Hollier. Next up is Mr. Al Barrett. He'll be followed by Rod Arno. Mr. Barrett, welcome. Senator Giesel and Vice Chair Wilkowski and members of the Senate Resources Committee, my name is Al Barrett.

I reside in Fairbanks. I am commenting on HB 93. I am currently—. I'm also currently a member of the Board of Game. I'm not representing the Board of Game or any positions the Board of Game has taken on HB 93.

I'm only representing my thoughts and opinions as an old resident Alaskan. I only fundamentally oppose HB 93 because it really is not addressing the problems that are inherent with enforcement of it. I believe that the amendments to, to the language found in 1605.330 to 1605.430, where it says a physical presence in the state with the intent to remain in the state indefinitely. And I think if you further pursue that with Major Frenzel, that's one of their highest hurdles they have to prove is somebody's intent to remain in the state indefinitely. I would ask you to—.

Or I would—. Have you ever heard an Alaskan colleague, friend, or peer, coworker, or somebody that may have said to yourself, when I retire, I'm moving outside to be closer to my grandchildren and children because because of that reason. So when a person, Alaskan resident, makes that statement, their intent changes. Um, do you believe they're not complying with the law currently when they make a statement like that? I believe that if you rescind the language, remove the 'with the intent to remain in the state indefinitely,' and redefine domicile to what you want to say or not wanted to say, that this would be a bigger tool for wildlife enforcement to enforce the residency laws.

And the other issue is, is tying this to the dividend and saying that the troopers can go check to see if somebody received the permanent fund. I mean, it's not even a rumor anymore. The application and the Thank you, Mr. Barrett, for your testimony. Next up is Rod Arno. He'll be followed by Ken Voracek.

Mr. Arno, welcome. Yes, thank you, Chairman, committee members. My name is Rod Arno, Palmer, Alaska, and I represent the Alaska Outdoor Council. And the Alaska Outdoor Council opposes the passage of HB 93. It's the wrong direction in the legislation.

There isn't anything in the bill that would add tools to the trooper's ability to follow through with citations on determination of residency. And AS 1605-415, determination of residency, right in the Fish and Game Code, it says, you know, that the person is physically present in the state with the intent to remain in the state. And make their homeless statement. It's right there. So if there's problems with the enforcement, I think, you know, looking back at what our legal team of 1605.415, you know, every tool that the outdoor counselors looked at is there for enforcement.

But if there's something that the people would like to add to that, Let them name that instead of tying it to the 180 days because there's 100,000 Alaskans who don't fill out a PFD and get it. So whether they are commercial fishermen, I know a bunch of them that get out, whether they're retirees, I'm real close to that, or whether they're federally qualified certificate hunters Because according to, uh, uh, the CFR 106 license, in order for a rural resident to hunt on federal, uh, land with federal regulations, he has to have an Alaska resident hunting license. So, uh, the folks are going to be disqualified to Thank you, Mr. Arner, for your testimony. Next up is Ken Voracek calling in from Fairbanks, and he will be followed by Jill Weitz here in the room.

Mr. Voracek, welcome. Thank you. Ken Voracek, I live in Fairbanks. I'm testifying on behalf of myself. In 1972, I was 21 years old when I left Ohio with $500 and a Datsun pickup truck.

For the next 54 years, I made Fairbanks my home. I raised a family here, had numerous businesses, contributed to Alaska's growth, and I continue to be a productive resident. Now at 75 years old, Alaska wants to take away my very lifestyle that I've earned and loved. Lala Trooper Prenzel testified that they investigated about 118 residency violations in the past year or so. Yet HB 93 will strip about 100,000 legal Alaska residents of their current Fish and Game privileges.

HB 93 fully supports having over 500,000— that's half a million— non-residents hauling fish out of the state each year, but apparently my wife and I are the problem. Make no mistake, my soul lives 365 days in Alaska, and my residency is still a net benefit to this state. I challenge anyone to give me one good reason how the current fish— how my current Fish and Game access is harming the state or its wildlife, or how HB 93 is going to fix anything of consequence. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

And, uh, now we have Jill Ms. Weitz here in the room in Juneau. Ms. Weitz, welcome. Good morning, Chair Giesel and members of the Senate Resources Committee. For the record, my name is Jill Weitz. I live in Juneau and serve as Government Affairs for the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska.

Tlingit and Haida is the regional tribe of Southeast, and we represent over 38,000 tribal citizens. Tlingit and Haida is also a member of the Alaska Regional Coalition, representing 165 communities and approximately 99,000 Alaska Natives. Alaskans throughout— or through 7 regional tribal nonprofit organizations. Together, we provide lawmakers with on-the-ground insight into the realities facing rural communities and tribal citizens. On behalf of Tlingit and Haida and ARC, I am here in support of House Bill 93.

For Native Alaska communities and many rural Alaskans, subsistence is not a recreational activity. It is a cornerstone of food security, cultural continuity and community well-being. Salmon, halibut, deer, moose, and other traditional foods are central to how families feed themselves and sustain their way of life. House Bill 93 helps ensure that resident hunting and fishing privileges are aligned with Alaska's established residency standards. By aligning with the Permanent Fund dividend framework, it creates a clear, more consistent, and more enforceable system.

This bill addresses several key issues. It helps— it helps reduce misuse of residents' license by individuals who do not live in Alaska year-round but still benefit from lower fees and higher harvest limits, placing additional pressure on already strained resources. It also helps protect subsistence access, which for many communities can mean the difference between having enough food for the winter or not. Ensuring that resident privileges are applied consistently is a practical step the state can make to reduce pressures. House Bill 93 is about protecting the resources Alaska communities depend on every day.

We appreciate the legislature's attention to this issue and respectfully urge your support. Thank you for your service and the opportunity to testify. Thank you very much, Ms. Weitz. Uh, with that, that concludes the people that have signed up to testify. I will close public testimony.

Mr. Thatcher, I see Representative, uh, Himshoot— pardon me, Himshoot— has had to depart. So I will invite you forward for any closing remarks related to the bill. Welcome. Thank you, Chair Giesel. Again, for the record, Thatcher Brower, staff director at Himshoot.

I don't have any prepared closing comments, but I'm more than happy to answer questions. Are there any questions? Senator Dunbar. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I was I was sort of moved by the testimony of the gentleman who is living out of state and taking care of his father.

But I looked at the language provided by Senator Rauscher in the amendment, and I feel like it would be covered by one of these exceptions. I mean, there are exceptions in the existing PFD statute. One, page 2, line 19, receiving.

Continuous medical treatment. Line 22, providing care for a parent, spouse, sibling, child, etc. Page— line 27, providing care for the individual's terminally ill family member. I mean, are those exceptions for a variety of medical care incorporated either by reference or explicitly in your bill, and how would you see that operating? Yes, again, for the record, Thatcher Brower, staff representative, and through the chair, Senator Dunbar, You are correct.

There are a number of allowable absences for medical issues, and, and I don't know the, the particulars of this case and whether or not it would qualify, but under our bill, all the allowable absences for medical care or for caring for somebody who's undergoing treatment would apply. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Very good. Senator Kawasaki, question.

Thank you. Uh, so I'm trying to think of circumstances. So if a person were to decide to get off that boat today and stay in Juneau for 1 year, they would qualify as a resident for purposes of hunting and fishing after that 12-month period. Is that correct? Uh, that's about our staff reps, him too, for the record.

And through the chair, Senator Kawasaki, that is correct. And then if they were to fly back home to wherever they're from, um, But say that they maintained residency here in Alaska and then come back, they would immediately be a resident for purposes of hunting and fishing when they were to come back if they were to have said that they were going to be a resident of Alaska.

Um, that's your brower for the record. And through the chair, Senator Kawasaki, or just to clarify your question, are you talking about under existing law or with HB 93? Under the existing law.

Through the chair, Senator Kawasaki, that is my understanding. I would be happy to defer to Major Aaron Frenzel too. He may have a clearer answer. Major Frenzel, again, a question for you. Did you hear Senator Kawasaki's question and can you respond?

Thank you, Chair Diesel. I couldn't, but if you could repeat it, I would appreciate it. Senator Kawasaki. Basically, I am trying to clarify. If I were to get a resident resident hunting and fishing license in the state and then leave Alaska tomorrow and then be gone for a long time, but then decide to come back still having my household in Fairbanks, Alaska, could I— would I still be able to qualify for that resident hunting license?

Because I never— and using like my home in Fairbanks as a permanent address.

Yes, through the chair, Senator Kawasaki, for the record, Aaron Frenzel. Wildlife troopers. Yes, um, you would as long as you do not obtain another benefit in another state, your primary domicile remains in Alaska, and that intent to remain here is there. There's no set number of days you can be that makes you a non-resident if you're gone for. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Wilkowski. Yeah, thank you. Just, just to be clear, If you're a resident of Alaska and you have no other exemptions, how long can you be gone from the state and still be considered a resident under this proposal? Is this question for Major Frenzel?

This is for Mr. Brower. Mr. Brower. Um, that's your brower for the record. And through the chair, uh, Senator Wilkowski, um, with this bill, you, you would be able to be gone for 180 days or absent for a longer period of time if it was for allowable reason. Follow-up, Senator Wielekowski.

So for retirees or snowbirds, they, they can be gone for 6 months and still be considered an Alaska resident, is that right? Uh, Thatcher Brower for the record, and through the chair, Senator Wielekowski, that is correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Very good.

I see no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Brower. Thank you, Major Frenzel. Uh, I'm looking for the will of the committee. Senator Wielekowski.

Madam Chair, I move House Bill 93, work order 34-LS0058/G as in Galivan, from committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. Legislative Legal has the authority to make necessary technical and conforming changes. Objection. There's an objection. Would you like to speak to your objection?

Yeah, I just wanted to add something here. Representative Himschute included a I have a paper here. Basically, the cost of what it would be to go from a non-resident— or from a resident to a non-resident status for hunting. Bison tag, you would pay nothing as a resident, but you would pay $900 as a non-resident. $25 For grizzly bear tag, $1,000 as a non-resident, but you also have to hire a guide, which goes into the tens of thousands.

Cow tag, $25 for a non— for a resident, and $2,200 for a non-resident. Now, there was about 4 or 5 gentlemen stated that there were 100,000 PFDs that weren't applied for. This seems like a moneymaker for the state. That's what I see out of it, but that's just a statement. And I see that it's hard to argue that it wouldn't be, but I just wanted to make that statement.

Thank you, Senator Rauscher. I will follow up that statement. About 8 years ago, the representative from the area you are the senator for brought forward these hunting and fishing fees. These are still well under what other states charge for their prize hunting tags, but we did raise the fees. It is true, about 8 years ago.

Follow-up? Follow-up, Senator Rauscher. I wasn't complaining about the fee itself. I was explaining the difference that you are not a resident now and the amount you would be paying if you were a non-resident as opposed to a resident. That's all.

I wasn't complaining about the fees. I just want you to know. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Senator Kawasaki.

Yeah, and thanks. And I see it in a different way. I think what this says is that clearly there's a benefit to being a resident of the state of Alaska, and that resident— and us as residents who live here year-round, um, should be able to benefit more than a person who's a part-time resident or not resident, not what I would consider a resident of the state. Thank you. Uh, there has been objection to adoption of the, um —of the motion to move the bill.

Is the objection sustained? Yes. Mary Gwynn, would you please call the roll? The motion has been to move House Bill 93 from committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. Mary Gwynn?

Senator Dunbar? Yes. Senator Clayman? Yes. Senator Wilkowski.

Yes. Senator Kawasaki. Yes. Senator Myers. No.

Senator Rauscher. No. Senator Giesel. Yes.

5 Yeas, 2 nays. And so by a vote of 2 yeas— excuse me, 5 yeas and 2 nays, House Bill 93 moves from committee with attached zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations. We will sign the transmittal documents at adjournment. Next up we have House Bill 117, Commercial Fishing Set— Set Gillnet Cooperative. The last up on our— this bill was before the committee in the past and we have an updated committee substitute to consider.

Senator Wilkowski. Madam Chair, I move to rescind the previous action of passing from committee House Bill 117, work order 34-LS0557/i, as in Iggy Aggie, as amended. Seeing no objection, the action of passing version I of House Bill 117 as amended is rescinded. Members, before you is a draft committee substitute for this bill. Senator Wilkowski.

I move the committee adopt the committee substitute for House Bill 117, work draft 34-LS0557/T as in Trapper Creek as our working document. And I will object for purpose of discussion, and I will invite Representative Stutes and her staff Matt Groening forward to explain the changes made in the committee substitute. Welcome. Good morning. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Matt Greening, staff to Representative Louise Stutes. The CS version T before you contains several notable changes from the version that passed from committee. First, and unfortunately, the original set-net language in House Bill 117 regarding set-net cooperative deliveries and commingling of fish was removed.

Senate Bill 158 in its entirety, which is in the other body right now, has been added. As members of this committee may recall, Senate Bill 158 creates a new set-net administrative area in the east side of Cook Inlet. That language can be found on Sections 1, 4, 6, and 7 of the new committee substitute. Additionally, there was a slight change to the electronic.

Monitoring language as it compares to the language that left the committee before, and that's on page 4, line 16 of the new CS. The word finfish was inserted in front of trawl fishery to clarify that the electronic monitoring requirement does not apply to shrimp or scallop fisheries. Those are smaller boat fisheries and they don't have a parallel electronic monitoring requirement on a federal level. Very good.

Representative Stutes, are you— do you have comment about this committee substitute? Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Louise Stutes representing Cordova, Kodiak, Seward, and several smaller coastal communities. I'm very supportive of the committee substitute, but I'm obviously a little disappointed that our original language was removed from the bill. I want to say for the record that addressing cooperative setnet deliveries and commingling fish is a good policy that simply preserves the cooperative family model for setnetting that has existed since statehood.

From the bottom of my heart, truly, I would like to thank every stakeholder who engaged and supported House Bill 117. However, there was some concern from stakeholders in one particular region, and it became apparent during the last hearing, try as we might, and we did, we were unable to resolve those concerns with the short time that we have left in session. I intend to work with the stakeholders over the interim to come up with a workable solution to remove any concerns and bring the for— the bill forward once again. Recognizing the political reality of where we are in our original bill needing additional work over the interim, I'm supportive of moving forward with the electronic monitoring language as well as one Senate Bill 158, the new administrative area in Cook Inlet. I think it will be good for our industry, and I think it's appropriate that we move forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity. Thank you, Representative Stutes.

Um, I'm distracted by the outside noises, but I'll get past it. Senator Dunbar. Thank you, Madam Chair, um, and thank you, Representative Stutes, for bringing this. I, um, I, I support the elements that are currently in the bill. I like what's in the bill, but I also really liked what you had before.

I mean, I, growing up in Prince William Sound, I've heard from a number of folks and from your region obviously that were concerned about the new administrative interpretation of the rules that families have used for generations. So can you give me a little bit more about why it was removed? What region and what were their concerns? Thank you, Senator Dunbar. Through the chair, Representative Louise Stutes.

It was basically the Bristol Bay area, and they had some questions. They have a different type of— they have over 900 permits there, and they felt like they needed a little more information and a little more time to disseminate exactly how this was going to work. We have had the good fortune of working with our Department of Public Safety, the CFPC, and the Department of Fish and Game in addressing their concerns, but it's just so close to the end of session that we will be bringing that bill back next year, and we feel like over the interim we have a workable solution with everybody involved. Thank you for the question. Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chair.

All right, any further questions for Representative Stutes? Um, thank you, Representative Stutes. I am going to ask Senator Dunbar— excuse me, Senator Bjorkman, to come forward. Uh, the piece that is in the proposed committee substitute is a piece from a provision that he had brought forward.

I will offer him an opportunity to make comment on the committee substitute. Welcome. Thank you very much, Chair Giesel and members of the esteemed Senate Resources Committee. For the record, my name is Senator Jesse Bjorkman and I represent the northern and central portions of the Kenai Peninsula. As you heard my bill previously and passed it out, that is now included in this bill.

I'm strongly supportive of the new administrative area in Cook Inlet as it allows for self-determination of Eastside Setnetters. Their ability to uniquely manage their permits through CFEC in a matching way as they are uniquely managed through an allocation perspective by the Board of Fish. Very good. Are there questions for Senator Bjorkman? Seeing none, thank you for bringing— for commenting on the committee substitute.

Seeing no objection, I'm going to remove my objection to adopting the committee substitute for House Bill 117, version T, as our working document Amendment. Is there further discussion about version T from committee members?

Seeing none, Senator Wilkowski. Madam Chair, I move House Bill 117, Work Order 34-LS0557/T, as in Thorn Bay, from committee as amended with forthcoming new fiscal notes and individual recommendations. Legislative Legal has the authority to make any necessary and conforming changes. Seeing no objection, House Bill 117, version T, moves from committee with additional forthcoming fiscal notes and individual recommendations. This concludes the 54th meeting of the Senate Resources Committee for this session.

Our next meeting will be this afternoon at 3:30, meeting number 55. At that time, we will be hearing additional information about Senate Bill 280, the Supporting a Gas Line for Alaskans Act. The Department of Revenue will be speaking to us, and if time, we will get to amendments. At this time, we will adjourn. Please remain and sign the transmittal documents.

The time is 10:11 a.m.