Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/16/1994 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Number 485
SB 316 - FISHING VIOLATIONS/FINES, BURDEN OF PROOF
JIM BECKER, a Bristol Bay fisherman, expressed his concerns
that the line in Bristol Bay is too restrictive, and the
LORAN management of that line is unpredictable. He said he
has no problem with those people in extreme violation who
are blatantly over the line, being heavily fined or having
their boats taken away; but the unclear line gets in the way
of the average fisherman just trying to make a living, as
does a fine for setting nets a couple of minutes early. A
couple of those small violations should not result in
someone losing their privilege to fish.
Number 530
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked DAVE THOMPSON from Senator Halford's
office to describe the bill.
Number 531
DAVE THOMPSON, Aide, Senator Rick Halford, Prime Sponsor of
SB 316, explained the bill, saying that it amends an
escalating schedule for suspension and for eventual
forfeiture of commercial fishing privileges, as well as the
license itself. It amends 16.05.722 which doubles the
potential maximum allowable fines. It amends the elementary
burden commercial fishermen must satisfy in order to rebut
the presumption that fish found on board in the fishing
vessel have been taken illegally. Burden of proof has been
increased from the preponderance of evidence to clear and
convincing standard. He said he finds the declining fine
amounts for the 90 repeat offenders disturbing. Mr.
Thompson then proceeded to explain the difference between
"preponderance of evidence" and "clear and convincing."
Number 643
REP. PHILLIPS had concerns over the fluctuation of accuracy
in the technological measuring devices.
Number 660
MR. THOMPSON agreed that the LORAN equipment does have
calibration problems and is not always accurate.
Number 681
REP. JAMES suggested charging repeat offenders a double
fine, and discussed other types of fines and their affects
on fishermen with MR. THOMPSON, and REP. PHILLIPS. She
expressed the need to come up with a fair compromise that
would not deplete the livelihood of such an offender.
CHAIRMAN PORTER then accepted oral testimony via
teleconference, beginning with Anchorage.
Number 690
SAM DANIEL, an Anchorage commercial fisherman, opposed SB
316. He blamed the problem on the repeat offenders. He
urged lawmakers to consider some other means of enforcement
rather than taking away fishing licenses, which results in
the fishermen losing their operations if they are to be out
of business for a year. He felt the bill is not an
effective management tool.
Number 804
JACK FOSTER from Sand Point strongly opposed the bill.
Number 836
DAVID WHITMIRE, a fisherman from Homer, strongly opposed the
bill, informing listeners that those 90 violations received
by repeat offenders was a small amount, considering the
number of permits that were issued (2850), and also
considering the number of opportunities each permit holder
has to commit such violations.
TAPE 94-59, SIDE B
Number 000
REP. JAMES commented that this was not a black and white
situation.
Number 012
GIOVANNI TALLINO, President, Kodiak Island Sport
Association, which has over 400 members, urged the committee
to let the people vote on SJR 39 (wrong bill).
Number 060
WILLIAM WOOD, Palmer, strongly supported SB 316.
Number 092
DAN HASTINGS, a commercial fisherman in Kenai, opposed the
bill, feeling that the penalties would be too stiff for the
offense.
Number 155
[INAUDIBLE NAME], a 20 year Bristol Bay fisherman, believed
the bill to condemn people to being guilty until proven
innocent, and also has the potential of taking away the
livelihood of fishermen.
Number 200
KONRAD SCHAAD, Homer fisherman, spoke in opposition to the
bill he described as being short-sided, specifically with
the use of the LORAN, a unit which is supposed to be
accurate (or inaccurate) up to 200 meters, depending upon
the weather. He claimed that there is a gray zone in which
fishing violations are issued. Mr. Schaad strongly believed
that the real problem was lack of boundary definition and
suggested creating a line made up of physical buoys.
Number 277
REP. PHILLIPS acknowledged KONRAD SCHAAD'S line suggestion
as being a reasonable solution.
Number 296
ROSELEEN (SNOOKS) MOORE, Homer, said she has fished
commercially for 34 years and expressed concerns about the
militaristic attitude of the Fish & Game officers, and also
about the fact that fishermen sometimes feel compelled to
take action that may jeopardize their lives, just to avoid a
fine.
Number 343
INGRID JACOBSEN, Sand Point commercial fisherman of 15
years, opposed the bill which appears to presume offenders
guilty until proven innocent. Ms. Jacobsen objected,
specifically, to the language "clear and convincing burden
of proof."
Number 388
DAN HENNICK, Homer, a 38 year commercial fisherman,
suggested giving Public Safety more funding to better
enforce existing laws. He objected to increasing fines and
believed most violations to be unintentional, not
deliberate.
Number 450
ALVIN OSTERBACK, Mayor of the City of Sand Point, viewed the
bill as being backwards regarding "innocent until proven
guilty."
Number 515
GERALD McCUNE, Juneau, testified on behalf of the United
Fishermen of Alaska in opposition to SB 316. He gave
examples where "preponderance of evidence" was used to issue
violations against fishermen while he believed "clear and
convincing evidence" would have been a more fair scale of
judgement. He suggested the committee consider an interim
task force.
Number 572
HUGH MALONE, Lobbyist, testified on behalf of the Kenai
Peninsula Fishermen's Association, who oppose SB 316.
Number 598
LOUIS MENENDEZ, Assistant District Attorney in Juneau,
stated that he has quite a bit of experience in Kenai and
Anchorage prosecuting fish and game cases, and working with
fish and game protection officers. He suggested that
perhaps a better way to deal with this problem would be to
increase enforcement, not fines. He believed this complex
issue requires more evaluation before passing the bill.
Number 693
REP. PHILLIPS, REP. JAMES and MR. MENENDEZ discussed the
need for either more enforcement officers on the line, or
the establishment of a physical boundary line. Mr. Menendez
displayed lack of faith in the idea of increasing the fines.
Number 799
CHAIRMAN PORTER and MR. MENENDEZ discussed the legal
definition of acting "negligently."
Number 828
REP. JAMES expressed distress over the feeling that any
amount of enforcement would not stop the fishermen from
violating the regulations.
TAPE 94-60, SIDE A
Number 000
COLONEL BILL VALENTINE, Director, Division of Fish and
Wildlife Protection, Department of Public Safety, agreed
with Mr. Menendez that it would be nice to have a protection
officer behind every bush out at Bristol Bay, but he
believed it was not meant to be. He said that Fish & Game
supports the bill. He believed that whatever they do will
not provide a deterrent. The fishermen violate regulations
right in front of the Fish & Game officers while they are
working on other cases. The officers cannot keep up, no
matter how many people they put on the line. He explained
that this bill allows for a judge to take action to suspend
a permit after the second offense, which may deter some from
deliberate violations.
Number 031
CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed that SB 316 not only raises the fine
to add a deterrent, but at the same time changes the
standards of proof on these presumptive areas from
preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing.
Number 107
COLONEL VALENTINE made comments about a great deal of
testimony being made regarding the doubling of fines. He
said the only place that a maximum penalty case occurs is in
Bristol Bay, which costs $3,000 on the first offense.
Places like Southeastern and the YK-Delta charges run from
$100 to $1,000, depending upon the magistrate, the judge, or
the recommendation of the Department of Law. Maximum
penalties for violations are not currently requested from
the court by the Department of Public Safety.
Number 139
REP. PHILLIPS spoke about the fact that it is probably
physically possible to mark the line and requested an
opinion of COLONEL VALENTINE.
Number 147
COLONEL VALENTINE replied that after having spent 23 years
as a "fish cop" and having spent one year as a commercial
fisherman, he thinks that a physical line would be the best
solution; especially in a fishery as intense and short
served as Bristol Bay is. If the line were to move around a
little, so be it, the line would be defined where it is
marked, and would not be subject to the jitter of the LORAN,
nor sun spots.
Number 150
REP. PHILLIPS spoke in favor of clearly marking the line.
Number 155
CHAIRMAN PORTER concluded the discussion of SB 316, followed
by a short break.
Number 200
REP. PHILLIPS requested that the Department of Law be
present for comment and question when the bill was brought
back up on Monday; and she also requested that the hearing
be heard via teleconference.
CHAIRMAN PORTER concurred.
Number 210
DAVID OSTERBACK from Sand Point was not in favor of the
bill, as he said it threatens the livelihood of many
fishermen.
CHAIRMAN PORTER reminded meeting attenders that SB 316 would
be heard again on Monday. He then continued on to SJR 39.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|