Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/15/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB155 | |
| HB107 | |
| HB19 | |
| HB67 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| HB 19 | |||
| HB 107 | |||
| = | HB 155 | ||
| = | SB 98 | ||
| = | HB 66 | ||
| = | HB 67 | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 107
An Act providing for the award of full actual attorney
fees and costs to a person aggrieved by unlawful
obstruction or hindrance of hunting, fishing, or
viewing of fish or game; amending Rules 79 and 82,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and amending Rule 508,
Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure.
JIM POUND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, reported that
HB 107 is a change to existing statute regarding persons who
hunt, fish, trap, or view wildlife in Alaska. Presently, if
any of those people are obstructed from participating in
that experience, they can seek relief in court. The courts
are permitted to grant damages for most of the expenses
except reasonable actual attorney fees and costs. The
legislation would allow the judge to grant full costs and
reasonable and actual attorney fees.
Mr. Pound continued, pointing out that there is growing
sentiment across the country that disturbing wildlife in any
manner is unacceptable, however, hunting, fishing, trapping,
and viewing wildlife are considered an important way of life
in Alaska. The individuals or groups, who could hinder
wildlife experience, know that most people will not go to
court because of the attorney fees and costs associated with
that type of litigation.
He added that Alaskans and visitors should not be subjected
to pay because of interference, obstruction, or hindrance of
that right. The legislation allows for an opportunity of
the prevailing party to recoup actual costs associated with
hindering that type experience.
Representative Hawker asked the basis used to determine the
90% attorney fee amount. Mr. Pound responded that resulted
from Representative Gruenberg, who was concerned leaving it
at 100%. He thought there could be more of a potential of
false litigation and filing and requested the change.
Representative Hawker asked if there was precedence
elsewhere for the 90% number. Mr. Pound replied there is
not and that in eminent domain cases, it is at 100%. He
reiterated that 90% was unique.
Representative Hawker asked if the sponsor would welcome
changing it back to 100%. Mr. Pound replied that the
sponsor would not object.
2:11:19 PM
Representative Weyhrauch referenced Subsection 3, regarding
a person physically interfering or tampering with equipment.
Mr. Pound commented that language was inserted because there
have been situations where an individual cut another
person's trap line. That person was caught and they entered
into the criminal process. The guilty person was only
charged with criminal mischief.
Representative Weyhrauch thought that was a "narrow" lead
and proposed other hypothetical situations. Mr. Pound noted
that other situations could be addressed under language in
Section 2.
Representative Weyhrauch grilled the point. Mr. Pound
advised that the courts had already interpreted existing
language.
2:14:35 PM
Representative Weyhrauch asked who would be entitled,
outside of the law enforcement officers, to instruct
regarding hunting, fishing, etc. and asked if that could be
a property owner if someone was trespassing. Mr. Pound
noted that AS 16.05.0790(e) explains the lawful hunting,
fishing and trapping practices on private land given consent
of the owner.
Representative Weyhrauch asked if the 90% payment would
require a 2/3 vote because of the direct rule change. Mr.
Pound said yes.
Vice-Chair Stoltze inquired if those types of cases are
difficult to prove. Mr. Pound clarified that the
legislation only deals with being out in the field or on the
water.
2:16:34 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze pointed out a letter in the file from the
National Rifle Association (NRA). Mr. Pound stated that
there would be testimony from the Alaska Outdoor Council.
Representative Weyhrauch asked if the legislation would only
apply to "wild" fish and game. Mr. Pound said yes.
2:17:16 PM
JENNIFER YUHAS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, ANCHORAGE, voiced support
for HB 107. Current statute does not guarantee that a
citizen can be awarded attorney fees for litigating
incidences of obstruction abuse from hunting, fishing or
trapping. The changes in the proposed legislation would
bring necessary corrections to the existing statute.
2:18:32 PM
Representative Weyhrauch asked why commercial fishing had
not been included to Section 3, Page 2. Mr. Pound responded
that in Section 3, Line 18, it had been added to the
previous version of the bill.
2:20:03 PM
Representative Weyhrauch commented that falling under the
exclusion of that sentence, a person would have to be
actively engaged in commercial fishing in order to be
exempt. They could be traveling to, from or be on fishing
grounds to be exempt. Mr. Pound understood that they would
have to be actively fishing.
2:20:56 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment
#1, changing the two instances of 90% to full recovery of
legal fees at 100%. That change would be on Page 2, Lines
18 & 19, and Page 2, Line 24, deleting "90% of".
Representative Weyhrauch OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion. Representative Hawker repeated the proposed
change. Representative Weyrauch understood that there would
continue to be judicial discretion. Representative Hawker
thought so.
Representative Weyhrauch WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Hawker noted that his staff was distributing
the written version of Amendment #1. (Copy on File).
Representative Weyhrauch thought that the proposed change
would return the legislation back to the House Resource
Committee version. He questioned why the change was needed.
Representative Hawker requested that Mr. Pound respond. Mr.
Pound explained that the indirect court rule change was
still a discussion of argument in the courts and that the
Supreme Court has not yet made a decision.
2:26:01 PM
Representative Hawker WITHDREW conceptual Amendment #1.
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT written Amendment #1.
(Copy on File).
Representative Weyhrauch OBJECTED. He commented on the
proposed language regarding suing for the damages because of
the action. If the case goes to trail, all costs would be
charged plus the reasonable attorney fees. Mr. Pound
acknowledged that was correct. Representative Weyhrauch
commented on "full and actual" attorney fees.
2:28:49 PM
Representative Croft referenced Section D(2) regarding
prosecution. He asked the instance of "lawfully".
Representative Hawker inquired if that was relative to the
Amendment #1. Representative Croft responded it was not.
Representative Weyrauch WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment
#1. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was
adopted.
Mr. Pound responded to the question by Representative Croft.
He noted that "lawful" would address combat fishing on
rivers. Representative Weyhrauch noted an example that
occurred fishing on the Kenai River. Mr. Pound responded
that situation would be classified as "lawfully" interfering
and would be listed as intentional vandalism.
Discussion followed between Representative Weyhrauch and Mr.
Pound regarding the example.
2:32:15 PM
Representative Weyhrauch interjected that with passage of
the bill; both sport and commercial fishermen would have to
take a lawyer into account while fishing.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 107 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 107 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with zero note #1 by the Department of
Fish & Game and zero note #3 by the Department of Law.
2:32:58 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|