Gov. Mike Dunleavy likes to talk about doing good things for Alaskans, defending the rights of residents to live and prosper and enjoy the bounty of the state’s fish and game resources. That made it particularly ironic when he vetoed legislation that would have reserved resident hunting and fishing licenses for Alaskans who meet the residency requirements for the annual Permanent Fund dividend.

The Legislature approved the bill by an almost 2-1 margin, but that made no difference to the governor, who has set a record for most vetoes ever during a two-year legislative cycle.

And this wasn’t a Democrats-only bill versus a Republican governor fight. Several bipartisan Republicans voted for the bill, including Rep. Jeremy Bynum, who represents Wrangell and Ketchikan.

This seems to have been a fight — more like a regulatory skirmish — between more than three dozen legislators who wanted to tighten the rules for lower-cost resident licenses versus commercial airline pilots and snowbirds who spend more than half the year outside Alaska and don’t want to lose their access to those licenses.

A resident sportfishing license is $20 a year; a nonresident license is $100. A resident fishing and hunting combo license is $60 a year; nonresidents pay $260 for the same privilege.

The bill, sponsored by Sitka Rep. Rebecca Himschoot, would have changed state law to tie resident licenses to the same requirements as the annual PFD, with the same allowable absences for military service, medical care, school and a long list of other exemptions that keep Alaskans out of state.

Taking a job or retirement that keeps you out of state more than half the year is not an allowable absence for the dividend, nor would it have been for hunting and fishing licenses under the bill.

The license law now on the books defines “resident” as someone who has maintained a home in Alaska for 12 consecutive months — but there is no requirement that they live in that home most of the year.

Rather than argue the merits of defining a resident, the governor in his Aug. 10 veto message played the “administrative burden” trump card. The change in state law would have required “additional regulations, documentation and interagency data sharing. … These changes create unnecessary complexity and uncertainty for applicants without demonstrating a commensurate benefit to the state’s management of resident licensing.”

Everything government does should require documentation and a reasonable level of rulemaking. That’s a poor excuse for vetoing a common-sense definition of residency.