Senate Resources, 5/6/26, 3:30pm

Committee meeting to order.

Today is Wednesday, May 6th, 2026. The time is 3:30 PM. Please turn off your cell phones. Committee members present today: Senator Kawasaki, Senator Myers, Vice Chair Senator Wilkowski, and I am Senator Giesel. We have a quorum to conduct business.

We are being joined at the same time by Senator Clayman and Senator Rauscher. Thank you, Heather and Susan, who faithfully help us out with these meetings. We have 3 House bills up today: House Joint Resolution 44, House Bill 93, and House Bill 79. We're starting out with HJR 4. This is the first hearing of this resolution, though we have a Senate version of it as well.

So I will invite Representative Maxine Dibert to the table as well as her staff, Sarah Snowberger.

Welcome, if you would present your bill.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Senate Resources Committee. I just want to start off by saying thank you for hearing House Joint Resolution 44 today. For the record, I'm Maxine Diebert, represent House District 31 for downtown Fairbanks. I am co-chair of the House Resources Committee. Next to me is my chief of staff, Sarah Snowberger.

And let me explain House Joint Resolution 44. HGR44 reaffirms Alaska's support for Alaska Native Corporations and tribal entities participating in the federal SBA 8(a) Business Development Program. The 8(a) program—you might ask, what is that?—has been one of the most effective tools for creating economic opportunities in Alaska, particularly in rural Alaska and underserved communities. Through this program, Alaska Native Corporations and tribal entities have been able to grow successful businesses in industries that range from construction, energy, to defense, healthcare, and technology. The impact of this program reaches far beyond contracts alone.

Revenues generated through 8(a) programs are reinvested directly back into Alaska communities through shareholder dividends, through scholarships, job training, elder benefits, infrastructure, and other critical services. It has also helped create thousands of jobs for Alaskans, including veterans and people living in rural communities where economic opportunities can be limited. This program also plays an important, important role in our nation's Arctic and national security efforts. Alaska Native corporations support critical military and infrastructure operations across the state, helping strengthen Alaska's role as the nation's frontline in the Arctic. In the recent months, this program has faced increased scrutiny and proposals that could weaken participation for Alaska Native corporations and tribal entities.

And Madam Chair, if that happens, the impacts would be felt across our state through lost jobs, reduced investment in rural communities, and fewer opportunities for Alaska Native shareholders and small businesses. HJR 44 sends a clear message that Alaska stands united in support of preserving this program because it works for Alaska Native communities, for small businesses, for our economy, and for our state as a whole. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for your time and for hearing HJR 44, and I'm happy to hand answer any questions and with the help of my chief of staff, Sarah Snowberger. Thank you very much, Representative Dybert. Committee members, any questions for Representative Dybert?

Seeing none, we have invited testimony from Nicole Borromeo, who is online. Ms. Borromeo, welcome to Senate Resources. If you would introduce yourself for the record and give us your testimony on the resolution.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Nicole Bromio, and I'm the President of the ANCSA Regional Association. ARA represents the 12 Alaska Native regional corporations that were established by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, and our board is comprised of all of the 12 presidents or CEOs of those corporations.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify again in support of Senate Joint Resolution 18.

26, And to bring attention to the vital importance that Native corporations participating in the U.S. Small Business Administration's business development program play in the state. The issue affects not just ANCs but indeed all Alaskans. Last week, your colleagues in the House sent a historic bipartisan signal to policymakers in Washington by passing HJR 44, the companion to HJR 22, in a resounding 40-0 unanimous vote. Now SJR 26 makes its way to the floor in the Senate, and we ask this body to act with equal conviction in support of our state and its ANCs.

A matching unanimous vote from the Senate, first through this committee, will show federal and congressional officials that Alaska speaks with a unified voice when it comes to protecting our economic foundation. SJR 26 reflects a fundamental truth: ANCs are among the state's most significant private sector economic engines directly employing thousands and supporting billions in economic activity that helps keep our state vibrant. They are also integral to the social and cultural well-being of roughly 150,000 Alaska Native shareholders. ANCs are private companies with a congressional mandate to advance social, cultural, and economic well-being of their shareholders, descendants, and communities. They are shareholder-owned institutions in which no individual owner profits disproportionately.

ANCs return earnings broadly through dividends, revenue sharing, elder benefits, scholarships, and community investments. The 12 regional corporations, as well as more than 200 village corporations, were established following Congress's passage of ANCSA. This legislation resolved Aboriginal land claims while creating a private for-profit model to promote long-term economic self-determination. In 1992, Congress acknowledged the key limitations of ANCSA by authorizing ANCs and their subsidiaries to participate in the SBA's 8(a) program. This shift recognized federal procurement as a lawful and necessary economic development tool to offset the unique constraints of landlocked and difficult-to-develop land conveyed to ANCs under ANCSA.

While ANCs have a fiduciary duty to maximize economic benefit for their shareholders, They also play a significant role in driving Alaska's economy and are frequently recognized among the top companies in Alaska's business magazine's Top 49er list. In 2022, ANCs generated $13.5 billion in total revenue and accounted for 7% of all wages paid in Alaska. ANCs are reversing our state's historic economic model by importing wealth rather than just exporting resources. N nationwide ANC-owned contractors employ 51,000 residents in all 50 states, which plays an important part in driving 8(a)— which plays an important part in driving the 8(a) program's over $200 billion in total economic impact to communities across America. While ANC reach is national, our primary impact remains rooted here at home.

8(A) contracts act as a vital economic pipeline, importing billions of dollars from federal agencies back here here to the hands of Alaskans, making their way to Alaskan dinner tables. Regional corporations spent $2.8 billion in Alaska on wages, goods, and services, including shareholder distributions, revenue sharing, charitable giving, education, and taxes in 2022 alone. This includes providing $17.3 million in benefits to more than 10,800 elders that year. The 8(a) program also delivers significant benefits to the federal government. It is used extensively by Defense, Homeland Security, Infrastructure, and other mission-critical agencies.

ANC participation in the program helps to reduce acquisition timelines, preserve government ownership of intellectual property, and delivers high-performing scalable solutions that improve taxpayer value.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Supporting SJR 26 affirms Congress's will and the measurable contributions of ANC to the state of Alaska and the national interest. By sending a unified bipartisan message from both chambers of the Alaska State Legislature, we will add to a chorus of voices speaking in support of ANC participation in the 8(a) program, including Governor Dunleavy, the Alaska Congressional Delegation, and our state's business community. Together we will present an unbreakable front against federal overreach. I respectfully urge your support of SJR 26. Thank you for your consideration and the opportunity to testify today before the committee.

Thank you, Ms. Veromil. Uh, do committee members have any questions for Ms. Veromil? All right, seeing none, thank you very much for joining us today. Um, with that, I'm going to open public testimony. I don't see anyone online wishing to testify on this bill.

Is there anyone in the room that wishes to testify on House Joint Resolution 44? Seeing none, I'll close public testimony. Uh, Senator Wielechowski. Madam Chair, I move House Joint Resolution 44, Work Order 34-LS1588/n, as in Nome, from committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. Legislative Legal has the authority to make necessary technical and conforming changes.

I see no objection. Therefore, HJR 44 moves from committee with attached zero fiscal note and individual recommendations. We will stay after the committee meeting today to sign the transmittal documents. Thank you very much, Representative Dybert. Thank you, Chair Giesel.

With that, we will move on to House Bill 93, residents— residency requirements, hunting, trapping, Fishing. This is a first hearing of this bill, and here to present the bill are Representative Rebecca Himschoot and Thatcher Brower, her staff. Welcome, Representative Himschoot. Thank you so much, Chair Giesel, and, um, thank you to the committee for hearing this bill today. My name is Rebecca Himschoot.

I represent House District 2. That's 21 communities from Yakutat to Hyderburg, over 500 miles of coast here in Southeast Alaska. House Bill 93— we'll run through these slides as quickly as we can. If I'm going too fast, let me know.

The, the current standards to get a resident hunting or fishing license include the fact that you should be physically present in the state, although most of the applications are done online. You have to maintain a domicile in the state for 12 consecutive months, and you cannot claim residency anywhere else. So the purpose of House Bill 93 is to tighten up how we define residency for hunting and fishing in-state, because domicile can be a little bit difficult. Intent to stay can be very difficult to define. Domicile is a little bit easier to define, but it can also include a domicile that could be a trailer on, in someone's yard or a room that you rent in someone's house.

So with House Bill 93, we want to set a more enforceable standard. For whether or not you are eligible to hunt and fish as a resident. Over the years, the Board of Fish and the Board of Game and the legislature have taken steps to make hunting and fishing as a resident more lucrative for families who are here in the state. So we have lower license fees and we also have higher bag limits for folks who hunt and fish as a resident. And we do that kind of as a recognition of the preference that we want to afford local people who are here in the state year-round.

We want to recognize that the folks who are here with their kids in the schools, volunteering on their local EMS, shoveling snow, that those folks get more of the bounty of the state than folks who are visiting. And we've set that standard. We have, I think, agreed that we want to give that preference, but what we have not done is create an enforceable standard of how to know who gets that preference and who does not. So, um, some of the question residency investigations can take as long— because of our, our complicated definitions— can take as long as a homicide investigation. So we wanted to come forward with a bill that will clarify those standards of residency, and a standard that is widely used in Alaska is the standard for receiving the Permanent Fund dividend.

So with House Bill 93, it closely aligns to that standard, but, um, you can still be out of the state for 180 days under House Bill 93 and even longer for allowable absences. And I want to be really clear, with House Bill 93, in order for Alaskans who are currently somewhere in the range of that to adjust their calendar, it has an effective date in January of '28. So people have all of next year to sort of sort themselves out and align themselves to the new standards. We want to be really clear with House Bill 93, we are not taking away anyone's residency. We are, um, making a more enforceable standard.

So a lot of Alaskans identify as Alaskan, and you are an Alaskan, and you always will be an Alaskan in your identity. Residency is used in 26 different ways, from voting to in-state tuition to homesteading and many other definitions of residency. So all we're doing with this is saying that the residency standard now aligns closely with the permanent fund dividend. And the reason that we want to do that— align as closely— oh, I forgot to go to this slide. The number 4 in the boldface is what we're trying to add to statute for this bill.

The reason we want to use the dividend standard is that it's been tested by the courts. And as the dividend allowances— eligible allowances— sorry, allowable absences change, those would also then apply to your residency for hunting and fishing. So just last year, we added students in the Merchant Marine. There's a bill this year for pilots and flight crew. And so we want to keep that flexible and moving and changing so that we can accommodate as many Alaskans as possible.

In speaking with the folks at the dividend, they want to give out dividend checks. They want Alaskans to qualify.

And the other reason is the Department of Public Safety can look to the dividend to see who received it. So those folks who receive the dividend automatically qualify to hunt and fish as a resident. For those folks who don't receive it, there would still need to be an investigation, but it would reduce the number of those questioned residencies, and it would also make it easier to enforce. We wanted to show examples. So some species, there wouldn't be a change at all.

For some species, there's quite a difference. And again, these are standards that we've already set through Board of Game and Board of Fish processes. I wanted to point out with the hunting, for those folks, if there's an asterisk, it was Senator Keel who told me, if the terrain or the critter can kill you, you're gonna need a guide. So those are guided hunts. However, if you have an in-state, it's called— what is it?

Next of kin? Not next of kin. It's a— yeah, kinship. There's a kinship statute that I have here in my notes that I'm not finding right now. Second degree of kindred.

So that if you have a hunter in-state who's your mother, father, son, daughter, spouse, and a few others, you would not need a guide as a non-resident. Representative Himstadt, a question. Why are some of these shaded and some not? I should have explained that, so I'll go back one. The shaded ones, there's a difference, and the non-shaded— so if it's not in grayscale, there's no difference.

Yeah, we were trying to make it easier to read these. Gotcha. Any—. Could we pause here for a moment? Sure.

Any questions from committee members? Okay, go ahead. And then this just shows the preferential license and tag fees. And what we're illustrating here is that we have set a standard that gives a preference to residents. What we need to do is align our enforcement of that.

So if we're going to have that preference, then we need to make it enforceable.

We've received a lot of support for this bill. I want to point out the Alaska Board of Game. I don't think anyone is more invested in Alaska's in the conservation of Alaska's Fish and Game resources than our Board of Fisheries and our Board of Game. And those folks also support the bill. I also want to be really clear, this bill still welcomes non-residents to hunt and fish.

As a non-resident, we welcome them in Alaska. We welcome their dollars in our state. And then one difference between the dividend requirements and House Bill 93 is the 12 months in the dividend is clearly a calendar year, January to December. In House Bill 93, it's just 12 months. So if you come to Alaska in June, the following year in June, you would be eligible to hunt and fish as a, as a resident.

So finally, I just want to be really clear that nothing in this bill is creating a special class of Alaskans. Anyone can choose to be in the group of Alaskans who are here for 180 days. For those folks who are here the 180 days, They are not similarly situated to those folks who are out of the state for more than 180 days. Um, I know many families who live from a full freezer every year, and I know families who are making the choice of whether they can stay or go based on whether or not they can fill their freezer to feed their families. We do have a much higher cost of living in our state.

So, um, finally, it's in the state's interest to, um, create an enforceable standard to back up the differences we've made in resident hunting and fishing preferences. I'm happy to take questions. Very good. Senator Rosier, a question? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

So I have a question. I have a— I don't know how many in here have one, but I have a license because I'm over 60 or 65, and so I can— I don't have to apply every year. So is that license in jeopardy should I not be able to stay in state the required amount of days? And I, and I guess when I say in jeopardy, does that mean that I may not be able to use it like it was intended? Through the chair, Senator Rauscher, the PID, permanent identification for hunting and fishing, is permanent.

So that license will always be there. But even now you have to meet the residency standard to to use your PID for hunting and fishing. So the residency standard would change, but the PID does not. Follow-up. Follow-up, Senator Rauscher.

Could you explain the change? Through the chair, right now, Senator Rauscher, you have to maintain a domicile and you have to intend to stay in the state. That's all. Under 93, if House Bill 93 becomes law, you would still have your permanent hunting and fishing license, but you would then also need to be in the state for the 180 days. Unless you're out for an allowable absence.

And follow-up, follow-up. So then you have the big game hunts. If you're now considered a non-resident, do you have to pay the large amount? Do you have to have a guided hunt through the chair with a PID? No, unless you don't meet those residency requirements, and then yes.

So follow up. So, so just to make it clear, okay, if I wanted to go— say I— what is that, 180 days? If I was out of state for 180 days, 185 days, because the last 5 or 10 or 15 my mom was ill, now when I come back, I, um, I would have to get a guided hunt to hunt a sheep Even though I got a permit, I want a permit. How does that work now? I'm going to have to ask Thatcher for that specific example, although caregiving would be an allowable absence.

For the record, Thatcher Brower, staff to Representative Himschute. And through the chair, Senator Rauscher, if it's an allowable absence, then you could be gone for more than 180 days. And so in caregiving, for in certain cases is an allowable absence. So more than— we'd have to double-check on your particular case, but you may still qualify as a resident. If it's not allowable absence and it's for more than 180 days, then you, you would not be considered a resident and you would be required to have a guide or be able or go with a second degree of kin.

Thank you. Senator Myers. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So [Speaker] I think your staff supplied me with what, 15 or 20 different definitions of resident that we have in statute. So I guess the question is why did we pick this version of resident, which is probably the most restrictive of all of them?

[Speaker] Thank you. Through the chair, Senator Myers, that's a great question. There's a couple reasons. One, these standards have been tested in the courts. And another is we can add to them.

So at any moment we can add— at any moment through the legislature we can add allowable absences at any time. So if there truly is a career that you can't— 25% of our workforce is from out of state. I'd like more of those people to be in state. But if there truly is something that you do out of state, we can add that through the dividend statute.

Follow-up, Senator Wilkowski? Thank you. And just to clarify. In case there's a court challenge. I, I don't know how developed the legal record is on this, but is the rationale behind this that there's a finite amount of resources out there, a finite amount of fish, a finite amount of wildlife that can be hunted, and the people that live here should be entitled to those first?

And if you're living out of state, if you're out of state more than 180 days, you can go to Safeway or Kroger or somewhere outside and you can go to the store, whereas Many Alaskans here just don't have that opportunity, and rather than let people who aren't really here a lot of the time take our finite resources, we need those here in Alaska for people who a lot of times can't go to the store and get them. Is that, is that one of the rationales at least? Through the chair, um, Senator Wielekowski, yes, that is. However, the important state interest is tied more to the enforceable standard. If we're going to, to provide a preference, then we also have to provide a way to enforce that that preference goes Alaskans.

And so I agree with you on the economic argument, but I think constitutionally speaking, the interest lies more with the enforceability of saying that some people get more than others, then we need to make the state interest clear. Follow-up. Just right now, the standard, is it just if you're like eligible to vote here? Like, what is the current standard now? Now?

Is it that you say you're a resident? Because we know we have people who live outside who might live in Florida who are, quite frankly, registered to vote in Florida or serve on jury duty in Florida or maybe get public assistance in Florida. They can still be registered here. And I think the way the law is now is they can come up here for a few days and say, "I'm a resident of Alaska," even though I spend very little time here. And have full access to our resources just like somebody who's here 365 days and is scrambling to get their freezer full.

[Speaker:COMMISSIONER ARKOOSH] Thatcher's guiding me back to these are the— this is the current standard. Through the chair, Senator Wieleckowski, I guess I had a thought I wanted to add and it's escaping me right now, but Yes, for the most part. I think what we have right now, there's about 118 of these on average per year that are investigated. And like I said, because it's so complicated, it can take longer than even a homicide investigation to really narrow down whether someone qualifies or does not qualify. And to be clear, going forward, this would be— continue to be a self-certification, so people would still have to certify that they're a resident and that they meet the standards.

Thank you. Senator Rosier. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, just following up a little bit on what Senator Wilkowski was talking about, if you're out of state for more than 180 days, for whatever reason you did not— are you not included, so now you're excluded and you're now a non-resident. But yet you own a home, pay a mortgage, pay property taxes, own a car, pay registration, you have kids, you have a spouse, your kids are in school, they're playing hockey, they're playing football, you're buying uniforms, you're paying for their existence, they're eating food from the store.

Their car is on the road buying gas. They're buying clothes in stores. They're putting a lot of money into this state as a resident, but because they missed it by 5 days, they aren't by Constitution allowed to hunt anymore, which they are allowed by Constitution. Um, through the chair, uh, Senator Rauscher, that's a great question. I'll just remind the committee 41 states have an income tax, and that's how this is done in a lot of states.

In Oregon, there is an income tax, but they also, in Oregon specifically, say just owning a home in the state does not make you a resident. So each state is going to define this their own way, and I'll also— the delayed effective date should help people make that 180-day standard. They will have a full year to figure out how to be able to suffer life in Alaska for 180 days. Thank you. Excuse me.

Representative Himschute, could you go to slide 5? We will continue the conversation. I think it might be helpful to have the allowable absences on the screen so folks can look. For people at home, it is slide 5 in the presentation. Senator Wilkowski.

Yeah, well, I just wanted to clarify because there was a statement made that you could be gone for 5 days, but it's not gone for 5 days, it's gone for 180— 85 days, right? So it's gone for more than 6 months out of the year. Is that correct? That's correct. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Myers. Yeah, um, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so you, you mentioned how hard it is to talk about— to, to prove intent in court. We had an interesting court case regarding intent and residency a couple of years ago regarding an elected official.

So do you think it's accurate to say that the way that this bill is written, it would make the residency standard for hunting and fishing more restrictive than the residency standard for running for office in Alaska? Through the chair, Senator Myers. I'm sure you're aware you have to be in the state 3 years to run for office, so no.

Senator, follow-up, Senator Myers? Yeah, but the issue was not just in-state, but also you had to be in your district for a year, and they said that stashing your stuff at somebody's house qualified for at least a portion of that. So that makes me wonder a little bit if— how restrictive this is compared to being a candidate for office.

Through the chair, I would offer again that 3-year requirement I think is meaningful, but I think you are kind of getting at the heart of the bill.

Senator Kawasaki. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted you to go back to the other slide with the 3 conditions. Just because I'm— I, I know that we've gotten a lot of comments and a lot of questions about why I'm not a resident, and it seems to me pretty clearly that those three conditions are pretty simple. You have to be— have been physically present, have maintained a domicile, even if it's just an apartment or a place you're stashing stuff, and then no claim of residency in another state.

That sounds super easy to do. And I think a lot of people, I'll tell you, a lot of people have taken advantage of that situation in not really actually physically living in Alaska, but they retain their residency for lots of different reasons. I mean, we're, we're not a state that taxes, uh, distributions, for instance. So people can be your Alaska residents for tax purposes, for instance, and So my question had to do with the residency of other states and whether this is more comparable to other states. And I did take notes because there's a couple commenters here that talk about California, Hawaii, South Carolina, and Oregon.

So I wondered if you knew those off the top of your head, what the requirements are for those states to be considered a resident for terms of hunting and fishing in that state. Through the chair, I don't have those states. We focus mostly on Western states. And I mean, I can speak to those if you'd like. I did highlight a couple of things like Montana.

You— Montana— so no other state is quite like Alaska. I think this is evident in almost everything that we do in this building. So I'll just remind everyone as if we didn't know it well already. Hunting and fishing here is how we live, I think, more than in any other place in the country. And so I think it bears, for that reason, a higher standard in our state.

So in Montana, they do have the requirement that you comply with the income tax. In Oregon, I mentioned they specifically say that owning a home does not make you a resident. So you can own a home in Oregon and that does not give you the right to hunt and fish as a resident. Um, and then other states have various numbers of days. Sometimes it's 90 days, sometimes it's 180 days.

Uh, some states require you to get your driver's license prior and hold it for 90 to 180 days prior to applying to hunt and fish as a resident. So each state is doing it differently. Um, I don't know that any state places the importance on it that we do. At the end of the day, I feel like we do owe it to our troopers to give them a way to be able to enforce the law. And if you are able to ask someone for their 1099 or their— and of course you're not going to carry this documentation out in the field, but if there's contact in the field and you have a questioned residency, you can produce a My Alaska statement relatively easily compared to the process that they're using now.

So Again, we're trying to make this something that's enforceable for the troopers. Sure. Yeah. And I did look to see, you know, is this going to make it very hard for a person to become a resident for terms of hunting? And, you know, there's 365 days requirement in California to be— to become a resident of California for purposes of getting a hunting or fishing license.

It's 6 months prior in Idaho. 365 Days in Wyoming, a year in South Carolina, and a lot of them do require that you actually get a driver's license in that— in that particular jurisdiction or in that state. And that seems pretty high bar for those states. So I appreciate you bringing this discussion forward. Thank you.

I will just add, I have a portion of my district that has a lot of people that own very expensive homes and don't actually live there. There are cars there that are registered, they're paying property tax, but it's a bed and breakfast kind of scenario, or what do they call it, vacation rental kind of thing. But these are not real residents. So I appreciate the thought you've put into this bill. And, um, also the allowable absences.

That really helps make it clear in your presentation that there are options. Uh, any further questions? All right, we do have some invited testimony. And, uh, first up, uh, Mr. Joe Felko, Deputy Director, Division of Administrative Services, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, is here in person.

And also after him, we have Major Aaron Frenzel. Welcome, Mr. Felkel. For the record, Joe Felkel, as you mentioned, Deputy Director for the Division of Administrative Services for the Department of Fish and Game. Most of you know me as the former legislative liaison. I should clarify, I hadn't prepared any invited testimony, but I am available for questions if you guys have them on, you know, the department's fiscal note or how the department would implement the bill.

I mean, I could kind of go off the cuff if you would like, but—. Are there specific questions for Mr. Felkel? Senator Kawasaki? Yeah, I guess I had a question on specifically on the senior licenses and sort of an app— applying for that. So if I have a senior license that doesn't expire, the Pioneer license, I can't remember what it's called, but If I had one of those, how— I guess what would the process be in ensuring that I would still qualify for a resident license because I live here year-round?

Yes. So for the record, Joe Felkel, through the chair, Senator Kawasaki. The bill sponsor covered that pretty well, but for the permanent IDs, they are permanent. The department has no mechanism to require renewal or recertification. However, as the bill sponsor spoke to, if you no longer meet those residency requirements, your license is technically invalid.

You are no longer a resident. You do not qualify for the permanent ID. And so that would actually— if somebody is using that PID and no longer calling for qualifying for a residence, that would be more on the enforcement side. So I would defer to the troopers online how they may go about investigating that. But our licensing team regularly works with them to help provide documentation, application records, And the department also has the authority to reach out to an applicant and request documentation to prove they still meet that residency requirement.

Great. Thank you. Yeah, that's very interesting. Further questions? All right.

Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Felko. We also have 4 questions. Major Aaron Frenzel. Are there any questions, Senator Kawasaki? Major Frenzel, welcome to the committee.

There are some questions from committee members. If you would sign on, identifying yourself for the record. Good afternoon. Major Aaron Frenzel. I'm the Deputy Director of Alaska Wildlife Troopers.

Senator Kawasaki. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Major Frenzel, for being online. I noticed a letter in here from Trooper Dahlke from Fairbanks area. And he served in that position for a long, long time.

I did have a question on how, how would it— how does it work now, and how does enforcement— how does enforcement work? I've never been— well, actually, I was stopped one time by a trooper at a fish station, but other than that, I've, uh, I've never had a trooper stop me at a station. So I'm just curious how it works now in practice, and I know there's not a lot of Yeah, so thank you for the question. Against the record, Aaron Frenzel, Deputy Director of Wildlife Troopers. Through the chair, Senator Kawasaki, that kind of depends on the situation.

Um, sometimes we get complaints of residency over the phone and we might start investigation from our desk. Um, other times in the field, um, when our troopers contact people It might be a simple couple questions. Maybe they open up their wallet, we see a California driver's license sitting there when they hand us their resident hunting license. Might lead to some questions. It might be just simple fact that they have a really good tan and we ask them, "Where have they been at?" and find out that they're out of state more than a normal Alaskan would be.

Then we start looking into the current criteria for Alaska residency. Where's their primary domicile? Where do their kids go to school? Where do they work at? And build our investigation from there.

In regards to the permanent identification cards, those, a lot of times, people are, under the current regulation statutes, are residents of Alaska, but things change. They might end up moving out of state. A lot of times, those are phone calls from people saying, hey, this individual is no longer up here and we might look into that. But until we do that, that permanent identification card is still their hunting and fishing license until we tell them that's no longer valid, you no longer meet Alaska residency requirements.

Follow-up, Senator Kawasaki. Yeah, um, we were talking about an unrelated issue earlier today about Terry searches. Is it required that you've got reasonable suspicion to ask a person for their identification and ID for fishing and fishing licenses?

Through the Chair, Senator Kawasaki, currently in statute we have several different areas that give us a duty gives us the ability to ask someone to show licenses, gear, equipment. For hunting, fishing, that's in there. They must provide us their hunting license permits. Okay, good enough. Thank you.

All right, any other questions for Major Frenzel? Seeing none, thank you, Major Frenzel, for joining us, uh, and answering those questions. Uh, we have invited testimony today. Paul Johnson with Gull Cove Lodge is on the line. Mr. Johnson, I know that, uh, you have someone there assisting you.

I know it's hard to hear us over the phone, so thank you for being present. Are you able to offer testimony today?

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Senator Diesel, can you hear me okay?

Yes. Okay, I'm just going to give a short— I was born Juneau on territorial base. I was a young man when we got our statehood, and for us, resource was the issue. Access to that refuge by residents who— the— we even limited the type of vessel so that it kept people from out of state fishing up here. We did all kinds of things to protect our local residents.

Here's an oil— came along and in the court. But the eligibility requirement is about as solid as there can be. That's our resource in this state.

That is, being a representative or a senator, but They already have investigators that follow up on it.

So it's— he— to follow up on when we turn people in or have turned people in, by time they get to the court, then the courts are quite lenient. So I have been involved in several allocative issues. I chaired the Game for Services Board. I worked in conflict material and safe management plans.

I went to the University of Alaska. I've acted on a— so one of the things I will defer to Eric is being one of the ones accredited. So yes, there is a finite resource. Yes, there's a lot of places people work. To be able to have that resource, and that's why they stay here.

A lot of them want to come back after they retire, but even on retirement, we even cut what they get for their total benefits. So Alaska is different than most states. We have resources that other states don't. So I've got all of our homes— and through personal experience, I see the cost of the base on who qualifies and who's qualified. It's made like we have in the past.

Do it through the permanent fund dividend. If you want to be a standard, let that be the standard of residency for resource that's so precious to all state residents.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for your testimony. Um, you did cut out off and on, but your important points, I think, were heard clearly. We certainly would welcome any written testimony that you would like to submit as well. So that concludes the invited testimony today. We did not publish— we did not post this bill for public testimony, so we won't be hearing that today.

We will open public testimony at the next committee hearing of the bill. So at this time, I'm going to set House Bill 93 aside, and we will hear it again sometime in the near— very near future. Next up, we have House Bill 79, which is dealing with naming the Vic Fisher Marine Park. Uh, the staff person who will be presenting this bill is not present at the moment, so we're going to take an at ease.

Net Resources back to order. Now we are up to— Senate— excuse me, House Bill 79. This is a bill offered by Representative Zach Fields. This is the first hearing of the bill, and here to present the bill is Representative Fields' staff. So I would invite her forward.

I'm sorry, I don't have your name right offhand, but welcome. If you would introduce yourself for the record and present the bill. Um, thank you, Chair Giesel and members of the committee. For the record, my name is Courtney Owen. I'm staff to Rep Fields.

Um, could you move your microphone down please? Thank you. Um, unfortunately, Rep Fields is currently held up in finance, so he hopes he can join us shortly. Um, House Bill 79 is a bill that recognizes the contributions of Vic Fisher to Alaska by naming the Shoup Bay State Marine Park in Valdez to Vic Fisher Shoup Bay State Marine Park. Amongst many contributions, Vic Fisher was a foundational member of the statehood movement and was one of the drafters of the Alaska State Constitution.

He served in the Alaska Legislature, and in 1983, he sponsored the bill that established the first 13 state marine parks, including Chute Bay State Marine Park. Because of these important contributions to the state, it feels appropriate to honor him by naming a marine state park after him. And Redfields chose the one in Valdez because Vic was instrumental in rebuilding Valdez after it had been devastated by the 1964 earthquake. So I'm happy to try and answer any questions. All right, very good.

Are there any questions related to the bill?

I don't see any. Thank you for presenting it. I don't see that Representative Fields had any invited testimony, and we had not noticed opening this for public testimony today, so simply we will Thank you for presenting it, and we'll set the bill aside. We will be hearing it again in the very near future. At that time, public testimony will be opened.

Thank you. So thanks for coming. So that concludes our meeting today. Our next meeting will be tomorrow morning, 9:00 AM, in this room. We'll be hearing Senate Bill 2280, the supporting Alaska Gas Line— supporting a gas line for Alaska Act.

At this time, the meeting will stand adjourned. Let the record reflect the time is 4:19 PM.