Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 103

Thread: HB 161 - Proposed change to Governor's permits

  1. #1
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,396

    Default HB 161 - Proposed change to Governor's permits

    It looks like a bill was introduced last year to make some significant changes to the Governor's tag program and that they held a hearing on it today. HB 161 would increase the number of species, the number of tags per species, and increase the percentage of revenue kept by the org that is raffling off their allocated permit(s). In addition, it would strike language from existing law that prohibits using the funds raised from the auction of tags for political contributions and lobbying. Interesting, at the very least...

    Full text of the bill: http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/g...61A&session=28

    Details regarding sponsors of the bill, etc.: http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/g...28&bill=HB0161


    I must say, I don't immediately understand why this bill is needed, particularly the part that increases the amount of revenue kept by the org auctioning off the permits. In addition, increasing the # of Governor's tags (up to four from the current cap of two) doesn't seem like a wise choice at the time, particularly for highly desired and low-odds species such as bison and sheep.

    Can anyone shed any more light on the motivations of this bill?

  2. #2
    Member slimm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    shoshone idaho
    Posts
    559

    Default

    WHOA!! Smells like SFW!!
    If so,, you folks better get ahold of Arizona quick!! They seemed to have figured out how to keep them tag grabbers at bay.

  3. #3
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    Seems to me that this opens the door for the preferred orgs of the powers-that-be to not only get more tags and keep more of the sales revenue, but legally "kick back" some $$$ to the folks that help them. So the big-money groups like SCI can actually use the money they get from auctioning off a public resource that they were "gifted" to pay their lobbyists to campaign for oh, I don't know... Maybe more opportunities for guides???
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  4. #4
    Member Oak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Obviously the work of SFW. You guys better get a jump on it. I'd say it's very telling that the following portion was deleted:

    [NOT BE
    14 USED TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO ANY CANDIDATE FOR POLITICAL
    15 OFFICE OR TO ANY ORGANIZATION SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING BALLOT
    16 PROPOSITIONS OR TO PAY EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH LOBBYING THE
    17 LEGISLATURE OR ADMINISTRATION]

  5. #5
    Moderator stid2677's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks Area
    Posts
    7,274

    Default

    I don't even know what to say,,, sad days indeed.
    "I refuse to let the things I can't do stop me from doing the things I can"
    Founding Member
    http://www.residenthuntersofalaska.org/

  6. #6
    Member Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    3,410

    Default

    Who do we contact to tell them we don't want this? None of it sounds good at all!

  7. #7
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt View Post
    Who do we contact to tell them we don't want this? None of it sounds good at all!
    your representative.
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  8. #8
    Moderator stid2677's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks Area
    Posts
    7,274

    Default

    Well, I will at least go to bed tonight on this draw eve knowing that I at least sent my reps a letter sharing my feelings on this matter as well as what I would like to see for my Son and his children. I wish I had more faith that it was worth the time it took to do so, but it's better than complaining about it here.
    "I refuse to let the things I can't do stop me from doing the things I can"
    Founding Member
    http://www.residenthuntersofalaska.org/

  9. #9
    Member cod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Ak.
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    Sheesh! More ungaulled blatant corruption. And yet, they will probably get away with it.
    Your sarcasm is way, waaaayyyyyyyy more sarcastic than mine!

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by homerdave View Post
    Seems to me that this opens the door for the preferred orgs of the powers-that-be to not only get more tags and keep more of the sales revenue, but legally "kick back" some $$$ to the folks that help them. So the big-money groups like SCI can actually use the money they get from auctioning off a public resource that they were "gifted" to pay their lobbyists to campaign for oh, I don't know... Maybe more opportunities for guides???
    As a member of SCI and several other hunting groups I do not really appreciate the accusatory statement you make sir. I totally agree that this bill seems like a very bad idea. I would further agree that it is possible or maybe even likely that one or more outdoor/hunting groups are pushing this legislation. However, unless you have concrete evidence you would care to share with us, please refrain from bashing any outdoor org that you may personally have a grudge against.

  11. #11
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by safari View Post
    As a member of SCI and several other hunting groups I do not really appreciate the accusatory statement you make sir. I totally agree that this bill seems like a very bad idea. I would further agree that it is possible or maybe even likely that one or more outdoor/hunting groups are pushing this legislation. However, unless you have concrete evidence you would care to share with us, please refrain from bashing any outdoor org that you may personally have a grudge against.
    You may find this link enlightening.
    http://www.legis.state.ak.us/pdf/28/...-04-101307.PDF
    it is the legislative record of a hearing on HB161 in April.
    note who is in attendance, and who supported the bill and what questions were asked and who answered them.
    it's 26 pages, but note that on page 18 a question is deferred to Eddie Glasser ( head of SCI in Alaska, I believe), and on page 19 a representative of AOC objects to the inclusion of the phrase "sound science".
    Happy reading.
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    255

    Default 161 is another special interest scheme

    Quote Originally Posted by safari View Post
    As a member of SCI and several other hunting groups I do not really appreciate the accusatory statement you make sir. I totally agree that this bill seems like a very bad idea. I would further agree that it is possible or maybe even likely that one or more outdoor/hunting groups are pushing this legislation. However, unless you have concrete evidence you would care to share with us, please refrain from bashing any outdoor org that you may personally have a grudge against.
    Safari, the deer leaders for SCI very recently went on record again stating 161 is good for SCI and are one of the groups pushing this legislation.

    You can hear it in their own words by clicking on the link below.

    http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/g...332&bill=HB161

  13. #13
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    This came up at the tail end of BOG meeting today on miscellaneous business. They discussed a few legislative bills that were in their purview. From what I got from it, the BOG will be sending a letter on 161. Not sure if it will be one of total support or not. It was mentioned that they had discussed this previously, but hadn't come to consensus. And that there was another hearing on the bill on monday.

    The Alaska Dept of Fish & Game supports it. "It will generate money for wildlife projects."

    Member Turner on the BOG had concerns that it gave authority to the F&G Commissioner to decide seasons for the tag buyers (Note I don't say "winners."), that could differ from the regular seasons. He was assured that wasn't the idea.

    I was wondering if resident tag allocations could be affected. Less permits. No one has an answer to that. I hope they ask.

    Nothing wrong with hunting orgs auctioning tags. And I have no problem with the Governor's tags we give out under the current system. But when a hunting org is supporting allocation of more gov tags, and to raise the percentage of money they can keep off that, and take out language that it can't be used for political campaigns, lobbying etc ... it does perk up the ears.

    I'd rather see hunting orgs push for higher license and tag fees for both residents and nonresidents. There are sooooooo many ways that would change the equation and so much of what has been going on in our state. Give out more tags sets a precedent. You know what they say about slippery slopes. "Hey, Division of Wildlife Conservation got an extra 200,000 dollars!" Seriously, the financial benefits were included in the package. And I can't deny we'd get more money to DWC. This just isn't the way to do it imo.

  14. #14
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    Seeing as how we are already "maxed out" on our ability to get matching funds from Pittman/Robertson, I have to wonder if a loss of tag revenue from one spigot will really have an overall affect. If the money to match is sitting unused, it may be that the loss of revenue would be picked up by the monies that are currently unmatched, so really it could be a wash....
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by homerdave View Post
    Seeing as how we are already "maxed out" on our ability to get matching funds from Pittman/Robertson, I have to wonder if a loss of tag revenue from one spigot will really have an overall affect. If the money to match is sitting unused, it may be that the loss of revenue would be picked up by the monies that are currently unmatched, so really it could be a wash....
    That's kind of a back handed way to say that they're leaving much federal PR $$$$$ on the table, for other states to go get instead of Alaska, and because we just can't find it in ourselves to actually charge proper money to come hunt our wildlife - we Alaskans just lose out on the money.

    This is nothing short of poor money management.

    Poor Ted's still a'turnin' in his grave...

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Man I really feel you guys pray your system doesn't turn into something that resembles Utah. Its a so slippery slope for sure. Money does bring corruption

    Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by safari View Post
    As a member of SCI and several other hunting groups I do not really appreciate the accusatory statement you make sir. I totally agree that this bill seems like a very bad idea. I would further agree that it is possible or maybe even likely that one or more outdoor/hunting groups are pushing this legislation. However, unless you have concrete evidence you would care to share with us, please refrain from bashing any outdoor org that you may personally have a grudge against.
    Im getting tired of SCI, they are really causing some problems lately

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    723

    Default

    Wonder if auctioning tags would be unconstitutional under the equal rights guarantee of the AK Const.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post

    I was wondering if resident tag allocations could be affected.
    Alaskan's draw (competing by lottery with each other) for certain hunts.

    The language in the bill would authorize the commissioner to allow a person who buys one of the tags to utilize that tag in areas where resident hunting is already a limited opportunity.

    If every dead big game animal affects allocation...how could it not affect resident tag allocations when SCI auctions off a sheep tag that gets used in an area that a resident had a one in 20K chance of drawing?

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default is 200 tags sold by an org too much? I say its nuts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    I must say, I don't immediately understand why this bill is needed, particularly the part that increases the amount of revenue kept by the org auctioning off the permits. In addition, increasing the # of Governor's tags (up to four from the current cap of two) doesn't seem like a wise choice at the time, particularly for highly desired and low-odds species such as bison and sheep.

    Can anyone shed any more light on the motivations of this bill?
    This bill, no. But on bills like this look at a parallel that is happening right this second and ask yourself if the step that Alaska is now taking looks like the first step, towards this same end result:

    The state of Utah just concluded their hunting tag drawing for next year, same as us. But there there is an org that helps out those that feel bad that they didn't win. Those people can apply to a second big game drawing now. You might think that they're auctioning off one guv's tag.... but no. They're putting up for a PRIVATELY HELD LOTTERY 200 BUCK DEER TAGS, that the state of utah has given to that org.

    200 coveted tags being essentially sold privately seems just plain out of control to me. I agree that for publicity and fund raising purposes its a good idea financially to have a Governor's tag to sell to someone with way more money than time. One is fine. 200 is nuts.

    The org is huntexpo.com, though their own web site does not yet reflect this new private second chance lottery, they are actively promoting this now. You pay 5 bucks per lottery ticket, but you must go to their sportsman's show in person to validate your entry, and they they give away the 200 tags to the luckiest. Is it only a matter of time before GASS hears about this and mimics it?

    I know its easy to just ignore what happens in other states. But its worth noting the directions they take and how it turns out; we can learn from that if we take the time to stay abreast of other state's efforts. Especially those in favor of bonus points should learn other state's stories of how they have created huge barriers to new hunters; that same state of utah now has essentially a 20 year waiting list for their own residents to hunt rocky mountain elk..... or you can go buy one anytime, privately, from one of the many Utah companies (I think they call them PHU's) that will sell you one for about 25 thousand dollars (or more).

    For any here not truly afraid of the privatization of wild game and hunting, please acquaint yourself with big game hunting in germany. Basically it is all but impossible for a new hunter to begin. Or for any hunter to hunt much. And the hurdles and many many years of work just getting to the point where you may or may not ever get a tag - frankly I don't know who would ever do it.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •