A bear hunts for salmon in Katmai National Park. (National Park Service photo)
As an economist who has spent more than three decades quantifying Alaska’s resource-based industries, I have seen how our state’s abundant wildlife supports jobs in rural Alaska, brings in new dollars from non-resident visitors and helps fund conservation.
A piece of legislation billed as a technical cleanup has hidden costs for Alaska’s wildlife economy. House Bill 321 cleared the House Resources Committee and is now headed to the House Finance Committee. The title reads “An Act relating to state refuges, sanctuaries, and fish and game critical habitat areas; relating to the hunting of brown bear.” The bill renames management areas and updates boundaries. Its most important change is a permanent statutory ban on brown bear hunting in prime habitat between the McNeil River Wildlife Sanctuary and Katmai National Park/Preserve, plus adjacent zones toward the Kamishak River and Cape Douglas.
As the bill reaches the Finance Committee, Alaskans need a clear look at its fiscal impact. The Department of Fish and Game’s official fiscal note shows only a one-time $45,300 General Fund cost for signage and boundary mapping, zero ongoing costs and no changes in revenue. That note is incomplete. It ignores the loss of hunting-license and tag revenue that will result from the permanent ban on brown-bear hunting in the McNeil-Katmai corridor.
Guided non-resident hunters already supply 30 percent of all hunting license and tag revenue statewide even though they represent just 3 percent of licenses issued. A conservative loss of 20-50 guided brown-bear hunts in the affected zone would mean $25,000-$62,000 less in direct Fish & Game Fund revenue each year, plus the broader loss in general-fund tax collections from reduced economic activity. The fiscal note says nothing about these opportunity costs.
The bill also raises larger questions about wildlife management. It favors concentrated bear-viewing operators while shifting costs onto guides, rural communities, resident hunters and the wider economy. It replaces flexible, science-based rules from the Board of Game and ADF&G with rigid statutory mandates.
Alaska’s wildlife economy is large. The most comprehensive statewide study, which uses 2011 data, showed spending on hunting and wildlife viewing reached $3.4 billion and supported $4.1 billion in total economic output, more than 27,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in labor income. More recent data on guided big-game hunting — much of it brown-bear-focused — shows the sector generated $91.8 million in statewide economic output in 2019, supported 1,890 jobs, and produced $40.8 million in labor income. Guided non-resident hunters and their companions spent $62.4 million directly, most of it flowing through rural Alaska businesses.
Brown bears are a key part of that economy. In 2019, guided hunters bought 1,414 brown/grizzly bear tags — 32 percent of all guided tags and 44 percent of $3.2 million guided tag revenue. Non-residents paid an average of $1,237 each in licenses and tags. A typical guided brown-bear hunt costs $10,000-$30,000 or more in package fees.
Bear viewing in Southcentral Alaska, centered on McNeil River, Katmai, and Lake Clark, generated an estimated $34.5 million in sales in 2017 (reported in 2019 dollars). That supported roughly 490 jobs and $17.3 million in labor income in the region. Viewing is already protected by existing rules, lotteries and federal overlays. Guided hunting, by contrast, spreads money across rural Alaska.
The brown-bear prohibition in the McNeil-Katmai corridor is the bill’s core economic problem. Alaska has about 30,000 brown bears — 98 percent of the U.S. total — and ADF&G manages for sustained yield. Harvest in the relevant game management units is modest and biologically sustainable. The bill cites no population decline or scientific need; it simply locks out hunting to favor viewing.
A conservative estimate shows the cost. If the ban eliminates 20-50 guided brown-bear hunts a year in the zone, direct spending drops by $500,000-$1.25 million annually. Using standard multipliers from the McDowell Group models, total economic output falls by $800,000-$2 million, supporting 15-40 fewer jobs and $300,000-$800,000 less in labor income every year. Lost license and tag revenue further reduces the self-funding for ADF&G conservation.
These losses are real. They mean paychecks for guides and support workers in places like King Salmon, Homer and remote lodges. They mean fewer new dollars entering the economy. Hunters show high willingness to pay through market prices; viewing access is rationed by lotteries. Without a cost-benefit analysis showing that viewing gains outweigh hunting losses, the bill allocates a public resource inefficiently.
HB 321 also replaces adaptive management with inflexible statutes. The Board of Game can adjust seasons and bag limits as populations and conditions change. A legislative ban is hard to reverse. The fiscal note is small — $45,300 one-time — but the private-sector costs are real and unmeasured.
This is classic concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. A small group of bear-viewing businesses gains statutory protection. The costs fall on guides, resident hunters, rural economies and taxpayers. Alaska’s strength is that we offer world-class hunting and viewing together. Restricting one use threatens the whole wildlife economy.
Alaska cannot treat sustainable hunting and wildlife viewing as mutually exclusive. Multiple-use management has worked for decades because it maximizes total welfare. HB 321 should have a full, independent economic impact study from ADF&G or the University of Alaska before the Finance Committee acts. Our wildlife resources are too important to rural jobs and conservation funding to move forward without it.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Courtesy of Alaska Beacon
