HB364 creates a statutory framework (new AS 16.05.784) that lets the Board of Game adopt time-limited intensive management programs to restore and sustain identified big-game prey populations. The bill requires the Department of Fish and Game to prepare scientific findings, submit those findings to independent peer review, and supply the board with peer reports before the board may act.
The measure also changes funding and operational rules: it directs intensive-management surcharge revenue into a sustainable wildlife account, modifies tagging rules for wolves in intensive-management areas, and allows the board to authorize predator-control programs that include same‑day airborne shooting when predation or disease is shown to impede prey recovery. The package shifts decision-making prerequisites toward documented science and peer review while preserving explicit predator‑control authority tied to specific management objectives.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates AS 16.05.784 to set criteria, science, and peer‑review steps the department must complete before the Board of Game may adopt an intensive management program. It earmarks an intensive‑management surcharge to a sustainable wildlife account and adds narrow exceptions allowing same‑day airborne predator control when tied to documented prey recovery needs.
Who It Affects
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (data production and contracting obligations), the Board of Game (new procedural prerequisites and reauthorization duties), resident and nonresident hunters (allocation and tagging rules), predator populations where control may be authorized, and independent scientific reviewers.
Why It Matters
The bill formalizes a science-first, peer-reviewed pathway to intensive management and links predator-control exceptions to that pathway; it therefore changes how and when the state shifts from regulatory limits to active population manipulation, and it creates a dedicated funding stream for those programs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB364 builds a step‑by‑step process for intensive management of big‑game prey. The Board of Game may designate a geographic area for an intensive management program only after the department produces comprehensive scientific findings showing that (1) consumptive use is the preferred use, (2) depletion or productivity declines have occurred that threaten harvest, and (3) long‑term enhancement is feasibly achievable using recognized active management techniques.
Those department findings must address predator–prey interactions and habitat factors.
Before the department may present its findings to the board, HB364 requires the department to contract at least one independent, qualified party to peer‑review the findings and underlying data. The department cannot submit its findings to the board without including at least one independent party’s written peer‑review report.
The bill requires the board to receive those materials before adopting a program and gives the department discretion to revise its findings based on the independent report.If the board adopts a program, it must set sustainable population and harvest goals, narrowly limit the program’s geographic scope to what is necessary, and reauthorize or terminate the program after three years. The bill also constrains the board’s ability to significantly reduce human harvest through customary regulatory tools unless paired with adoption or scheduling of an intensive management program to increase human take consistent with the statute.On predator control and methods, HB364 keeps a prohibition on someone shooting or assisting in shooting a free‑ranging wolf, bear, or wolverine the same day they were airborne, but it allows the Board of Game to authorize predator‑reduction programs that include airborne or same‑day airborne shooting where the board determines predation (or disease/parasite threats) is a documented cause preventing prey recovery.
The statute directs the surcharge revenue for intensive management into a sustainable wildlife account and ties wolf‑tagging rules and other technical changes to the presence of an intensive management program.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The department must contract with at least one independent, qualified party to peer‑review its findings and cannot provide those findings to the Board of Game without including at least one independent peer‑review report.
If the Board of Game adopts an intensive management program under AS 16.05.784, the program must be reauthorized or terminated after three years.
The bill allows the Board of Game to authorize predator‑control programs that include airborne or same‑day airborne shooting when it finds predation or predator disease is materially preventing prey‑population objectives.
Intensive‑management surcharge revenue is deposited into a dedicated 'sustainable wildlife account' and the bill keeps the surcharge at $10 for resident hunting licenses and $30 for nonresident hunting licenses.
Nonresident and nonresident‑alien wolf tagging requirements are waived in game management units where the Board of Game has adopted an intensive management program under AS 16.05.784.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Expanded annual reporting to Board and Legislature
The amendment requires the commissioner to submit an annual report that covers the department's intensive management implementation over the previous three years and adds detail the board used to allocate big‑game hunting opportunities. Practically, that increases transparency of allocation decisions and creates a written record linking intensive management activity to allocation outcomes that can be reviewed by legislators and the public.
Earmarks surcharge proceeds to sustainable wildlife account
Money from the intensive management surcharge is directed into a separate sustainable wildlife account within the fish and game fund, and the account is explicitly available for intensive management programs under the new statutory authority. That creates an earmarked funding stream for program implementation while preserving fiscal segregation from the general license fee pool.
Tagging carve‑outs for wolves in intensive management units
HB364 amends nonresident and nonresident‑alien tag schedules to state that a nonresident is not required to have a wolf tag in a game management unit where the board has adopted an intensive management program under AS 16.05.784. This is a targeted, unit‑level exception that alters tagging obligations and has potential revenue and allocation implications for wolf take in designated intensive‑management areas.
Surcharge disclosure and amounts retained
The bill keeps the surcharge level (resident $10, nonresident $30), requires the surcharge amount be clearly disclosed on licenses, and confirms exemptions for those eligible for discounted or free licenses. It ties the surcharge explicitly to funding intensive management under the new statute, which centralizes a revenue source for program costs while retaining statutory notice to purchasers.
Same‑day airborne shooting: prohibition preserved with narrow exceptions
HB364 keeps the baseline prohibition on shooting predators the same day a person was airborne but creates a route for the Board of Game to authorize predator‑control programs involving airborne or same‑day airborne shooting when the board finds predation or predator disease is materially contributing to the failure to meet prey population objectives. The board retains authority to set participant eligibility, methods, limits, and conditions for any authorized program; exceptions remain for commercial flight passengers and authorized department employees.
New intensive‑management statute: thresholds, peer review, and program rules
This is the statute that defines how an intensive management program is initiated and managed. It sets three threshold findings the board must make about preferred consumptive use, population depletion, and feasibility of long‑term enhancement. It obligates the department to produce scientific findings, requires contracting independent peer reviewers who meet defined qualifications, and forbids the department from submitting findings to the board without including peer‑review reports. The board must set sustainable population and harvest goals, limit geographic scope, and require a three‑year reauthorization cycle.
Repeals obsolete cross‑references and a statutory subsection
The bill repeals portions of AS 16.05.255 (subsections (f), (g), and a definition clause in (l)(1)), removing prior language and definitions superseded by the new AS 16.05.784 framework. Practically, this shifts the legal locus of intensive management from the older subsection into a stand‑alone statutory scheme.
Program effective date
The act takes effect July 1, 2026. That establishes when the department, board, and stakeholders must begin complying with the new procedural, funding, and peer‑review requirements if the bill becomes law.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Resident hunters and rural subsistence users — The statute prioritizes consumptive use and requires the board to set programs designed to increase sustainable human harvest, which is intended to expand harvest opportunity where prey populations can be restored.
- Board of Game — Gains a clear, peer‑reviewed evidentiary pathway to authorize intensive management and predator‑control measures tied to specific biological objectives and timelines.
- Communities dependent on big‑game harvest (rural economies) — Could see more stable or increased harvestable surplus if programs prove effective, and will have more transparent documentation of management choices.
- Independent scientific reviewers and academic partners — The bill creates demand for qualified peer reviewers to evaluate department findings and data, opening contracted review opportunities and formal roles in the process.
Who Bears the Cost
- Alaska Department of Fish and Game — Must produce comprehensive scientific findings, contract and manage independent peer review under negotiated timelines and budgets, and support implementation and reporting obligations, increasing staff time and contracting costs.
- Predator populations (wolves, bears, wolverines) — Where the board authorizes programs, predators may be subject to more aggressive reduction measures, including airborne or same‑day airborne shooting under specified conditions.
- Nonresident hunters and outfitters — The wolf tag carve‑out and reallocated hunting opportunities under intensive management may change guide business models, permit demand, and revenue from nonresident big‑game tags in affected units.
- Legislature and budget offices — The sustainable wildlife account earmark concentrates funds but may shift where costs and oversight land, and the legislature may see pressure to monitor account use and program outcomes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to prioritize restoring and expanding human harvest of prey species through active interventions—including predator reduction—based on peer‑reviewed science, while accepting short‑term ecological disruption, higher administrative costs, and scientific uncertainty; the statute attempts to reconcile these competing goals by requiring independent review and time‑limited programs, but leaves open how to weigh imperfect science against immediate subsistence and allocation pressures.
HB364 elevates peer review and data transparency, but leaves open how independence, timelines, and budgets will be enforced. The department negotiates the peer‑review scope and schedule with contracted parties, which could allow a department with resource constraints to propose compressed reviews or restrict access to data; the statute does not set minimum timeline or data‑access standards.
The provision that the department may revise its findings after receiving independent reports is sensible, but the bill does not define how substantive disagreements between department and reviewers are resolved beyond inclusion in the board packet.
The bill ties predator‑control exceptions (including same‑day airborne shooting) to board findings that predation or disease is a material cause of failure to meet prey objectives. That linkage clarifies authorization but raises implementation risks: establishing causation in complex ecosystems is scientifically difficult, and intense, localized predator removal can have cascading ecological consequences.
The three‑year reauthorization cycle creates a short political and operational horizon for program design and monitoring; programs that require longer time frames to show ecosystem effects may struggle to secure continual reauthorization. Finally, earmarking surcharge revenue for intensive management focuses funding but could limit flexibility for other conservation needs and may not fully cover program and compliance costs the department will incur.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.