By SUZANNE DOWNING
Feb. 1, 2026 – House Bill 93, legislation that would tighten Alaska’s residency requirements for hunting, trapping, and sport fishing licenses, has moved out of the House and is now before the Alaska Senate.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Rebecca Himschoot of Sitka, a member of the Democrat-dominated caucus, intends to ensure that resident hunting and fishing privileges are reserved for Alaskans who live in the state year-round, rather than those who maintain residency on paper while spending some of the year elsewhere.
Under current law, an individual may qualify for a resident license by intending to remain in Alaska, maintaining a domicile in the state, and not establishing residency elsewhere, even if they are absent for long periods.
Supporters of HB 93 say this standard is too loose and allows people who spend only a few months a year in Alaska to enjoy reduced license fees and more generous bag and possession limits intended for residents who rely on fish and game resources for subsistence and food security.
HB 93 would close what supporters call a loophole by more closely aligning eligibility for resident hunting, trapping, and sport fishing licenses with the allowable absence rules used for the Permanent Fund Dividend. While the bill does not require someone to qualify for or receive a PFD, it would apply similar limits on how long a person may be absent from the state while still retaining resident license status.
According to the sponsor statement, the goal is to reduce pressure on Alaska’s finite fish and game resources by limiting resident-only privileges to those who truly live in the state year-round. The bill does not change bag limits or license availability for nonresidents, nor does it affect guided hunting or fishing industries, supporters say.
Opponents, however, argue the legislation would unfairly penalize longtime Alaskans who work rotational jobs outside the state or who leave Alaska seasonally due to age, health, or safety concerns.
One critic testified that HB 93 would effectively strip resident hunting and fishing privileges from Alaskans who are otherwise fully domiciled in the state but spend extended periods away for work.
Maritime professionals, airline pilots, mine workers, plant workers, and others in rotational industries have raised concerns that the bill would deny them resident licenses despite owning property in Alaska, voting in Alaska, paying Alaska taxes, and returning to the state whenever they are off shift.
One opponent, a 71-year-old lifelong Alaskan from Kenai, submitted written testimony urging lawmakers not to pass the bill. The man said he was born in Seward, grew up on a Kenai homestead established by his parents in 1949, and has hunted and fished in Alaska for most of his life. He noted that he has held an Alaska driver’s license since 1969, has only voted in Alaska, receives no benefits from another state, and intends to remain an Alaskan resident until he dies.
But he argued that under HB 93, an Alaskan could remain a legal resident of the state but still lose eligibility for a resident hunting and fishing license if they exceeded the allowable absence threshold, even if they received no benefits elsewhere. He also questioned whether elderly Alaskans who spend winters in warmer climates to avoid injury or health risks should be considered second-class Alaskans.
“Where does legislation like this stop?” he asked in his letter of testimony, warning against tying more and more aspects of residency to Permanent Fund dividend-style rules.
Others agree that HB 93 disproportionately affects seniors and longtime residents who maintain winter homes outside Alaska but still consider Alaska their permanent home. Some question whether the bill would meaningfully improve enforcement, noting that Alaska already has residency rules, including a five-year presumption of nonresidency for individuals absent more than 180 days each year, that could be used to address abuse.
The Senate will now take up the bill.
