Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/13/1996 09:30 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 335
"An Act relating to the Big Game Commercial Services
Board, guide-outfitters, transporters, and commercial use
permit holders; extending the termination date of the Big
Game Commercial Services Board; and providing for an
effective date."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 335(RES)(title am)
"An Act extending the termination date of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board; eliminating the requirement
for a commercial use permit and for payment of
commercial use permit fees; amending the membership of
the Big Game Commercial Services Board; relating to the
qualifications for an assistant guide-outfitter license;
eliminating the requirement for testing of assistant
guide-outfitters; providing for additional licensing
requirements for transporters; eliminating the
requirement for prior approval to enter or remain on state
and federal land; eliminating the requirement t o
register base camps; amending the definition of 'big game
commercial services'; and providing for an effective
date."
Mr. Dwight Perkins, Special Assistant, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Labor was invited to join the
committee and testified with regards to amending the
exemptions found in AS 23.10.055 to include individuals
employed as guides and assistant guides from entitlement to
minimum wage and overtime for the first sixty days while
hunting in the field. The Department of Labor has
historically opposed these kinds of exemptions because it
just eliminates another class of employees from having the
opportunity to receive minimum wage and overtime.
Co-chairman Halford indicated a long list of exclusions and
noted that this is a smaller exemption than most of those
already existing in the law. Mr. Perkins concurred that the
exemption does just carve out a minimum of time, i.e. the
sixty days. The Department feels that this equates to the
hunting season. Co-chairman Halford explained this bill was
advocated due to the fact that there was not usually a
supervisor available and the person running the camp could
decide whether to work longer hours. There is no real
authority. Wage and Hour has to make a decision based on
this information only.
Catherine Reardon, Director, Occupational Licensing was
invited to join the committee. She noted this was a
complete rewrite of the statute and reviewed amendment #1,
duties and powers of the Department. During discussion of
this amendment Senator Zharoff asked for a clarification of
the word "current", page 3, line 6. Ms. Reardon explained
that the language appeared on page 4, line 8 and was just
transferred over. Senator Rieger asked that the word
"appropriate" be inserted on line 3 page 27 before
"...disciplinary..." and Ms. Reardon concurred. Senator
Phillips noted that what may be an offense in one state may
not be an offense in Alaska. Ms. Reardon stated the theory
is that someone who will violate laws in another state will
have a propensity to ignore the laws here.
Captain Joe D'Amico, Commercial Crimes Bureau, Division of
Fish and Wildlife Protection testified via teleconference.
He concurred with Ms. Reardon's comments and noted the issue
is whether or not the law was broken and the individual was
charged or convicted. Co-chairman Halford said that someone
with a conviction was excluded. Captain D'Amico indicated
that there had been only a very few cases where an
individual wanted to challenge their conviction. Ms.
Reardon further indicated that the amendment included
"revoked or suspended in Alaska or another jurisdiction".
This would also include Canada and other countries. Senator
Phillips questioned the terms "outfitter" and "guide". Co-
chairman Halford said that was why the term "outfitter"
needed to be added. He flagged these objections for further
discussion.
Ms. Reardon continued on to amendment #2, license
qualifications. Co-chairman Halford said that it was
difficult for rural Alaskans to find a place to take the CPR
and first aid test and then the card was only good for one
year, whereas the license was good for two years. It should
be a requirement for getting a license but he opposed the
first aid requirement because he felt this was a barrier for
rural residents. Ms. Reardon indicated that he was correct
and one only needed a current first aid or CPR card for
renewal of the license.
Senator Rieger questioned the $500 fine and Senator Zharoff
wanted to know an example of what would cause a fine to be
$500. Captain D'Amico said that under current law any guide
or game violation would likely result in a fine over $500.
Co-chairman Halford asked if the current standard was
perhaps a little too tight? He concurred with Captain
D'Amico that the whole package needed to be looked at with
regards to what a violation is, what the standards are for
license actions, Court actions and administrative penalties.
Ms. Reardon continued on to amendment #3, registered guide
license. Co-chairman Halford indicated that page 4, lines 9
- 13 will remain open for further consideration of how
enforcement should be dealt with. He and Senator Phillips
discussed the experience requirement to take the test and
co-chairman Halford indicated that they were trying to
advocate currency in the experience requirement. He noted
that page 4, line 28 would remain open for further
discussion. Senator Zharoff asked about proof of financial
responsibility. Ms. Reardon said that current law requires
liability insurance and this amendment would expand it to
include assets.
Ms. Reardon continued to amendment #4, renewal of registered
guide license. She noted that in this section she was
deleting the hunt records. Captain D'Amico said that
harvest information is all included on one document at
present. Co-chairman Halford said that page 6, line 27 he
would hold open for further discussion.
Ms. Reardon continued on to amendment #5, qualifications to
be class A assistant guide license. Co-chairman Halford
said that they would need to have a substantive discussion
on the standard of discipline for both disqualification of
license and for the administrative action for penalties when
added to the Court's actions. Further policy questions
remain on rural residents qualifying for class-A assistant
guide licenses and first aid requirements.
Co-chairman Halford asked Captain D'Amico for information
regarding process and penalties for violation of a tagging,
reporting, export license or fee requirement as a minor
violation; process and penalties for wanton waste violation.
Captain D'Amico referred to four violations that result in
automatic license revocation under current law page 11, line
27. In addition to the license action any one of these four
violations could bring a criminal sentence in the guide
statute for up to one year and $30,000 fine plus additional
criminal sanctions available under Title 16 ranging from
$5,000 to a year in jail. These refer to state violations.
He referred to a tagging violation of a sheep which is a
$100 mail in bail. The guide, however, faces a guide
violation which has up to a $30,000 fine and a year in jail.
Co-chairman Halford asked about special felony provision
for guides and Captain D'Amico said it was for multiple
offenders who had one conviction on a guide violation.
There is presumptive law in the new bill that would mandate
a two-year sentence for some of those violations. Ms.
Reardon indicated that the reason they would like to keep
the civil option open is because if someone has done
something relatively minor and Public Safety does not take
them to court, a more mild sanction can be imposed through a
civil action.
(change to tape SFC-96, #40, Side 1)
Senator Phillips asked Captain D'Amico if they were
adequately equipped to enforce the laws at present. Captain
D'Amico indicated that he was concerned about losing the
commercial use permit fee because those funds were targeted
for rural Alaska Game and Guiding Enforcement. Under the
current system, however, an adequate job is being done. He
did voice concern that judges did not generally handle guide
license sentencing and referred that to the guide boards.
However, if a guide has a potential of losing his license he
is more apt to have a trial and that will affect the way
matters are handled. Senator Phillips voiced concern over
the ability to enforce the law in order to protect the
conservation of the resources in the state. He cited the
hunting of animals in closed season, including fishing.
Co-chairman Halford said the questions now before the
committee were how to deal with prior felonies; exclusion of
felons and, if so, for how long; prior violations of
hunting-sportfishing-guiding-outfitting statutes; exclusion
of licensing for how long; the big four violations;
automatic revocation of license or a suspension of license;
dealing with smaller violations; and dealing with second
smaller violations. This all has to be reviewed.
Senator Rieger referred to peer review and felt this was not
a good dependable policy. Co-chairman Halford said one gets
knowledge but not impartiality under this system. Some
standards have to be set up. Senator Zharoff said
originally this was a user friendly bill toward rural
residents. He asked what criteria was used for non-resident
fees? Catherine Reardon said for criteria she just simply
said "double".
Senator Sharp was concerned about the "big four" violations
and the conflict between state and federal regulations.
Captain D'Amico felt this was a valid concern. He said the
reason the federal regulations were included was to protect
national parks, such as Mt. Denali and Katmai. Co-chairman
Halford also indicated his concern. Captain D'Amico
referred to a case where a bandit had gotten into a national
park, which state game regulations do not address, and then
the state was unable to take license action. The concern
now is that the feds are managing more areas and they do
occasionally have areas open that the state does not or vice
versa. Co-chairman Halford referred to amendment #9 and
wanted to know who decided "convicted of" as opposed to
"violated". Ms. Reardon said that the Department through a
hearing officer decided. She also referred to the possible
options for disciplinary actions the department may take.
Co-chairman Halford and Ms. Reardon discussed dealing with
the level of enforcement. She noted that it was very
difficult to get a hearing officer to recommend a
revocation.
Mr. Steven Dougherty, assistant Attorney General, Department
of Law was invited to join the committee. In response to
co-chairman Halford's question regarding non-resident fees
he said that the Court had put forth some standards for
imposing fee differentials. Non-residents can be required
to pay their fair share of the administration of a program.
It must be shown that non-residents should have to pay extra
because residents are already contributing their fare share.
He noted that the "Carlson case" was now before the Supreme
Court for the second time. Initially it was held that non-
residents have to pay the full cost of administration even
if state residents are being subsidized in some manner and
it was rejected by the Court. The Court further stated that
mere bald assertion was not sufficient. Facts and figures
must be supplied to show how the residents and non-residents
become comparable. Basically, the State constitution is
more limiting.
Co-chairman Halford HELD HB 335 in committee and said a new
draft should be presented with the division's amendments
involving management and technical rewrites highlighted.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|