By SUZANNE DOWNING
Aug. 11, 2026 – Gov. Mike Dunleavy has vetoed legislation that would have imposed stricter residency requirements on Alaskans seeking resident hunting, trapping and sport fishing privileges.
House Bill 93, sponsored by Sitka Democrat-aligned Rep. Rebecca Himschoot, sought to change the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s residency standards to more closely line up with the rules used to determine eligibility for the Permanent Fund dividend.
Under the legislation, applicants generally would have been required to maintain an Alaska domicile for the preceding 12 months and to have remained physically present in the state except for absences allowed under the PFD eligibility statutes.
The change would have meant that seasonal permanent residents — snowbirds — would not be able to obtain cheaper resident licenses and access to hunting and fishing privileges unavailable to nonresidents.
Dunleavy said in his veto message that the proposed requirements were “unnecessarily restrictive” and could create problems for legitimate Alaska residents who spend extended periods outside the state for work, school, military service or other reasons.
Senate advances HB 93, excluding snowbirds from resident hunting and fishing privileges
Although the bill contained provisions addressing members of the military and students, the governor said those Alaskans could still face the loss of resident status under the new framework.
Dunleavy also objected to the administrative machinery the bill would have created. The measure directed the Fish and Game commissioner to adopt new regulations, permitted the department to demand additional proof of residency and authorized the use of information held by other state agencies.
The bill also directed the commissioner to consider “all relevant circumstances” when deciding whether an applicant qualified as a resident.
According to Dunleavy, those provisions would have granted the department broad discretion while increasing documentation requirements, interagency data sharing and the regulatory burden on both applicants and the state.
“These changes create unnecessary complexity and uncertainty for applicants without demonstrating a commensurate benefit to the state’s management of resident licensing,” Dunleavy wrote.
HB 93 attracted bipartisan support but also generated opposition from Alaskans whose employment routinely takes them outside the state for long periods. Commercial pilots and flight attendants were among those raising concerns that the proposal could jeopardize their resident hunting and fishing privileges even though Alaska remained their permanent home.
The original House version passed in January on a 27-12 vote. After the Senate amended the bill, senators approved it 13-6 on May 16. The House voted 24-16 the following day to concur with the Senate changes.
The legislation would have taken effect Jan. 1, 2028.
13 thoughts on “Dunleavy vetoes bill that would have targeted snowbirds who hunt, fish”
That’s all democrats do all day – sit around writing regulations. I would like to see one thing from the legislature that reduces regulations but that probably will never happen.
Not me. I sit around all day, snorting and farting, and think about writing encouraging words, but only for Democrats. Republicans don’t donate to my little teeny blog. And Democrats are so damn tight that I barely have the funds to get my next bottle of liquor. I often wish I was a Republican, with a clean, clear and fully developed brain.
Sorry, but I disagree with this veto. Stricter regulation is needed to control use of “resident” benefits for Alaska’s fish and game. The cited group that allegedly would have been impacted by this legislation (pilots) already have an easy solution: take a day or two of vacation in Alaska to fit within the required time limits. Too many people count a shack on the Kenai as their abode, getting resident benefits, while actually living Outside
Why?
lifelong resident here, btw, I have zero problem with this.
Legally, one can be absent from Alaska for 179 days and remain a resident for both hunting and fishing as well as for the PFD. The same is true of federal subsistence residency in subsistence areas. You can live just east of the Chickaloon River (Glacier View Community Council area, for example) and spend November 1 through March 30 (152 days) each year in a condo in Vegas and qualify for federal subsistence hunting, an Alaska hunting and fishing license, and a PFD dividend each year, then go to your winter condo and gamble that PFD away while drinking complimentary martinis each winter.
When this came out, many on here basically argued that because they were born in Alaska, or had spent decades here, that they had what amounts to lifetime irrevocable hunting and fishing priveledges. I have never heard of any such such priveledges recognized by any state. You could be 80 years old, born in Alaska, never left the state. If you live somewhere else for most of the year, you are no longer an Alaska resident. I’d guess that Dunleavy has cronies who live in another state for most of the year who didn’t like this. Guides, maybe? Six months is a pretty reasonable amount of time.
Looks like there are enough votes for a veto override, do they need to wait for the next special session or can the Legislature take up a vote when they meet during this special session?
Thank you governor
Less bureaucracy, not more.
So you can move to Sitka and vote within a month of moving there and that vote may affect the whole community, but of course a looney Democrat has to try to pass a bill that only affects one person if they can fish as a resident if they’re gone 90 days in a year?? Are you fing kidding me? It doesn’t stop them from being able to fish. It just means they have to pay more to do so , are they don’t fish or hunt and don’t by the fuel for there boat and extra food , extra ammo etc etc that would mostly affect conservative business ownership.
Someone needs to look into the Elfin cove thing, Utah people working and harvesting the resorce as summer jobs, What’s really going on with that? That needs attention.
Dunleavy should not have vetoed this. The proposed changes were mirrored to existing PFD requirements which are quite lenient – six months continuous physical presence in the State with exemptions for school. military service and medical care. Not a very high bar. The legislature needs to override his veto.
I strongly support this veto. For elderly Alaskans, who still dearly love this state and have contributed many years to the Alaskan economy, being denied resident hunting and fishing privileges simply based on the number of days you are out of state, is like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. As an American Citizen I believe that I am allowed to live anywhere in the United States that I choose. So what if I only spend 179 days physically in Alaska, as long as I don’t spend more days at any other place and claim any benefits of residency in any other state. I can only be an official resident of one State. Today, with AI, it should be far easier to track and cite the scofflaws, who claim residency benefits in more than one State, than by asking them to self-incrimininate. I am all for prosecuting anyone fraudulently obtaining a resident hunting and fishing license when they in fact live out of State. Had this short-sighted bill passed and NOT VETOED it might have driven more people to leave the state who have grown tired of long, dark, cold winters and prefer to spend time in the lesser 48 during the winter visiting grandkids, going on cruises or whatever. At over 80 years of age, I no longer ski and have never owned a snow machine. I do like to hunt and have hunted in every one of the lesser 49 states, while always buying a non-resident license in each of those states. I have been a productive member of the Alaskan economy for over fifty years and I want to remain in Alaska forever. I have raised four successful children in the Alaskan school system and two of them remain in Alaska. One of them is an airline pilot and the other has a business with well over 120 employees.
I have never dipnetted for salmon but might like to someday. I am probably too old to hunt for sheep but might like to if I draw the appropriate permit someday. Alaska should not throw me away after a long productive life here in the State that I love.
As a 60+ year resident of Alaska, I fully agree with Jack Frost. I have never been a resident of another state, but am finally to a point where I have options to be out of the state during the winter. The idea that I would lose residency status if I was gone on vacation for more than 90-days was a real gut punch. I was born in Alaska and maintain my primary residence in Alaska, my vehicles are registered in Alaska, I’m registered to vote in Alaska, my wife and child are Alaska residents, my business is located in Alaska, but under HB93, I could be considered a non-resident if I happened to be away for 181 days.
Because I am a resident of Alaska in every sense, I could not be considered a resident of any other state. Basically, HB93 would have excluded my capacity to qualify as a resident for hunting and fishing purposes in the US. Alaskans like me would be treated like someone from another country.
People who say- oh it’s not that big of a deal, you can still hunt and fish by paying the higher non-resident license fee either don’t understand how this works or are just mean-spirited people out to hurt long-time Alaska residents who love hunting and fishing here. There are several categories for hunting and fishing that are only available for residents. The idea that HB93 would have somehow improved fish and game resources is scientifically ridiculous.
If you don’t hunt and fish much, you probably don’t understand why this is such a big deal. For those of us for which it is a way of life, HB93 would have stripped our primary reason to remain Alaskan.
Thanks for the veto. Any legislator who votes for an override should realize that this is a ground zero issue that they will not recover from in the next election cycle.