In the 2024 Alaska legislative session, there were companion bills in the Senate and House to create a big game guide concession pilot program on state lands that would have a startup cost of half a million dollars. The organization I represent — Resident Hunters of Alaska — opposed the bills, for reasons I’ll explain later.

The ostensible rationale of these bills was that there were no limits on the number of hunting guides who could operate on state lands, and this was causing all kinds of problems — from conflicts in the field to overharvests of our wildlife. Exclusive guide concessions in certain areas, limiting the number of guides who could operate there, would fix the problems.

The Senate version of the guide concession program bill (Senate Bill 253) was heard in the Senate Resources Committee last session but never moved out of committee. The House version (House Bill 396) was heard in House Resources and passed out of that committee and was awaiting a hearing in House Finance. It was clear that House Finance, with our continuing budget crisis, was not going to pass the bill with a $500,000 fiscal note. It was never heard in House Finance.

In the final hours of the 2024 session, the language of HB 396 – along with other bills that had not passed – was inserted into another bill by Sen. Scott Kawasaki (SB 189) to extend the Alaska Commission on Aging. Legislators well understood that attaching all these other bills to Sen. Kawasaki’s bill to extend the Alaska Commission on Aging did not comply with the “single subject” rule, which was specifically written to prevent these kinds of shenanigans.

Sen. Kawasaki knew, too, that his bill—with all the other legislation now contained in it—didn’t comply with the single subject rule, but he wanted his bill to pass and voted for it, along with most legislators. So, SB 189 to extend the Commission on Aging, along with the guide concession program bill and others, passed the legislature and was sent to the Governor for his signature. You can read the final bill here.

SB 189 was not signed by the governor because he was advised that the way it passed wasn’t legal. However, everything within the final bill — including a guide concession pilot program — did become law, though the guide concession program wasn’t funded.

Subsequently, former Rep. David Eastman sued the legislature over the single subject rule violation. The case is currently awaiting judgment.

Fast forward to the current 2025 legislative session. Legislators were told that to resolve the Eastman lawsuit, everything within SB 189 that violated the single subject rule — including the guide concession program — had to be re-submitted exactly as written the previous session and pass this session.

The current guide concession program bill is Senate Bill 97, sponsored by the Senate Resources Committee. We again recommended some amendments to the bill. If this was going to pass, at least make it so the state was paid back by the guide industry, along with some other fixes to the bill. Some of those amendments were offered in the Senate Resources Committee and had majority support, but the legislative attorney told the committee that any amendments to the bill would not moot the Eastman challenge. The bill needed to pass exactly as written, including with any appropriations.

So, the bill wasn’t amended and SB 97 passed out of Senate Resources and will now go to Senate Finance, where members of that committee won’t question the half-million-dollar fiscal note as they would have under normal circumstances. They will vote to spend money we don’t have, pass the bill, and move it out of committee because they’ve been told that’s the only way to stifle the Eastman lawsuit. The final bill will pass both houses for the same reason.

The situation we are in now is one in which legislators knowingly violated the law the previous session, were called on it by a former legislator they don’t particularly like, and now, in order to fix their mistake, are going to double down on it so that former legislator doesn’t make them look bad. That isn’t the way bills are supposed to become law. You aren’t supposed to violate the law and then fix the mistake by doing an end-run around the process.

The main reason we oppose a guide concession program is that the problem was never “too many guides.” The problem is too many nonresident hunters who are required to hire a guide being given unlimited hunting opportunity by the Board of Game! Limit the number of nonresident sheep hunters, for example, that take 60-90% of the sheep harvested in some areas, and you thereby limit the number of guides they are required to hire. But the Board of Game refuses to limit nonresident sheep hunters, saying they only support a costly guide concession program as a solution.

The Big Game Commercial Services Board is the body that regulates the guide industry and has been saying for nearly twenty years that there are too many guides. They have the duty and authority to limit guides, yet have done nothing to check their own. They also only support a guide concession program as a fix.

Read our letter of opposition to a guide concession program here.

Either board could fix the known problems without such a high cost to the state. The reason they have refused to do so for so long is because a guide concession program is the guide industry’s preferred solution. Unlike other states, in Alaska we don’t look at things from the point of view of what’s best for resident hunters and our wildlife; we look at it from the point of view of what’s best for the guide industry.

Mark Richards is the executive director of Resident Hunters of Alaska.

• • •

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.