Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124

03/20/2015 01:00 PM House RESOURCES

Audio Topic
01:01:19 PM Start
01:02:07 PM HB137
03:05:22 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
-- Invited/Public Testimony --
           HB 137-HUNTING, SPORT FISH, TRAPPING FEES                                                                        
1:02:07 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  NAGEAK announced  that the  only order  of business  is                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  137, "An  Act  raising certain  fees related  to                                                               
sport  fishing,  hunting,  and   trapping;  raising  the  age  of                                                               
eligibility  for a  sport fishing,  hunting, or  trapping license                                                               
exemption  for state  residents  to 65  years  of age;  requiring                                                               
state  residents  to  purchase  big game  tags  to  take  certain                                                               
species; and providing for an effective date."                                                                                  
1:02:32 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  HAWKER  moved  to adopt  the  proposed  committee                                                               
substitute (CS),  labeled 29-LS0625\N,  Bullard, 3/16/15,  as the                                                               
working document.                                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER then objected for discussion purposes.                                                                    
JOSHUA BANKS, Staff, Representative  David Talerico, Alaska State                                                               
Legislature,  drew  attention to  the  committee  packet and  the                                                               
written summary  of changes to HB  137 that would be  made by the                                                               
proposed CS, Version N.  He  explained that the first change is a                                                               
title change to reflect major changes within Version N.                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  HAWKER removed  his  objection.   There being  no                                                               
further objection, Version N was before the committee.                                                                          
1:05:23 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that  HB 137 has not previously                                                               
been  before  the  committee.   He  requested  that  a  sectional                                                               
analysis be provided for Version  N rather than an explanation of                                                               
differences between Version N and the original bill.                                                                            
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK  concurred and requested  Mr. Banks to  provide a                                                               
sectional analysis of Version N.                                                                                                
MR. BANKS reviewed the sectional  analysis for Version N provided                                                               
in the committee packet.  He  explained that Section 1 relates to                                                               
AS 16.05.251(a), which  deals with the Alaska  Department of Fish                                                               
& Game's (ADF&G)  ability to establish different  open and closed                                                               
seasons for  fishing based on  different age groups.   Currently,                                                               
ADF&G can  do this for  residents that are  over age 60  or below                                                               
age 16.   Version N would raise  the age from 16 to  18 and would                                                               
raise the eligibility  for a permanent resident  license from age                                                               
60 to  62.  Section  2 would  raise the resident  [sport] fishing                                                               
license fee from $15 to $20  and the fee for blind residents from                                                               
$0.25  to $0.50.   Section  3  would raise  the resident  hunting                                                               
license fee  from $25 to  $30.  [Section  4] would raise  the fee                                                               
for a resident hunting and  trapping combination license from $39                                                               
to $450.   Section  5 would raise  the resident  trapping license                                                               
fee from $15 to $20.   Section 6 would raise the resident hunting                                                               
and  [sport]  fishing  combination   license  from  $39  to  $45.                                                               
Section 7 would  raise the fee for a  resident hunting, trapping,                                                               
and  [sport]  fishing  combination   license  from  $53  to  $60.                                                               
Section 7 would also limit those who are eligible for a low-                                                                    
income  license and  increase the  income limit  as well.   Under                                                               
current statute  a person only has  to show receipt of  some form                                                               
of  welfare  assistance  and  doesn't have  to  meet  the  income                                                               
requirement.    After hearing  from  several  groups the  sponsor                                                               
thinks that  if a  person is meeting  the income  requirement the                                                               
person  should be  eligible  for a  low-income  license, but  not                                                               
merely because the  person is receiving federal  assistance.  The                                                               
income limit would be raised  from $8,200 to $29,820, the current                                                               
federal poverty level for a family of four in Alaska.                                                                           
1:09:18 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. BANKS  said Section 8  would raise nonresident  sport fishing                                                               
license fees as follows:  a 14-day  license from $50 to $60; a 7-                                                               
day license  from $30 to  $40; a 3-day  license from $20  to $30;                                                               
and a 1-day license  from $10 to $15.  Section  9 would raise the                                                               
nonresident  annual  sport fishing  license  from  $100 to  $130.                                                               
Section 10 would  raise the nonresident hunting  license from $85                                                               
to  $125.   Section 11  would raise  the nonresident  hunting and                                                               
trapping  combination license  from  $250 to  $325.   Section  12                                                               
would  raise nonresident  big game  tag fees  as follows:   black                                                               
bear from  $225 to  $335; brown/grizzly bear  from $500  to $750;                                                               
bison from  $450 to $675;  caribou from  $325 to $485;  deer from                                                               
$150 to $225; elk and goat from  $300 to $450; moose from $400 to                                                               
$600; sheep  from $425 to $635;  wolf from $30 to  $45; wolverine                                                               
from $175 to $260; and musk  oxen from $1,100 to $1,650.  Section                                                               
13 would  raise the  waterfowl conservation tag  from $50  to $10                                                               
and would  also make some  conforming amendments to  the increase                                                               
in ages for  residents from age 60  to 62 and from age  16 to 18.                                                               
Section  14  would  raise  the  nonresident  small  game  hunting                                                               
license fee from $20 to $30.                                                                                                    
1:11:25 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  BANKS, continued  the  sectional  analysis, explaining  that                                                               
Section 15 would raise the  nonresident alien hunting license fee                                                               
from $300  to $450.  He  said nonresident alien is  defined in AS                                                               
16.05.940(23)  as  someone who  is  not  a  citizen of  the  U.S.                                                               
Section 16  would raise  the nonresident alien  big game  tags as                                                               
follows:   black bear from  $300 to $400; brown/grizzly  bear and                                                               
bison from  $650 to $900;  caribou from  $425 to $600;  deer from                                                               
$200 to $250; elk and goat from  $400 to $500; moose from $500 to                                                               
$600; musk oxen  from $1,500 to $2,000; sheep from  $550 to $650;                                                               
wolf from $50  to $75; and wolverine from $250  to $350.  Section                                                               
17 would increase  the resident king salmon tag from  $10 to $15.                                                               
Section  17  would  also  make   conforming  amendments  for  the                                                               
increase in the resident blind  license fee, the required age for                                                               
a resident to obtain a license,  and the age of eligibility for a                                                               
permanent license.   Section 18 would raise  the nonresident king                                                               
salmon tag  as follows:   1-day  tag from $10  to $15;  3-day tag                                                               
from $20 to $30;  7-day tag from $30 to $45;  14-day tag from $50                                                               
to  $75;  annual tag  from  $100  to  $150; and  the  nonresident                                                               
military tag from $20 to $30.   Section 19 would increase the age                                                               
from  16 to  18  for when  a  resident is  required  to obtain  a                                                               
fishing, hunting, or trapping license.   Provisions in Section 19                                                               
for nonresidents remain the same.   Section 20 would increase the                                                               
age of  eligibility from  60 to  62 for a  resident to  receive a                                                               
permanent  license.   The reasoning  for  this change  is that  a                                                               
person must wait  until age 62 to start  drawing Social Security.                                                               
Section 21  would clarify in  uncodified language  that residents                                                               
who  are  currently  receiving the  permanent  license  under  AS                                                               
16.05.400(b)  will  continue to  be  eligible  for this  license.                                                               
Section 22 creates an effective date of January 1, 2016.                                                                        
1:14:38 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON  inquired whether  there is  an explanation                                                               
for the  amount of  increase chosen  for each  fee or  whether it                                                               
done by using a standard ratio.                                                                                                 
MR.  BANKS replied  that originally  the fees  were increased  by                                                               
about 50  percent, with  rounding up  or down  to the  nearest $5                                                               
increment.  However,  in response to feedback  from Alaskans some                                                               
of the fees were lowered.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON concluded, then,  that the chosen amount of                                                               
increase was essentially random.                                                                                                
MR. BANKS hesitatingly responded yes.                                                                                           
1:15:32 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR  observed that  Section  11  is about  a  23                                                               
percent increase and some of the  other sections are a 50 percent                                                               
increase.  She asked what the  range of increase is, from highest                                                               
to lowest, for all of the sections.                                                                                             
MR. BANKS answered that percentage-wise  he does not know off the                                                               
top  of  his  head.   He  directed  attention  to  Tab 6  in  the                                                               
committee packet which includes  a comparison of current statute,                                                               
the original bill  (Version H), the proposed CS  (Version N), and                                                               
a proposal brought forth by some of the outdoor groups.                                                                         
1:16:32 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  asked what  the current  license status                                                               
is for 16 and 17 year olds, what would be changed, and why.                                                                     
CO-CHAIR  TALERICO  answered that  this  proposed  change is  his                                                               
personal feeling.  A person cannot  register to vote until age 18                                                               
and when there is a draft a person  must register at age 18.  So,                                                               
a  person is  treated as  a child  until age  18, except  when it                                                               
comes to  the purchase of a  hunting and fishing license.   Also,                                                               
in Alaska's remote communities, increases  in these fees could be                                                               
tough.  Many families in  those remote communities have teenagers                                                               
who  participate in  fishing, hunting,  and trapping,  and it  is                                                               
much easier on a  family with a 16- or 17-year-old  if the age is                                                               
increased to the age for voting or graduating from high school.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  surmised a 16- or  17-year-old would be                                                               
subject to any  penalty for violation of fish and  game code, but                                                               
would simply get a free license.                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR TALERICO replied correct.                                                                                              
1:18:50 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  inquired whether a legal  opinion has been                                                               
obtained as to  whether the proposed changes  for resident versus                                                               
nonresident fees do not violate the "Carlson Disparity Test."                                                                   
MR. BANKS  confirmed that  a legal opinion  was requested  and is                                                               
included in the committee packet under  Tab 9.  The response from                                                               
Legislative Legal  and Research Services states  that the Carlson                                                               
case is  not applicable to  HB 137.   That court case  dealt with                                                               
commercial fishing and the court  found that that had a different                                                               
standard than recreational or subsistence hunting and fishing.                                                                  
The committee took an at-ease from 1:20 p.m. to 1:21 p.m.                                                                       
1:21:21 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK  requested Mr. Banks  to explain  the differences                                                               
between the original version, Version H, and Version N.                                                                         
MR.  BANKS explained  that  after filing  the  original bill  the                                                               
sponsor  received  a  lot  of  feedback,  primarily  against  the                                                               
resident big game tags.  The  sponsor originally thought to put a                                                               
modest big game tag fee on  a number of animals that nonresidents                                                               
already  pay for,  but received  almost  unanimous opposition  to                                                               
that and so  it was taken out.   In addition to  taking that out,                                                               
some  of the  resident license  fees were  lowered.   The hunting                                                               
license was originally  $35, in Version N it is  $30; the hunting                                                               
and trapping  combination was $50,  in Version  N it is  $45; the                                                               
hunting and fishing combination was $50,  in Version N it is $45;                                                               
the hunting, trapping, fishing combination  was $70, in Version N                                                               
it is  $60.  The  original bill increased the  low-income license                                                               
fee  from  $5  to  $10,   Version  N  takes  out  that  increase.                                                               
Conforming amendments were taken out  in Sections 13, 17, 19, and                                                               
22 of Version  H, the original bill.  Version  N also lowers some                                                               
of  the  nonresident license  fees:    the 14-day  sport  fishing                                                               
license  is lowered  from $75  to  $60, the  7-day sport  fishing                                                               
license  is lowered  from $45  to $40,  the annual  sport fishing                                                               
license  is  lowered from  $150  to  $130;  and the  hunting  and                                                               
trapping  combination  license  is  lowered from  $375  to  $325.                                                               
Version N  increases the  waterfowl conservation  tag from  $5 to                                                               
$10,  a provision  that  was not  in the  original  bill.   Ducks                                                               
Unlimited spoke to the sponsor  and requested that this provision                                                               
be  included in  the bill.   Version  N reduces  a number  of the                                                               
nonresident alien big game tag fees:   black bear is reduced from                                                               
$450 in  the original bill  to $400  in Version N;  brown grizzly                                                               
bear and  bison from  $975 to  $900; caribou  from $635  to $600;                                                               
deer from  $300 to $250;  elk and goat  from $600 to  $500; moose                                                               
from $750  to $600; musk oxen  from $2,250 to $2,000;  sheep $825                                                               
to $650;  wolverine from $375 to  $350.  Version N  increases the                                                               
age  at which  a  resident  is required  to  have  a sport  fish,                                                               
trapping, or hunting license from age  16 to 18.  This would help                                                               
younger  Alaskans  and encourage  them  to  hunt  and fish  at  a                                                               
younger  age without  having to  pay a  license fee.   Version  N                                                               
decreases the  age of eligibility from  65 to 62 for  a permanent                                                               
resident hunting, trapping,  and fishing license.   This was done                                                               
because  the original  increase was  a bit  too high  and age  62                                                               
lines up  with the age that  a person can start  receiving Social                                                               
Security benefits.  Conforming amendments  related to that change                                                               
are made in Sections 1, 13, and 17.                                                                                             
1:25:42 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood there  is some general support for                                                               
the  nonresident  increase  shown  in  the  last  column  on  the                                                               
comparison  sheet under  Tab 6.   She  understood the  reason for                                                               
support of that more substantial increase  is that it has been 20                                                               
years or more since some of  those fees have been increased, plus                                                               
there is the opportunity for federal  matching funds at 3:1.  She                                                               
asked  what  the sponsor's  rationale  is  for not  adopting  the                                                               
recommendations supported by a number of groups.                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  TALERICO  answered  that   while  going  through  these                                                               
numbers he presumed  there is a sweet spot, but  he does not know                                                               
exactly where that  is.  He said  is not married to  any of these                                                               
numbers,  he  just  thinks  it  is an  issue  that  needs  to  be                                                               
addressed  since it  has been  23 years  since anything  has been                                                               
changed.  He said he wishes  he knew exactly which numbers to put                                                               
in for  the maximum benefit to  the state and allowed  that these                                                               
are just his  thoughts.  Therefore, he  continued, testimony will                                                               
be vital to where these numbers go.                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE TARR thanked Co-Chair  Talerico for his leadership                                                               
on this issue and agreed that it is time to look at this.                                                                       
CO-CHAIR  TALERICO added  he understands  the concern  of people,                                                               
but said  his wallet currently holds  his forty-third combination                                                               
hunting and fishing  license.  He said he has  always taken pride                                                               
in  being part  of the  system.   Outdoorsmen have  traditionally                                                               
supported  fish and  wildlife conservation  and participating  in                                                               
this program.  Regarding the  senior discount, he said he thought                                                               
it might be  awkward for him to stay at  60 because next February                                                               
he will qualify for  a free license and he is  having a hard time                                                               
with that because he probably  sees himself as being younger than                                                               
he is and he  cannot see why he would get  one of those licenses.                                                               
He  added that  he proudly  purchases a  combination hunting  and                                                               
fishing license  every year and he  wants to be a  participant in                                                               
the conservation and management of wildlife.                                                                                    
1:30:04 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired as to  what would be the amount                                                               
of increased revenue  and what the state intends to  do with that                                                               
MR. BANKS  drew attention to the  fiscal note under Tab  5 in the                                                               
committee  packet,  stating it  provides  good  estimates of  the                                                               
projected  revenue but  is based  on the  original bill  version.                                                               
Version  N has  lower fees  and also  has the  resident game  tag                                                               
fees.   Tab 7 of  the committee  packet has spreadsheets  for the                                                               
numbers  in Version  N.   For the  hunting license  there is  the                                                               
possibility of bringing in $500,000  incremental revenue, for the                                                               
fishing license there  is the possibility of bringing  up to just                                                               
shy  of $2  million incremental  revenue, the  king salmon  stamp                                                               
fees are just under $900,000, and  for the big game tags there is                                                               
the possibility of $1.2 million.   Because people may not want to                                                               
pay  an extra  fee  there  is the  likelihood  of  a decrease  in                                                               
license and tag sales, so this is based on 90 percent sales.                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  TALERICO added  that several  people who  contacted him                                                               
asked why  raise extra money  for a department when  there should                                                               
be cuts.   He explained that a subcommittee of  the House Finance                                                               
Committee is putting  forth a budget that cuts  about $12 million                                                               
from  the  proposed ADF&G  budget.    The proposed  increases  in                                                               
license fee will not be enough  to replace that $12 million.  The                                                               
budget cut  is needed and  appropriate, but it is  also important                                                               
for the committee to consider  that substantial cuts will have to                                                               
be made next  year as well.   But, the ability to  have some data                                                               
and research  is important  to Alaskans  for continued  [fish and                                                               
wildlife] management.  He said he  fears that if the research and                                                               
data goes away,  then [fish and wildlife resources]  will need to                                                               
be managed  conservatively, which may mean  that Alaska residents                                                               
could be  giving up some  opportunity, such as  shortened seasons                                                               
and closures.   Therefore, part  of his inspiration is  to ensure                                                               
that Alaskans do  not lose their opportunity in  the future given                                                               
that more cuts to the state budget are foreseen.                                                                                
1:34:35 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK opened invited testimony.                                                                                       
1:35:12 PM                                                                                                                    
EDDIE  GRASSER,   Lobbyist,  Safari   Club  International-Alaska,                                                               
stated that the  leadership of the hunting  and fishing community                                                               
has  come together  and agreed  that an  increase in  hunting and                                                               
fishing license  fees is  necessary given  the budget  crisis and                                                               
cuts.  Hunters have always asked  for and received the ability to                                                               
pay for their use of wildlife  and for conservation measures.  He                                                               
noted  that  besides   representing  Safari  Club  International,                                                               
Alaska Chapter,  he is  the non-voting  chair of  the Legislative                                                               
Outdoor  Heritage Caucus  Advisory  Council to  which nine  major                                                               
groups  belong.    In  the   history  of  the  U.S.  conservation                                                               
movement,  hunters and  fishers have  gone to  state legislatures                                                               
and   the  U.S.   Congress  to   find  ways   to  fund   wildlife                                                               
conservation, and that is what  is being talked about here today.                                                               
There needs to be assurances  that there will be sufficient funds                                                               
available  for  managing  the  state's  wildlife  and  fisheries,                                                               
otherwise there will  probably be restrictions on  the ability to                                                               
do  serious  Alaska traditions  like  hunting  and fishing.    He                                                               
pointed out that  it has been a while since  fees were increased.                                                               
He said  he bought his first  license in 1968 when  a hunting and                                                               
fishing combination  license was $7.   By his estimates  using an                                                               
online  inflation calculator,  Alaska residents  would be  paying                                                               
$73  today, rather  than  $25, had  the fees  for  a hunting  and                                                               
fishing  combination  license kept  up  with  inflation.   It  is                                                               
important to  note, he continued,  that the entire  leadership of                                                               
the outdoor  community has  come together behind  this idea  of a                                                               
license increase.                                                                                                               
1:38:39 PM                                                                                                                    
ROD  ARNO,  Executive  Director, Alaska  Outdoor  Council  (AOC),                                                               
stated  that AOC  is a  coalition  of about  48 clubs  throughout                                                               
Alaska, as  well as  individual members.   The AOC  came together                                                               
before  statehood  and is  interested  in  preserving the  Alaska                                                               
lifestyle of gathering  a wild food harvest.  He  said that about                                                               
200,000  out  of Alaska's  700,000  residents  buy some  kind  of                                                               
hunting or fishing license.  Because  AOC members realize it is a                                                               
privilege  to be  able  to  harvest a  public  resource they  are                                                               
willing  to  do what  they  can  to  manage  that resource  on  a                                                               
sustainable yield  basis.  The  Alaska Department of Fish  & Game                                                               
(ADF&G)  has  a  legislative   directive  through  the  intensive                                                               
management  law.   Harvestable surplus  is declining  in numerous                                                               
places throughout the  state and it takes money to  get the sound                                                               
science  necessary  for  managing a  predator/prey  situation  to                                                               
where it  is sustainable yield.   The working members of  the AOC                                                               
are willing  to pay  this increase even  though it  affects their                                                               
budgets because they have the results of intensive management.                                                                  
1:41:37 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. ARNO drew  attention to Tab 15 in the  committee packet which                                                               
provides the compromise points.   He related that the AOC, Safari                                                               
Club International, Alaska  Professional Hunters Association, and                                                               
Territorial  Sportsmen  sat down,  came  to  agreement, and  made                                                               
compromises.  Despite  the public's concern and a  fair amount of                                                               
opposition to  raising fees,  the groups agreed  to go  ahead and                                                               
have a  $50 trophy hunting  fee for  sheep in the  Tok Management                                                               
Area and  in Chugach State Park.   Management is a  bit different                                                               
when managing  for trophy.   A  side benefit  in any  place where                                                               
there is a harvestable surplus of  trophies is that there must be                                                               
a  big population  to get  to that  point, so  those areas  still                                                               
benefit regular  Alaskans who  are not  trophy hunting.   Another                                                               
compromise was  to revise a  resident tag for coastal  brown bear                                                               
in game  management units  (GMUs) 1,  4, 6, 8,  9, and  10, which                                                               
would be  a fee of  $50.  Most  residents hunting in  these areas                                                               
are hunting for a trophy brown  bear.  Along with that trophy fee                                                               
of $50 the  current statewide tag fee of $25  on brown bear would                                                               
be dropped due to the revenue  that would come in from the trophy                                                               
fee.  In rural Alaska, he  maintained, that $25 tag fee cuts down                                                               
on the  harvest in areas where  the state is trying  to raise the                                                               
ungulate population.   The [Board  of Game] would still  have the                                                               
authority to  modify those tag  fees in  those trophy areas.   He                                                               
related  that  part  of  the  compromise  among  the  groups  was                                                               
agreement for  keeping the nonresident  tag fee at a  100 percent                                                               
increase.   The number  of nonresident  hunters coming  to Alaska                                                               
has fluctuated very  little over the last 40 years.   That number                                                               
is about  10,000 and has ranged  from 8,000-14,000.  There  is no                                                               
place like  Alaska as far as  hunting goes just by  the magnitude                                                               
of the state's wild lands that  have been kept intact.  So, there                                                               
will always  be 10,000 nonresidents  who will come to  Alaska and                                                               
pay that 100 percent increase in tag fee for the opportunity.                                                                   
1:44:55 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. ARNO said  another agreement among the  groups was developing                                                               
a new intensive  management surcharge of $10 that  would apply to                                                               
every  license and  that would  have a  three-year sunset.   This                                                               
surcharge would  be in addition to  the price of the  tags and is                                                               
similar to  the present surcharge  for sport fish  facilities and                                                               
which  has a  sunset date.   The  intensive management  surcharge                                                               
would go  into the fish and  game fund with the  idea that people                                                               
want more  of a harvestable  surplus and  are willing to  pay for                                                               
it.  He  allowed there will be some opposition  to the surcharge,                                                               
but said it  can be seen how  it works out over  the three years.                                                               
He noted that for the surcharge  for the sport fish facilities is                                                               
not applied  to the low income  license fees.  Mr.  Arno reported                                                               
that another agreement was for  creating a new voluntary fish and                                                               
wildlife  conservation decal  priced at  $20.   He  said this  is                                                               
something  that  has  been  talked   about  for  decades  because                                                               
managing for  abundance benefits  the other 500,000  Alaskans who                                                               
appreciate the ability to see wildlife.                                                                                         
1:47:40 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON inquired  whether  Mr.  Arno is  saying                                                               
that  he  hopes  the  increased  revenue  will  go  to  expanding                                                               
intensive management.                                                                                                           
MR. ARNO  replied that for  this particular tag, absolutely.   If                                                               
there wasn't  management it would  then be like what  the federal                                                               
government  wants,  he continued,  which  is  to have  biological                                                               
integrity  where the  populations are  allowed to  go to  the low                                                               
level  of  equilibrium  that   doesn't  provide  the  harvestable                                                               
surplus  that a  lot  of Alaskans  depend upon  for  a wild  food                                                               
source.   It's  a matter  of trying  to work  with ADF&G  and the                                                               
Board of  Game to ensure  that Alaskans  who depend on  that wild                                                               
food source  have the  ability.   It would go  into the  fish and                                                               
game  fund and  would  provide  a cushion  given  how much  ADF&G                                                               
spends  on  intensive  management.   That  money  would  be  used                                                               
specifically out of the fish  and game fund for doing inventories                                                               
and surveys; it wouldn't be used  for doing actual control.  It's                                                               
that background  data that is  necessary and benefits all  of the                                                               
wildlife resources  by having a  good data  base of the  sizes of                                                               
population and the health that it's in.                                                                                         
CO-CHAIR  NAGEAK  remarked  that intensive  management  has  been                                                               
ongoing for  a long time,  including back to  when he was  on the                                                               
Board of Game.                                                                                                                  
MR. GRASSER  believed that  Co-Chair Nageak was  on the  Board of                                                               
Game  in  the  1960s  and  said  that  in  those  days  intensive                                                               
management was just  regular management.  In those  days the same                                                               
thing was being  done but it wasn't  called intensive management.                                                               
He added  that intensive management  money is  isolated, Pittman-                                                               
Robertson  money  cannot  be  used   as  a  match  for  intensive                                                               
management.    The idea  is  to  have a  pool  of  money that  is                                                               
specifically for  intensive management  programs where  the Board                                                               
of Game has identified the need.                                                                                                
1:50:14 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON pointed  out  that a  lot  of boating  and                                                               
hunter safety  training takes place  around the ability to  get a                                                               
hunting  or  fishing license.    He  expressed his  concern  that                                                               
increasing the  age from  16 to  18 for being  required to  get a                                                               
hunting or fishing  license will cause a loss in  the impetus for                                                               
those two safety programs.                                                                                                      
MR.  GRASSER agreed  that  is a  good point,  but  said a  bigger                                                               
concern is  that youth  throughout the state,  not just  in urban                                                               
areas, are  being lost  from the  outdoor traditions  of hunting,                                                               
fishing, and  trapping.  From  the point  of view of  the groups,                                                               
having an extension  on going out with a parent  or relative is a                                                               
plus for  maintaining this tradition.   Education  programs reach                                                               
out  to  youth, including  18-year-olds.    For example,  ADF&G's                                                               
program,  Becoming an  Outdoors-Woman, is  reaching all  kinds of                                                               
women with young children.  This  program is growing by leaps and                                                               
bounds and teaches  boating safety, as well  as outdoor, camping,                                                               
and survival skills.                                                                                                            
1:52:18 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   JOSEPHSON   asked   whether  there   have   been                                                               
situations  where  there  is concern  about  excessive  intensive                                                               
management  because predators  are being  removed that  otherwise                                                               
would be taken  by guides or Alaskans.  In  other words, trapping                                                               
or regular hunting cannot occur because of intensive management.                                                                
MR. ARNO  responded he has probably  spent more time at  Board of                                                               
Game  meetings than  some  of the  members of  the  board.   When                                                               
allocating a public  resource it will always be  found that there                                                               
is conflict,  but that conflict  is minimal.   He said  he thinks                                                               
the board  has done an  excellent job.   For example,  the Alaska                                                               
Peninsula  is managed  for trophy  brown bear  and that  area has                                                               
moose and  caribou and the  department has done an  excellent job                                                               
managing  predator/prey;  the  department   has  stayed  true  to                                                               
ensuring that that brown bear  population was not reduced to that                                                               
point.  He  allowed there are trappers in the  Nelchina Basin who                                                               
are   concerned   with   intensive  management   reducing   their                                                               
opportunity to harvest wolf, but at  the same time they and their                                                               
neighbors are  seeing a lot  more moose  meat than there  used to                                                               
be.   He said he  has found that over  the years trappers  do say                                                               
they would like  to have more wolf, but those  trappers know they                                                               
and their  friends are being  fed by  that moose resource  and so                                                               
that kind of conflict has not come to a loggerhead.                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON inquired  whether there  is concern  in                                                               
this shrinking  budgetary climate  that there will  be a  lack of                                                               
funding  for  intensive management.    For  example, whether  the                                                               
proposal  is  designed  to  forestall  potential  cuts  or  other                                                               
concerns that  enough is not  currently being spent  on intensive                                                               
management.  In other words,  whether the proposal is designed to                                                               
supplant or supplement what the state is currently doing.                                                                       
MR. ARNO answered it is mainly  looking at the budget, looking at                                                               
the price  of oil.  Does  intensive management need to  be ramped                                                               
up in other areas of the  state?  Absolutely not.  The department                                                               
has done a  good job on the intensive management  program.  It is                                                               
not to  ramp up intensive  management but  to keep up  the steady                                                               
flow of gathering  that data.  This is an  opportunity like never                                                               
before in 23 years for the  public who consumes a public resource                                                               
to say, "Boy, if thing's are  tough we're more than willing to go                                                               
ahead and scrape and come up with some more money ourselves."                                                                   
1:56:06 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE   TARR,   regarding   the  compromise   to   raise                                                               
nonresident tag fees by 100  percent, inquired whether those fees                                                               
would be comparable to the nonresident fees of other states.                                                                    
MR. GRASSER  replied that Alaska's tag  fees are on the  low side                                                               
compared to  tag fees  in a  lot of  other states,  especially in                                                               
those  states where  there are  drawing permit  systems for  elk,                                                               
deer, bighorn  sheep.   Alaska's nonresident  fees are  less than                                                               
half of what the nonresident fees are in some of those states.                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether  Alaska is shorting itself                                                               
in  this  regard  and  Alaska   should  therefore  be  even  more                                                               
ambitious about fee collection.                                                                                                 
MR. GRASSER responded  he thinks it is about right  and he thinks                                                               
that  is   what  the  Alaska  Professional   Hunters  Association                                                               
supports.   In most instances  where the  tag fees are  more than                                                               
double what they  are in Alaska it's for a  very limited resource                                                               
that's on  a drawing permit.   A lot of Alaska's  populations can                                                               
be  hunted without  drawing  a permit,  so it  is  not quite  the                                                               
supply-and-demand scenario that is had in other states.                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired  as to what gave  the groups comfort                                                               
that   a   100   percent  increase   wouldn't   have   unintended                                                               
consequences for  the guide community  such as fewer  clients, as                                                               
well as a ripple effect in Alaska's economy.                                                                                    
MR. GRASSER  deferred the question  to the  Territorial Sportsmen                                                               
and the Alaska Professional Hunters Association.                                                                                
1:58:34 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether  someone who currently has a                                                               
permanent license will be grandfathered in.                                                                                     
MR. ARNO believed they would be.                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  TALERICO understood  that because  those licenses  have                                                               
already been issued they would be grandfathered in.                                                                             
The committee took an at-ease from 1:59 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.                                                                       
2:00:40 PM                                                                                                                    
RON SOMMERVILLE,  Board Member,  Territorial Sportsmen,  noted he                                                               
worked 24  years for  ADF&G.   Under Governor  Hickel he  was the                                                               
ADF&G deputy  commissioner in  charge of  budgets and  every year                                                               
for  four years  the department  took  a 5  percent reduction  in                                                               
general funds.   This experience made it a little  bit easier for                                                               
him to  put together the  background materials for the  groups to                                                               
work  out  a compromise.    He  explained that  federal  matching                                                               
monies, Pittman-Robertson money, can be  used for some things but                                                               
not others.   He  pointed out  that Tab  15 within  the committee                                                               
packet includes a listing from  ADF&G regarding how much money is                                                               
in  the Division  of Wildlife  Conservation as  well as  how much                                                               
general fund money  is in the Division of Sport  Fish.  Currently                                                               
ADF&G has  about $6 million  in each  of those two  divisions and                                                               
the listing includes  what that money is used for.   He confirmed                                                               
that  Pittman-Robertson  money  cannot   be  used  for  intensive                                                               
management, but  said fish and  game fund money and  general fund                                                               
money can  be used for  that.  During the  Hickel Administration,                                                               
ADF&G  lost  every  dime  of   general  fund  money  due  to  the                                                               
competition it  was against.   Similarly today, when  the finance                                                               
committees look  at the  state's budget, this  money is  going to                                                               
disappear.   Outdoor  users probably  cannot be  taxed enough  to                                                               
replace all  of this money,  but the  question is how  much money                                                               
can be gotten  and that is the way the  compromise came together.                                                               
What is  needed to replace  the critical  programs in ADF&G?   It                                                               
isn't  just  for  intensive  management  and  that  is  what  the                                                               
department's  list shows.   One  of  the key  ones is  endangered                                                               
species.   The Endangered Species  Act has more  potential impact                                                               
on  Alaska than  any state  in the  union because  Alaska is  the                                                               
testing ground  for how the environmentalists  can manipulate the                                                               
Endangered Species Act to stop development.                                                                                     
2:04:07 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SOMMERVILLE noted that a lot  of the resource programs may or                                                               
may not be  able to be funded by Pittman-Robertson  monies.  Some                                                               
of  the  education  programs  cannot  necessarily  be  funded  by                                                               
Pittman-Robertson.   The groups looked  at these programs  to see                                                               
what proportion  of them  could be covered.   The  department was                                                               
instructed  by previous  legislatures to  manage for  raising the                                                               
abundance of prey species for  use by Alaskans and the department                                                               
has attempted to  do that.  From the department's  listing it can                                                               
be  seen  what  might  be  lost for  the  divisions  of  wildlife                                                               
conservation and sport fish.                                                                                                    
MR. SOMMERVILLE said  the surcharge was created by  the groups as                                                               
part of  the compromise  because it was  clear that  the resident                                                               
tag fees was  going to disappear.  Other states  have gone to tag                                                               
fees  and they  rise  exponentially  over time.    But Alaska  is                                                               
different -  a hunter is  allowed to take  five caribou a  day in                                                               
the northern  parts of the  state and  every one of  those people                                                               
would be  asked to buy  a resident tag for  that and that  is not                                                               
going to work.   Other options could be pursued,  such as getting                                                               
a caribou  tag by itself  or have punch  cards.  He  related that                                                               
when he was regional supervisor  for Unit 13, the Nelchina Basin,                                                               
bear numbers were manipulated because  it is critical in terms of                                                               
predation on  moose calves.   When  the moose  population started                                                               
deteriorating, the region would move  the bear season a week into                                                               
August  so it  overlapped with  the moose  and caribou  season so                                                               
that resident  hunters would  take a  bear incidentally  to their                                                               
moose  and caribou  hunting.   Putting  a tag  on  it, which  was                                                               
eventually  done,  discouraged  Alaskans for  hunting  that  bear                                                               
population.  When  the region's bear population was  down and the                                                               
moose  population  coming back  up,  the  region moved  the  bear                                                               
season back one week.  However,  this cannot be done any more for                                                               
a  variety of  reasons.    This example  is  why  the groups  got                                                               
together  in  the  compromise  and came  up  with  the  intensive                                                               
management surcharge.   The key in this is the  amount of money -                                                               
the $12 million  - and how much of that  are residents willing to                                                               
pay in  order to  fund some  of these programs.   Coming  up with                                                               
this  surcharge was  after  a lot  debate  regarding what  people                                                               
might buy.   The  surcharge amount  could be $5  or $10,  but the                                                               
proposal  by  the groups  is  to  try to  raise  as  much as  the                                                               
residents are willing to pay  and only legislators will make that                                                               
decision,  not  the  groups.    Regarding  a  voluntary  wildlife                                                               
conservation  decal, Mr.  Sommerville recalled  that when  he was                                                               
with ADF&G he twice tried to  get the tourism industry to support                                                               
some kind  of tag or decal  for watchable wildlife, but  he met a                                                               
dead end each time.   A voluntary wildlife conservation decal was                                                               
one of  the ideas  the groups came  up with.   Even though  it is                                                               
voluntary, other  states have shown  that people do buy  them and                                                               
the state makes  money.  He offered his  personal appreciation to                                                               
Co-Chair Talerico for introducing HB 137.                                                                                       
2:09:06 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON inquired  whether  the  benefit of  the                                                               
voluntary decal is that it is  a novelty or collector's item.  He                                                               
further inquired what the decal revenue  will be used for and how                                                               
can the purchaser know what the revenue will be used for.                                                                       
MR.  SOMMERVILLE replied  that  that was  not  identified by  the                                                               
groups other  than it would  go into the  fish and game  fund for                                                               
fish and  wildlife conservation  purposes.   He related  that the                                                               
groups do  hear complaints from  people who  do not want  to fund                                                               
ADF&G  because   the  department   doesn't  do  something   in  a                                                               
particular area  that the person  likes.  However,  he continued,                                                               
it is the legislature that controls  what the money is spent for.                                                               
He argued that  writing something finite into  the bill directing                                                               
that it has  to go for watchable wildlife would  result in a huge                                                               
segment of  the hunting community  opposing it, which is  why the                                                               
groups  drafted it  this  way.   He  said  he personally  doesn't                                                               
oppose using it  for that and it gives the  department the option                                                               
of submitting a budget to use  it for that, but the legislature's                                                               
oversight is what really controls that.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  commented that  he  knows  what he  is                                                               
getting when he  buys an annual Chugach State  Park parking pass,                                                               
but  asked how  someone purchasing  a voluntary  decal will  know                                                               
exactly what it is for.                                                                                                         
MR. SOMMERVILLE  responded there isn't  anything that ties  it to                                                               
that, it's just another potential  fund raising opportunity.  For                                                               
example, identification of the revenue  from the Alaska waterfowl                                                               
stamp  program  is  prohibited,  it  goes  in  and  is  earmarked                                                               
separately  and is  pretty much  spent on  the waterfowl  program                                                               
mainly because the legislature has kind  of insisted on that.  If                                                               
the committee feels a program  deserves special attention, it can                                                               
be written  into a bill  and identified separately, but  it isn't                                                               
2:12:14 PM                                                                                                                    
THOR  STACEY, Lobbyist,  Alaska Professional  Hunters Association                                                               
(APHA), said the  APHA is pleased to be working  with groups that                                                               
represent residents  for hunting interests.   The APHA recognizes                                                               
that the fees  for nonresident hunting licenses  and tags haven't                                                               
been raised  since 1993  and from  a comparative  standpoint they                                                               
are below market value or  comparatively lower than other states.                                                               
Clients  are  excited  for  the   opportunity  to  contribute  to                                                               
Alaska's wildlife  and the opportunity  to enjoy what  Alaska has                                                               
to offer.  When  the clients leave they would like  to feel as if                                                               
they contributed  to a  sustainable future and  did not  take the                                                               
last sheep  or bear.   Working with  the resident groups  is very                                                               
important to  the APHA,  he said.   The  dialogue is  not whether                                                               
nonresidents should pay  more, rather it is how  much more should                                                               
they pay.  The question about  how much residents should pay will                                                               
be  answered by  the  legislature.   The APHA  is  excited to  be                                                               
lending its support  on the nonresident side and  APHA supports a                                                               
100 percent  increase for  nonresident tag  fees.   It is  a good                                                               
starting  point  and  a  meaningful  enough  increase  that  APHA                                                               
doesn't feel  it will be  back before  the legislature in  two or                                                               
three years.   If the current direction of the  state budget goes                                                               
the way it  is, APHA feels it will build  some inflation proofing                                                               
into the  fee increase.   But  the question  is, Will  it prevent                                                               
people from  buying hunts from the  APHA's members?  Is  this fee                                                               
large enough or out of line  such that it will reduce the ability                                                               
to  sell trips?   The  APHA thinks  the 100  percent increase  is                                                               
right on the line of that and  therefore APHA does not want to go                                                               
higher  than that.   This  industry is  different than  others in                                                               
that it  doesn't need help  from the  state to sell  its product.                                                               
Alaska's wildlife  is very valuable and  a lot of people  want to                                                               
come to  the state.   Citing statistics  from a recent  report by                                                               
the  McDowell   Group  regarding  Alaska's  guide   industry,  he                                                               
reported that  89 percent of  Alaska's active hunting  guides are                                                               
Alaska residents.   So,  unlike a  lot of  other resource-reliant                                                               
industries, a  high percentage  of the new  dollars that  come to                                                               
Alaska's economy stay in the  state.  Annual economic activity is                                                               
$78 million, with about half of  that in rural Alaska.  The guide                                                               
industry  creates  about  2,200  jobs in  Alaska  annually.    He                                                               
offered his appreciation to the bill sponsor.                                                                                   
2:16:00 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SOMMERVILLE  added  that  the  increase  calculated  by  the                                                               
sponsor's staff is a little bit  less than 50 percent.  Inflation                                                               
since 1993 would be 63 percent.   Therefore, what the groups have                                                               
proposed  is low  and will  not match  the $12  million; it  will                                                               
require a lot of prioritizing in  the department even if there is                                                               
a 50  percent increase.   The groups would  like to at  least see                                                               
the intensive  management fee  and possibly  go a  little higher,                                                               
but he respects what the bill sponsor has done.                                                                                 
The committee took a brief at-ease.                                                                                             
2:17:51 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK opened public testimony on HB 137.                                                                              
2:19:08 PM                                                                                                                    
GEORGE  PIERCE stated  that  the [proposed]  increase  is on  the                                                               
backs of residents who own the  resource and it should instead be                                                               
on the backs  of nonresidents.  When there is  a shortage of fish                                                               
or  game, nonresidents  should  not  qualify for  any  kind of  a                                                               
permit, he  said.  The boards  are giving away Alaska's  fish and                                                               
game  to  special interests  -  fishing  groups, hunting  groups,                                                               
guides for  nonresidents.  The  Board of  Game is trying  to kill                                                               
bears and wolves for moose  declining, so why do nonresidents get                                                               
to  hunt when  residents are  restricted?   He urged  that he  be                                                               
given  his  resources  first,  not  last.   The  boards  need  to                                                               
investigate the  interest on big  game permits  for nonresidents,                                                               
the selling  of the  state's fish  and game.   He urged  that the                                                               
fees be  raised for nonresidents and  to quit the giving  away of                                                               
residents' game  to special interest  groups.  It is  the special                                                               
interest  groups that  the committee  is hearing  from -  moneyed                                                               
guides are  controlling the Board of  Game.  This is  about money                                                               
for guides.   Alaska's game is being sold so  the guides can make                                                               
more  money.   He said  he had  thought that  ADF&G, not  special                                                               
interests, managed the state's resources.   How many Alaskans use                                                               
hunting guides?   The committee  is being bamboozled to  give the                                                               
guides the right  to give permits to  nonresidents when according                                                               
to ADF&G  there is a  shortage of fish  and game everywhere.   He                                                               
urged  that the  rates not  be  raised for  Alaska residents  but                                                               
raised for nonresidents.                                                                                                        
2:23:19 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  requested Mr. Dale of  ADF&G to address                                                               
how the  new revenue would  not be used for  intensive management                                                               
if HB 137 is  passed.  For example, whether it  would be used for                                                               
habitat  issues, browse,  data gathering  to see  whether a  hunt                                                               
should  be by  draw  or be  generally  open, and  so  forth.   He                                                               
pointed  out  that twice  during  the  1990s voters  expressed  a                                                               
majority  objection to  parts of  intensive  management and  thus                                                               
there is a constituency there.                                                                                                  
BRUCE DALE,  Director, Division of Wildlife  Conservation, Alaska                                                               
Department of Fish  & Game (ADF&G), replied that  ADF&G would use                                                               
a portion  of increased funding  matched with federal  aid monies                                                               
to  conduct ADF&G's  normal survey  and inventory  activities, as                                                               
well  as research.   Increased,  more frequent,  and more  robust                                                               
surveys could be used in many  parts of the state to increase the                                                               
department's  wildlife  management   activities.    Additionally,                                                               
access  programs that  maintain easements  that allow  hunters to                                                               
get to  state and  other public  lands are needed  and that  is a                                                               
general funded  program.  So, those  funds would be used  to help                                                               
provide a more secure and  more reliable funding source for those                                                               
important programs.                                                                                                             
2:25:08 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK returned to public testimony.                                                                                   
2:25:42 PM                                                                                                                    
GARY  STEVENS  disclosed he  is  a  board  member of  the  Alaska                                                               
Outdoor  Council (AOC),  but said  he  is testifying  on his  own                                                               
behalf.  The  biggest of the several issues that  he has with the                                                               
bill is  that the  increases for the  nonresident alien  big game                                                               
tag fees are inconsistent.  If  the nonresident big game tags are                                                               
raised 50  percent as proposed  in the  current bill, or  the 100                                                               
percent proposed  by the people  testifying previously,  then the                                                               
nonresident alien  big game tags need  to go up the  same amount.                                                               
The way it is currently the  nonresident alien sheep tag only has                                                               
an 18  percent increase and the  moose tag only has  a 20 percent                                                               
increase and  those need to increase  at least 50 percent  and up                                                               
to 100  percent.   Another issue  is the  senior license.   Going                                                               
from 60 years  of age to 62 years is  relatively meaningless.  He                                                               
proposed that the free license be  done away with and that age 60                                                               
and  older be  applied to  the $5  license and  let those  people                                                               
purchase  a  $5 hunting,  trapping,  and  fishing license  on  an                                                               
annual  basis.   Regarding the  proposal for  a $50  resident big                                                               
game  tag for  sheep and  coastal brown  bear, he  strongly urged                                                               
that if  this is done  it not be designated  as a trophy  tag but                                                               
instead  be called  a resident  big  game tag.   If  the bill  is                                                               
passed,  he urged  that a  provision be  added for  a legislative                                                               
budget  review  of  the  department and  that  that  be  provided                                                               
publicly so  members of the  public who are paying  this increase                                                               
can see how those funds are being utilized.                                                                                     
2:28:03 PM                                                                                                                    
STEVEN FLORY  noted he has  held a seat  on the Anchorage  Fish &                                                               
Game Advisory  Committee at different  times over the  years, but                                                               
said he  will be  resigning from  the advisory  committee because                                                               
the Board  of Game  and Board  of Fisheries  don't listen  to the                                                               
advisory  committees  anymore  and the  legislature  hasn't  done                                                               
anything  about it.   He  said  he opposes  raising the  hunting,                                                               
fishing,  and trapping  license at  all.   Several years  ago, he                                                               
related, then-Senator Seekins proposed  raising the fees and that                                                               
was supported with  the understanding that there  were some times                                                               
to it  and that  the department would  actually have  to produce.                                                               
This is another step where the  department isn't going to want to                                                               
produce, but just get more money.   He referred to a pie chart he                                                               
sent to  the committee that  shows that approximately  10 percent                                                               
of the money going to ADF&G  goes to wildlife conservation and 10                                                               
percent to  sport fish,  with the  rest of  the money  going into                                                               
commercial fish.   There is talk about the $12  million, but what                                                               
should be talked  about is the $53 million  going into commercial                                                               
fish that  has no return.   At  least the hunters,  trappers, and                                                               
fishermen  are talking  about  putting  more money  in.   If  the                                                               
legislature is  going to  cut ADF&G, it  should start  by cutting                                                               
commercial fish money  first.  Regarding the  most recent version                                                               
of the bill, he said the one  thing that is woefully short is how                                                               
much higher the nonresident fees  could be raised.  The Anchorage                                                               
advisory  committee  went  through  this  a  few  years  ago,  he                                                               
related,  and  found that  Alaska  is  the bargain  basement  for                                                               
prices  on nonresidents  and even  after  this proposed  increase                                                               
Alaska will still be pretty close to the bargain basement.                                                                      
2:31:11 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON asked  what Mr.  Flory means  by saying                                                               
that ADF&G  needs to produce.   He  surmised Mr. Flory  means the                                                               
department should  spend less on  commercial fishing and  more on                                                               
other things.                                                                                                                   
MR. FLORY responded that 40 years  ago tracking began on how much                                                               
wildlife each  state produced.   At that  time Alaska  was ranked                                                               
number one,  but now Alaska  is ranked  50.  Alaska  is producing                                                               
less in  comparison to  what it  used to  produce.   For example,                                                               
Dall sheep numbers  are down but Alaska continues  to placate the                                                               
professional hunters first and then worry about the residents.                                                                  
2:32:51 PM                                                                                                                    
RICKY  GEASE,   Executive  Director,  Kenai   River  Sportfishing                                                               
Association,  Inc.  (KRSA), stated  he  supports  the concept  of                                                               
increasing license  fees on fish  and game.   It is  important to                                                               
maintain  a good  level  of  funding for  the  sport fishing  and                                                               
wildlife  conservation   divisions  so  they  can   handle  their                                                               
critical tasks to  have an effective and  efficient department to                                                               
manage  the state's  natural resources.    In the  past years  of                                                               
plenty there have been some reductions  in the sport fish and now                                                               
with the  fiscal cliff it  is more  important than ever  to enact                                                               
these  increases.    There  has  been  decreased  programming  in                                                               
education of the  next generation of anglers.   The last economic                                                               
survey  done for  sport fishing  was in  2007 even  though it  is                                                               
supposed to  be done every five  years, which will result  in not                                                               
getting consistent  baseline data for the  state's socio-economic                                                               
programs in  sport fishing.   He said he  likes the concept  of a                                                               
voluntary  stamp  that  Alaskans  and  nonresidents  can  pay  in                                                               
addition to people  who are actively harvesting  the state's fish                                                               
and  game  resources.    He  suggested  there  could  also  be  a                                                               
voluntary  fish  habitat  stamp  and proposed  that  there  be  a                                                               
sockeye  stamp similar  to a  king  salmon stamp  and that  would                                                               
follow the same regulations, with  monies going into the fish and                                                               
game  fund.   With declines  in  king salmon,  the popularity  of                                                               
sockeye fishing is increasing exponentially,  he reported.  A lot                                                               
of  anglers and  dip  netters are  being seen  on  the Kenai  and                                                               
Kasilof rivers.   The  Kenai River is  the state's  largest sport                                                               
fishery for  sockeye salmon and  the largest dip net  fishery for                                                               
sockeye  salmon.    "We're  bulging   at  the  seams,"  he  said.                                                               
Additional  funds  for  management are  needed  specifically  for                                                               
sockeye  salmon  and that  is  what  a  sockeye stamp  would  do.                                                               
Programming for the Mobile Aquatic  Classroom (MAC) van for sport                                                               
fishing education  has been  decreased over  the past  few years.                                                               
Education,  research, and  basic  maintenance  programs are  what                                                               
these funds go towards and KRSA supports these increases.                                                                       
2:36:00 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TARR  queried whether  Mr. Gease supports  the fee                                                               
increases as  proposed in  Version N or  is comfortable  with the                                                               
fees proposed  by the outdoor  caucus that include  an additional                                                               
$5  for resident  sport fishing  and  increases for  nonresidents                                                               
that are higher than in Version N.                                                                                              
MR. GEASE  answered that for  both resident and  nonresident fees                                                               
it is  a low hurdle  in terms of what  people are being  asked to                                                               
pay, as well as when bumping  up the amount from $8,000 to closer                                                               
to $30,000  for claiming a  hardship.   Whether it is  going from                                                               
$15 to  $20, or from  $15 to $25,  KRSA is very  comfortable with                                                               
that on both the resident and nonresident fees.                                                                                 
2:37:15 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON,   in  regard  to  the   sockeye  stamp                                                               
concept, asked what Mr. Gease  envisions would be paid per salmon                                                               
and who would pay it.                                                                                                           
MR. GEASE replied it would be just  like a king salmon stamp.  An                                                               
angler or  dip netter  wishing to retain  a sockeye  salmon would                                                               
have  to have  a sockeye  salmon stamp.   The  head of  household                                                               
person getting  the permit  for the  dip net  would pay  that $10                                                               
fee.   A resident or nonresident  angler fishing on the  banks of                                                               
the Kenai  or Kasilof rivers  would be  required to pay  that $10                                                               
fee.  It  would be a one-time  fee just like for  the king salmon                                                               
stamp and not based on the number  of fish caught, but based on a                                                               
person going out fishing for that species.                                                                                      
2:38:40 PM                                                                                                                    
LARRY MORRIS  noted that while  he is  a member of  the Fairbanks                                                               
Fish  & Game  Advisory Committee,  his testimony  represents only                                                               
his  own views.   He  said he  personally supports  HB 137.   The                                                               
additional revenues  would be eligible  for matching  monies like                                                               
Pittman-Robertson.   Revenues should be  used for sport  fish and                                                               
game  management.    Management  activities should  be  used  for                                                               
enhancement  of  resource  availability.    Conversely,  lack  of                                                               
management could  cause a  default to  the most  conservative and                                                               
restrictive available.  Therefore  additional revenues should not                                                               
be used to increase general administration.   He said he does not                                                               
believe  the nonresident  fee increases  will have  a detrimental                                                               
impact to  industries such  as the  travel and  leisure industry.                                                               
Enhanced   management   of   resources  that   provides   greater                                                               
availability has  the potential to enhance  demand from visitors.                                                               
Reduced  availability will  surely have  a greater  impact.   Mr.                                                               
Morris suggested  that instead of  raising the license age  to 18                                                               
there be a youth license at  an incredibly reduced fee or no fee.                                                               
He recalled that getting his  first hunting license was special -                                                               
an initiation to the new hunters  and fishers that is almost like                                                               
a rite of  passage.  Regarding the  resident permanently disabled                                                               
license, he  suggested it be made  a lifetime license for  a fee.                                                               
This would  have a significant  reduction in  administration from                                                               
the  present annual  requirement  of reauthorization.   It  would                                                               
also reduce the cost and  effort required from those licensees in                                                               
getting a doctor's note and the  in-person filing of it.  He also                                                               
suggested  that  the  one-day   nonresident  fishing  license  be                                                               
eliminated.  The  cost of two one-day licenses  is the equivalent                                                               
of  a  three-day  license,   therefore  eliminating  the  one-day                                                               
license  and making  the  shortest license  be  three days  would                                                               
reduce a lot paperwork for a lot of people.                                                                                     
2:42:25 PM                                                                                                                    
DEB  RUDIS noted  she is  a retired  wildlife biologist  and avid                                                               
consumptive  and  non-consumptive  user   of  Alaska's  fish  and                                                               
wildlife  resources.   She  said that  as  a conservationist  she                                                               
supports  the  user  fees  for   hunting  and  fishing  that  are                                                               
deposited into  the fish and  game fund and  various sub-accounts                                                               
and that can be  used as a match for federal  aid in the wildlife                                                               
restoration program.   Having an adequate match  of state dollars                                                               
is key to  acquiring the federal aid funds and  excise taxes that                                                               
hunters and anglers are willing  to pay for guns, ammunition, and                                                               
various fishing  equipment.  She  offered her hope that  the bill                                                               
could afford  the opportunity for  a conservation tag  that could                                                               
be imposed for both consumption  and non-consumptive users.  Many                                                               
states in  the West have  such a conservation tag,  she reported,                                                               
and  it  is required  to  access  areas  such as  state  wildlife                                                               
management areas, refuges, and sanctuaries.   Funds from that tag                                                               
could  be  used  to  ensure that  there  is  wildlife  education,                                                               
wildlife viewing, and  wildlife diversity in the state.   She has                                                               
purchased resident  hunting and  fishing licenses for  many years                                                               
and is now a recipient  of the permanent identification card that                                                               
provides her a  number of privileges for hunting  and fishing for                                                               
free.   She recommended that  the name  be changed to  the Alaska                                                               
Resident Senior Exempt Card, or  a corollary, in recognition that                                                               
a  person must  be  an  Alaska resident  to  maintain these  free                                                               
license  privileges.    In conjunction  with  this,  a  residency                                                               
verification  program  should be  written  into  the statute  for                                                               
every two  to three years  or on an annual  basis.  She  said she                                                               
presently knows of people who have  moved out of state but return                                                               
every year  to use this  resident card to illegally  harvest fish                                                               
and  game and  bring it  back  to the  states in  which they  now                                                               
reside.   She further recommended  that the resident  hunting fee                                                               
be  raised  to  $40,  an   amount  that  would  just  about  meet                                                               
inflation.    Anything  less  would   not  meet  the  ability  of                                                               
residents to  share in  the cost of  wildlife management  and the                                                               
world class hunting  opportunities that are afforded.   Ms. Rudis                                                               
further  recommended  that fees  be  imposed  for the  taking  of                                                               
raptors by nonresidents for the  sport of falconry and that there                                                               
be some type of multi-year  falconry permit for residents.  There                                                               
is currently no annual fee  for resident falconers, yet there are                                                               
extensive permitting  requirements which  take a  lot of  time by                                                               
ADF&G staff.  Nonresidents are now  allowed to come to Alaska and                                                               
take a bird of  prey for falconry for no tag or  permit fee.  The                                                               
Board of Game passed these regulations  but has no ability to set                                                               
fees,  the legislature  does.   The  taking of  a highly  coveted                                                               
species like  a gyrfalcon from  Alaska by a  nonresident falconer                                                               
is now being  allowed for free.  The Alaska  Department of Fish &                                                               
Game does  not even recover  any administrative costs  of issuing                                                               
permits to these nonresidents.                                                                                                  
2:45:57 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TARR  said Ms.  Rudis has  good suggestions.   She                                                               
asked which states  have a good model that could  be looked at in                                                               
regard to the conservation stamp.                                                                                               
MS. RUDIS answered that many  New England states use conservation                                                               
stamps.   A  problem in  Alaska  is that  many of  the areas  are                                                               
accessible only  by boat or plane,  making it hard to  impose the                                                               
requirement.  However,  there could be a posting  at major access                                                               
points and  people would appreciate  being able  to pay a  fee to                                                               
actually preserve conservation of species.                                                                                      
MS.  RUDIS, in  response to  Representative Josephson,  confirmed                                                               
that  people come  to Alaska  to remove  raptors for  purposes of                                                               
falconry.   A  person is  allowed to  trap a  bird in  Alaska and                                                               
bring it  back to  the state  in which the  person is  a licensed                                                               
falconer and use that  bird as a hunting bird.   It is an ancient                                                               
sport that goes back to the kings of Egypt.                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked how often this can happen.                                                                       
MR. RUDIS  replied it would be  one season that the  people would                                                               
be allowed  to come  to Alaska  and bring a  raptor back.   These                                                               
people are  spending a lot of  money to get here  and are usually                                                               
folks of  pretty good means, and  for them to not  be required to                                                               
get a license  or a permit that costs them  money doesn't seem to                                                               
meet that program need.                                                                                                         
2:47:49 PM                                                                                                                    
NANCY  HILSTRAND  noted she  is  a  fish processor  with  Pioneer                                                               
Alaskan Fisheries in  Homer and has spent 17 years  on a fish and                                                               
game advisory  committee, but is  speaking on behalf  of herself.                                                               
She said she thinks there is an  elephant in the room and that is                                                               
the expenditures of wildlife viewers  within the state of Alaska.                                                               
She reported there  are 72 million wildlife watchers  in the U.S.                                                               
and  in  Alaska  there  are 200,000  residents  who  are  viewing                                                               
customers and  [669,000] nonresidents who are  viewing customers.                                                               
These customers bring  $2.75 billion into the state,  which is $1                                                               
billion more  than the hunting.   Together  that is 8  percent of                                                               
the gross  domestic product  (GDP) in  Alaska.   Wildlife viewing                                                               
creates  18,800 jobs,  brings almost  $1 billion  worth of  labor                                                               
income,  and brings  $231 million  into  the government  revenue.                                                               
These are  huge numbers  and it  is important to  get a  grasp on                                                               
what these  people can do.   While she likes the  decal idea, she                                                               
said she thinks  a license is needed because people  want to know                                                               
where that money is going.   It would be more successful if there                                                               
is more  reason for them  to buy a license  other than just  as a                                                               
conservation decal.  A decal can  be there also, but there should                                                               
be a license for  a fee to pay into the  wildlife viewing and the                                                               
money it costs  for the management and  conservation of wildlife.                                                               
She said she  absolutely supports the increasing of  fees on both                                                               
fish  and wildlife  and  she would  like to  proudly  be part  of                                                               
wildlife conservation to  buy a license but she would  like to be                                                               
correctly  profiled, which  is  something that  a  lot of  people                                                               
would  like  to have.    It  is nice  to  know  that a  group  is                                                               
separated  out so  there can  be a  count of  the people  who are                                                               
putting money in.  It will take  time for it to evolve because it                                                               
takes time  for people to understand  how this all works.   It is                                                               
just a  matter of  marketing.   By working  with the  tourism and                                                               
cruise  industries money  can be  brought  into the  state.   She                                                               
thanked Co-Chair Talerico for introducing the bill.                                                                             
2:51:08 PM                                                                                                                    
MS.  HILSTRAND, in  response  to  Representative Tarr,  confirmed                                                               
that the document she was  referencing from came from herself and                                                               
from the survey that the U.S.  Fish & Wildlife Service does every                                                               
five years.                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR   inquired  whether  Ms.  Hilstrand   has  a                                                               
mechanism  in  mind  for  how wildlife  viewers  would  buy  this                                                               
MS. HILSTRAND  responded that there are  18 million photographers                                                               
in  the  U.S.   and  she  thinks  it  should   be  mandatory  for                                                               
professional wildlife  photographers.   While it is  probably not                                                               
enforceable, a lot  of photographers would take it as  a badge of                                                               
honor to buy it.  And,  the same with wildlife viewing guides who                                                               
are  making  money off  of  wildlife,  so  it  should also  be  a                                                               
mandatory license for  them.  Most people realize that  this is a                                                               
good  thing  and  that  banding together  with  the  hunters  and                                                               
fishers is good for managing wildlife.                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR asked  whether Ms.  Hilstrand is  suggesting                                                               
something that's  more geared towards the  professional operators                                                               
rather than individuals, or both.                                                                                               
MS. HILSTRAND  replied all of  the above.   Anything that  can be                                                               
done  to get  people involved  is  what needs  to be  done.   For                                                               
example, there could be  a 1 percent bed tax that  is added.  For                                                               
someone getting a monetary return,  she said she thinks it should                                                               
be mandatory.  Drawing attention  to [an unidentified document in                                                               
the  committee  packet  previously referenced  by  Representative                                                               
Tarr], she said it shows that  people are willing to pay more and                                                               
questions were asked to learn that.   Now that it is known people                                                               
are willing to pay it is  just a matter of finding the mechanisms                                                               
and an  important part is  the profiling.   Noting she is  on the                                                               
board of  the "Friends  of Migratory  Bird Staff"  in Washington,                                                               
DC, she  said the same  thing is being  done with the  duck stamp                                                               
because people are not profiled  and people aren't willing to buy                                                               
it until they know  that they are going to be  counted as the 77-                                                               
80 percent  of the people who  use the refuges.   It is important                                                               
to  profile people  correctly so  people are  happy and  proud to                                                               
support [the decal] and be involved and be counted.                                                                             
2:54:34 PM                                                                                                                    
DON  QUARBERG noted  he  is a  39-year resident  of  Alaska.   He                                                               
offered his  belief that HB 137  was precipitated in part  by the                                                               
availability  of  matching  federal funds  through  the  Pittman-                                                               
Robertson Act, which provides $3  for every $1 that ADF&G matches                                                               
from  the  sale of  hunting  licenses  and  tags.   It  currently                                                               
appears that  more federal money  is available from  this program                                                               
than  what the  state  can  obtain through  this  match and  this                                                               
federal  money  is  used  for  management  of  the  state's  game                                                               
resources.    He  urged  the  committee  to  amend  the  bill  to                                                               
eliminate Section 7, which is  AS 16.05.340(a)(6)(A) and formally                                                               
called the indigent license.   This would remove ADF&G from being                                                               
a welfare  program.  He  related that  a local license  vendor in                                                               
Delta Junction estimates that nearly  30 percent of the sales are                                                               
for indigent  or welfare licenses,  and that is with  the current                                                               
income  ceiling of  $8,200.   If HB  137 passes  and raises  that                                                               
income limit to $29,820, he said  he cannot imagine how many more                                                               
individuals will qualify.   He suggested that  the state's social                                                               
services department evaluate who  should receive this license and                                                               
then provide such  to that recipient through a  transfer of funds                                                               
to ADF&G for the full value  of the license and tags, which would                                                               
be a net cost of nothing  to the state.  This would significantly                                                               
increase the Pittman-Robertson matching  funds available to ADF&G                                                               
and would also reduce the fraud,  given that a person only has to                                                               
sign a statement saying he/she doesn't  make any money.  He noted                                                               
he is  a person  who has  a "geriatric"  license and  said senior                                                               
citizens have  a smaller percentage  of indigence than  any other                                                               
age  group  and he  therefore  urges  the committee  to  consider                                                               
whether this type of license is needed.                                                                                         
2:57:48 PM                                                                                                                    
KEITH WOODWORTH  noted he  is 71 years  old and  supports raising                                                               
the  age from  60  to 65.    He  said he  stands  by the  written                                                               
comments he  has submitted  to the committee  that were  based on                                                               
the original version of HB 137.   He said he supports the bill as                                                               
originally written and  further said that the tags  in Alaska are                                                               
greatly undervalued.   The  Western states  have a  ratio between                                                               
resident and nonresident  tag fees and license fees.   A study he                                                               
did when Matt Robus  was in Juneau came up with  a ratio of about                                                               
1:7 or 1:11  and he believes that residents should  be paying for                                                               
their tags and more for their licenses.                                                                                         
2:59:31 PM                                                                                                                    
BARRY   WHITE-HILL,  Alaska   Chapter  Backcountry   Hunters  and                                                               
Anglers, stated that his organization  is a sportsmen's voice for                                                               
public lands,  water, and  wildlife, which  are critical  for his                                                               
family to put food  on the table.  He said he  filled a couple of                                                               
freezers during  the hunting  season in Alaska  and then  had the                                                               
opportunity to hunt  with resident friends in  Idaho, New Mexico,                                                               
and  Nevada.   During all  those hunts  and discussions  with his                                                               
friends it became  obvious as to what a screaming  deal is had in                                                               
Alaska.  Noting  he is of the  age for an exempt  license fee, he                                                               
said he would be willing to pay  for a license at his age because                                                               
it is an  opportunity that the state is missing.   As pointed out                                                               
by  Mr.  Grasser,  sportsmen  and   sportswomen  have  long  been                                                               
supporting  the North  American  Wildlife  Conservation Model  of                                                               
hunting and fishing.   Funds from the  1936 Pittman-Robertson Act                                                               
are  a tax  on  firearms and  ammunition,  so it  is  a tax  that                                                               
sportsmen  supported and  created  through  legislation and  from                                                               
which Alaska is trying to get  matching funds.  It is critical to                                                               
maintain  the ADF&G  staff necessary  for having  the science  to                                                               
support hunting and fishing into the future.                                                                                    
3:01:40 PM                                                                                                                    
TOM LAMAL testified he has been  an Alaska resident for nearly 45                                                               
years and  supports HB 137.   Having researched how  other states                                                               
fund their departments, he said  it appears Alaska could generate                                                               
a lot  more money  by adopting  some of their  policies.   A good                                                               
example is  Montana's self-funded Department of  Fish, Wildlife &                                                               
Parks:    70  percent  of the  department's  revenue  comes  from                                                               
nonresident  tag fees  and  30 percent  comes  from resident  tag                                                               
fees.   A self-funding concept  will require ADF&G to  manage for                                                               
abundance  so  both  residents  and  nonresidents  will  want  to                                                               
purchase  tags.    The  western   states  also  maintain  a  high                                                               
allocation of their game resources  for their residents and still                                                               
fund their  departments through  tag fees.   The  nonresident can                                                               
obtain up  to 10  percent of  their tags, but  10 percent  is not                                                               
guaranteed and at least 90 percent  of their game is reserved for                                                               
their  residents.   In  order  for ADF&G  to  support itself  the                                                               
residents are  going to have  to pitch in  with tag fees  and the                                                               
guide  regulations  will  have  to be  eliminated  so  that  more                                                               
nonresidents will  apply for  sheep, goat, and  bear tags.   This                                                               
will require putting nonresidents  on permits because the numbers                                                               
of applicants  will be high.   He urged the committee  to look at                                                               
how other  states address  these issues.   A  lot of  agendas are                                                               
being  presented from  all sides  and  he is  asking that  before                                                               
members  make  decisions  all  Alaskans  be  considered  and  not                                                               
special interests.  Residents don't  have a lobbyist so residents                                                               
must  depend upon  the representatives  they  voted into  office.                                                               
This is not a  budget cut, it is a way to  create revenue for the                                                               
State of Alaska.  If money can  be brought in, the state can ease                                                               
cuts on schools and other programs.  Alaskans first.                                                                            
3:04:14 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK closed public testimony and held over HB 137.                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
3.20.15 HRES HB 137 - AK Backcountry Hunters & Anglers LOS.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
3.20.15 HRES HB 137 - AK Backcountry Hunters & Anglers LOS #2.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - Ver. N - 3-16-15.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - DF&G Big Game Tag Increase Scenarios.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - DF&G Hunting Fishing License Increase Scenarios.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - DF&G Hunting License Increase Scenarios.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - DF&G King Salmon Stamp Increase Scenarios.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - DF&G Sport Fishing License Increase Scenarios.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - Letter of Support - Alaska Backcountry Hunters & Anglers - 3-15-15.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - DF&G Sport Fishing License Increase Scenarios.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - Section Analysis.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - Sponsor Statement.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - Summary of Changes (Ver. H to N).pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - Supporting Document - Fee Increase Effects.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - Supporting Document - Governor Transition Team.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - Supporting Document - License and Stamp Fee Revenue Increase.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - Supporting Document - License and Tag Fee Increase Comparison.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - Supporting Document - License and Tag Sales (1981-2014).pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - Supporting Document - Outdoor Caucus Advisory Council Letter.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
HB 137 - Fiscal Note - DFD-DAS-03-14-15.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - Legal Analysis - State v. Carlson.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - Supporting Document - Tag Fee Revenue Increase 2.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
1024 F&G Funds FY1981-FY2016.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
FY14 Fish and Game Fund Analysis from F&G 12.22.14.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
Sport Fish and Wildlife DJ and PR Apportionment History.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
LFD F&G Fund Analysis 2 14 15 Sport Fish & Wildlife2.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 - Section Analysis 2.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 Dingell Johnson Funds .pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
CSHB 137 Pittman Roberts Funds.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137
3.20.15 HRES HB 137 K Woodworth Testimony.pdf HRES 3/20/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 137