Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
03/28/2008 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB137 | |
| Confirmation Hearing - Big Game Commercial Services Board | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 137-FISHING/HUNTING/TRAPPING LICENSES
3:44:57 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS announced CSHB 137(FIN)am to be up for
consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, sponsor of HB 137, recapped that this
measure makes the free permanent senior hunting, fishing and
trapping license renewable every five years. The problem with
the current license is that it has no tie to its users' real
residency. This ties issuance of a permanent senior license to
the Permanent Fund dividend qualifications, which is a listing
that can easily be checked by the agencies themselves. It
doesn't expand who can get this list. So if troopers need to
verify that somebody is legally qualified, they can call their
office where someone could immediately check its validity
against a PFD qualification list.
He explained that the other part of the bill allows members of
the Alaska National Guard and Army to get a resident license as
well. This committee expressed interest in expanding the to the
all Alaska reserve forces including the Army, Air Force, Navy,
Marines and the Coast Guard. There is a total of 4,879 potential
individuals who could get those licenses under that system - 399
from the Army Reserve, 164 from the Air Force Reserve, 78 from
the Navy Reserve, 46 from the Marines Reserve and approximately
300 from the Coast Guard Reserve for a total of 987.
3:47:43 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked if he had asked the Division of Motor
Vehicles about cross checking these against drivers' licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that requirement would be
superfluous under this measure, because they already use the PFD
qualifications for residential verification.
CHAIR HUGGINS said he got a call the other day from someone who
was concerned about what appears to be sort of a wholesale
approach of just checking the PFD and that it's sort our local
Alaska databank. He tended to agree with the person. He asked if
that has come up in any conversation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered yes; that has come up. The
question is if the state will somehow be supplying the PFD
database to people selling licenses and the answer is no.
SENATOR WAGONER pointed out when a person applies to get a PFD
they know full well their name will go on the list. If they
don't want it to go on the list, they shouldn't sign up for the
PFD. That's the only way they can guarantee they won't be called
up for jury duty, for instance. It's a very convenient list.
CHAIR HUGGINS said maybe it's a bad habit and maybe people
should think about it.
3:51:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the problem is that troopers have no
good way to check for residency in the field.
3:52:35 PM
SENATOR GREEN joined the committee.
SENATOR STEVENS said people go on and off that list all the time
and asked if the list would always be current.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered the PFD application is for one
year and those are in by March.
3:55:18 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked if he ever discussed being sending the PFD
list to the ADF&G as soon as it comes in.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he hadn't had that conversation; if
troopers can verify in the field that a license is no longer
valid, that would be good enough. He didn't want to put an
administrative burden on the Permanent Fund Corporation to
specifically contact the ADF&G.
CHAIR HUGGINS said he saw (Department of Public Safety) Deputy
Commissioner Glass in town this week and asked what his position
is on this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that he hadn't talk with him.
3:57:59 PM
SENATOR WAGONER asked if this becomes a five-year program and
his license was issued February 2006, does that mean he has to
start the five years over again or would he get it renewed five
years from the date his was issued.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that the fiscal note indicates a
larger amount for the first year and that is because everyone
would get checked against the PFD and everybody would get a
letter saying their PIDs are no longer valid and giving them the
new one.
3:59:09 PM
KRISTIN WRIGHT, Finance and Licensing Supervisor, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), added that Senator Green
asked if this could be an administrative code change and she
checked with Kevin Saxby, Department of Law (DOL), who concurred
with Legislative Legal Services that since the AS 16.05.400 says
"permanent" language couldn't be done by administrative change.
CHAIR HUGGINS indicated there were no questions on
Representative Seaton's letter dated March 27, 2008.
MS. WRIGHT said she hadn't done a revised fiscal note because
she was waiting on the decision of three or five years. She
estimated the reserve list would cost another $4,500 (in lost
revenue).
4:01:58 PM
SENATOR GREEN asked if the CS contained the five year time
frame.
CHAIR HUGGINS replied no; the five years is still an amendment.
4:02:24 PM
LIEUTENANT RODNEY DIAL, State Trooper, Ketchikan, asked to defer
questions to Major Steve Bear who could more accurately answer
them on this law.
4:03:35 PM
MAJOR STEVE BEAR, Deputy Director, Division of Alaska Wildlife
Troopers, Anchorage, said the department has a neutral position
on HB 137. He said it has concerns with the permanent license,
because they run into difficulty when folks move out of state
and come back with their permanent I.D. card that doesn't have
instructions for them to turn it in when they leave the state;
their defense is that they had no idea they were supposed to do
that. So, some change is needed.
4:05:04 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked how many people used the permanent I.D.
invalidly.
MAJOR BEAR replied it's hard to come up with hard numbers, but
anecdotally last summer a trooper checked an I.D. card on the
river bank and happened to notice the gentlemen also had in his
wallet an Arizona drivers' license. He learned that both the
husband and wife lived out of state for a few years. This was
their first trip back to Alaska and they were under the
impression it was a permanent license issued to them forever.
Even though the trooper seized the card, the district attorney
was not willing to charge them with anything. Looking at the
lack of instructions on the application, he thought it was
reasonable of them to think it was permanent.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked if there is another way to fix this.
MAJOR BEAR answered that at least some language on the
application would have to give instructions to people about what
to do when they no longer remain in Alaska. They have also run
permanent licenses that aren't in the ADF&G database anymore and
couldn't ascertain if they were issued validly in the first
place. So, that would need some change.
4:07:28 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked what a trooper would do if he were
presented with an unending license even if the law was changed
to require renewal every three years.
MAJOR BEAR replied that permanent licenses would no longer be
valid.
MS. WRIGHT came forward and explained the department would issue
new card that have an expiration date printed on them and that
would make the old cards invalid.
SENATOR WAGONER said the new card could say what to do if a
person no longer lived in the state.
MS. WRIGHT answered yes. They already have a statement on the
card that says it is no longer valid if you are no longer a
resident. But there is no way to check that.
SENATOR WAGONER said he has a permanent I.D. now and suggested
saying "you must surrender this card" if you leave the state; a
lot of licenses say that already.
SENATOR STEVENS said he suspected there would be at least one
grumpy old senator who would hang on to it.
MS. WRIGHT quipped that would be a public safety question. She
thought Major Bear could elaborate on what would happen in the
field upon being presented an old card.
SENATOR STEVENS asked what would happen if someone like Senator
Wagoner would be in violation of the law.
4:12:20 PM
MAJOR BEAR answered if someone presented a trooper an old card
in the field, first he would ask to see if the person was aware
that new cards were issued and find out if they were notified.
The trooper wouldn't automatically think it's an invalid card
and they all realize it would take several years to get switched
over to them.
SENATOR STEVENS suggested something like a Tier II system.
SENATOR WAGONER said if he gets a new card he wants it to be
Number 0001.
4:14:07 PM
SENATOR GREEN said this would not be a problem if the I.D.s
weren't being offered for free. She didn't understand why the
state does this in the first place. She asked if Senator
Wielechowski gets a new fishing license every year.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI answered yes he does.
SENATOR GREEN remarked why everyone else wouldn't do that if it
was for free.
CHAIR HUGGINS commented that they were encouraging grandfathers
to take their granddaughters hunting and fishing.
SENATOR WAGONER said doing this on a five-year basis would save
a lot of money administratively.
CHAIR HUGGINS directed the committee to the other half of this
bill, which concerns Alaskan military personnel.
4:15:58 PM
MCHUGH PIERRE, Legislative Liaison, Department of Military &
Veterans Affairs (DMVA), said the department supported HB 137.
4:16:33 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS said Amendment 1 had two elements in it; one
identifies the reservists as a recipient of the same privilege
and the other regards the length of the issuance of a license.
He asked if the DMVA supported it.
MR. PIERRE answered yes the department supports Amendment 1
fully. The current language will make it easier to enforce in
determining whether a member of the reserves is an active member
in good standing.
SENATOR STEVENS moved to adopt Amendment 1, 25-LS0118\FA.1, for
discussion purposes as follows:
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGGINS
TO: CSHB 137(FIN) am
Page 1, line 2, following "Guard":
Insert "and military reserves"
Page 2, line 22, following "Guard":
Insert "and military reserves"
Page 2, line 31:
Following "the":
Insert "(A)"
Following "Guard"
Insert ";
(B) Army Reserves;
(C) Air Force Reserves;
(D) Navy Reserves;
(E) Marine Reserves; or
(F) Coast Guard Reserves"
Page 3, line 13:
Delete "three"
Insert "five"
There were no objections and Amendment 1 was adopted.
4:18:52 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how the ADF&G would verify who is in
the reserves.
MR. PIERRE answered that members would have to present a form to
the ADF&G office signed by his or her commander stating they are
a member in good standing. Military code has penalties relating
to honoring their six or eight-year tour of duty.
CHAIR HUGGINS went to the part of Amendment 1 that changed three
years to five years and explained that functionally if you get
one when you are 60, the numbers of licenses issued to people
between 65-70 years of age would diminish dramatically. So, it
would basically require one renewal in exchange for reducing the
turmoil factor for ADF&G personnel checking PFD records.
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked why not simply give people a two-year
grace period to go in and get a new card. She didn't want to
have additional administrative costs.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that the question is do they
simply send people a notice and have them send back a card, then
the new card gets sent to them. That would double the mailing
costs.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said that was not her point; the state doesn't
send notification to everyone when the speed laws change or when
it has raised a certain crime from a misdemeanor to a felony.
Why would the state be in the business of notifying anyone and
why would it automatically send a PID card? Why not simply
change the law and let the process take its course?
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that was one of the original
considerations and it was thought notification might be nice
since these were issued as permanent identification cards. They
want to get away from the situation where the permanent ones are
out there, because everyone would have had notice that it is no
longer valid based on PFD residency.
4:24:56 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI agreed with Senator Green if the goals are
to prevent fraud and keep the costs down. People go in and fill
out a form that is for one year. It would have no mailing costs
and be simpler and that's the way he gets his license every year
any way.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he believes there is a problem with
these permanent identification cards and he is trying to solve
it.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI clarified his argument saying let's keep it
free, but have people just go in to the office and fill out
their forms every year like everybody else does.
SENATOR WAGONER suggested doing it on a one-year basis by
putting another box on their card to get punched. This is the
way they choose licensing for hunting, fishing and trapping now.
He said some people forget sometimes and he pointed out that the
drivers' licenses are on a five-year rotation and the state
sends automatic renewal notices to drivers.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked if there were objections to Amendment 1.
4:28:28 PM
SENATOR GREEN objected and moved to split it in two parts.
Amendment 1A would be the first lines about the reserves and
Amendment 1B would delete "three" and insert "five" on page 3,
line 13. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked if there were any objections to Amendment
1A. There were no objections so it was adopted.
CHAIR HUGGINS announced that Amendment 1B was before the
committee.
SENATOR GREEN objected saying she would like to put in one year,
but she certainly wouldn't go from three to five.
SENATOR WAGONER said the licenses are already printed for this
year and they might not have time to change it administratively,
but he agreed with Senator Green's basic concept.
MS. WRIGHT clarified if they change it to one year, lines 4-7
about looking at the PFD would have to be deleted.
4:31:18 PM
SENATOR GREEN said by saying "no" to this amendment, she is
maintaining it at three years and discussion about one year
would come after this.
SENATOR MCGUIRE reminded them that on page 4, line 22, section 9
makes it clear that section 4 of the act does not take effect
until January 1, 2009.
SENATOR STEVENS objected to the motion.
4:32:15 PM at ease 4:33:50 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS explained that a yes vote means it will go to five
years and a no vote will maintain the three years.
SENATOR STEVENS commented that the chair made a perfectly sound
comment when he said if they go to five years, people won't be
renewing very often. He saw nothing wrong with five years.
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Wagoner, Stevens, and
Huggins voted yea; Senators Wielechowski, McGuire and Green
voted nay; so Amendment 1B failed to be adopted.
CHAIR HUGGINS announced that CSHB 137(FIN)am would be set aside.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|