Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/28/1996 02:22 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 28, 1996
2:22 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Bettye Davis
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL 391
"An Act relating to succession to assets and liabilities of
dissolved municipalities."
- CSHB 391(CRA) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 386
"An Act relating to cruelty to animals and the provision of food
and water to confined or impounded animals."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 450
"An Act relating to trademarks; amending Alaska Rule of Appellate
Procedure 609; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL 520
"An Act relating to death investigations and inquests, coroners,
public administrators, and medical examiners, including the state
medical examiner; relating to the jurisdiction of district court
judges and magistrates in certain cases involving death."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL 295
"An Act relating to the custody and disposition of property in the
custody of municipal law enforcement agencies."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
TOM WRIGHT, Staff to Ivan Ivan
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 503
Juneau, Alaska 99501-2133
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 391 as sponsor's staff
REPRESENTATIVE BEN GRUSSENDORF
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 415
Juneau, Alaska 99501-2133
Telephone: (907) 465-3824
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 386 as sponsor
LARRY PETTY
P.O. Box 56114
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-2770
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 386
TIM ELLISON
P.O. Box 55590
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-1970
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 386
DIXIE JENNINGS
422 NRA Lane
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 6598
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 386
LIEUTENANT CHRIS STOCKARD
Department of Public Safety
450 Wittier Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4306
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 386
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 391
SHORT TITLE: DISSOLVED MUNICIPALITIES/SUCCESSION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/05/96 2369 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2369 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2369 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/25/96 (H) CRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/25/96 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/08/96 (H) CRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/08/96 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/09/96 2681 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NT 3DP 2NR
02/09/96 2681 (H) DP: KOTT, NICHOLIA, IVAN
02/09/96 2681 (H) NR: ELTON, AUSTERMAN
02/09/96 2682 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, DNR, DCRA)
02/23/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/23/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/26/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 386
SHORT TITLE: CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GRUSSENDORF,Finkelstein,B.Davis
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/05/96 2367 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2367 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2367 (H) RESOURCES, JUDICIARY
02/14/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/14/96 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/19/96 2801 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) NT 2DP 4NR 1AM
02/19/96 2801 (H) DP: DAVIES, AUSTERMAN
02/19/96 2801 (H) NR: NICHOLIA, LONG, KOTT GREEN
02/19/96 2802 (H) AM: WILLIAMS
02/19/96 2802 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
02/19/96 2802 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCRA)
02/21/96 2845 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
02/28/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 450
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA TRADEMARK ACT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/26/96 2541 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/26/96 2541 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
02/19/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/19/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/19/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/21/96 2829 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 2DP 5NR
02/21/96 2830 (H) DP: KOTT, PORTER
02/21/96 2830 (H) NR: ROKEBERG, ELTON, KUBINA, MASEK
02/21/96 2830 (H) NR: SANDERS
02/21/96 2830 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
02/28/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 520
SHORT TITLE: INQUESTS, CORONERS, POST MORTEMS, ETC.
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/16/96 2791 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/16/96 2791 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/28/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 295
SHORT TITLE: PROPERTY HELD BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PORTER,Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/05/95 1027 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/05/95 1027 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/19/95 1390 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
04/19/95 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/21/95 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/21/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/22/95 1446 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 5 DP
04/22/95 1447 (H) DP: PORTER, FINKELSTEIN, GREEN, BUNDE
04/22/95 1447 (H) DP: TOOHEY
04/22/95 1447 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS)
04/24/95 1485 (H) JUD ADDITIONAL FN (LAW)
02/01/96 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/01/96 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/21/96 2844 (H) RETURN TO JUD COMMITTEE
02/28/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-26, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER called the House Judiciary committee meeting
to order at 2:22 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Bunde, and Vezey. Representatives Toohey,
Davis and Finkelstein arrived at their respective times: 2:25 p.m.;
2:35 p.m. and 2:44 p.m. There were no members absent.
HB 391 - DISSOLVED MUNICIPALITIES/SUCCESSION
Number 096
TOM WRIGHT, Staff to Representative Ivan Ivan testified regarding
HB 391, an act related to dissolved municipalities. After
discussing with Margie Vandor from the Department of Law, who had
been in contact with someone from the Department of Community and
Regional Affairs, both of these entities agreed that it didn't make
a difference if the language in this legislation should read
"shall" or "may" in relation to the state being obligated to assume
responsibility for an entity chooses dissolution.
MR. WRIGHT then referred to a letter sent by the Alaska Rural
Electric Cooperative Association, Inc. (ARECA) which he hadn't yet
been able to read. The committee stood at ease until everyone had
a chance to review it.
MR. WRIGHT made note of the second area of concern regarding the
Local Boundary Commission (LBC) reviewing debts and liabilities
prior to transferring them. These both have to be placed into
consideration before the dissolution results. He then referred to
Rick Elliott on line from the Department of Community & Regional
who was available to answer questions which Representative Green
asked about subsurface and surface land rights.
Number 365
RICK ELLIOTT, Municipal Land Trustee, Department of Community &
Regional Affairs, Division of Municipal & Regional Assistance
outlined for the committee that there were four ways which a city
might acquire land. They may acquire land from the Federal Town
Site Program, or possibly from municipal entitlement. The
municipality could purchase land, assume it through donation or
condemnation or lastly, by 14 (c) (3) conveyances. If property is
conveyed under this latter provision to an entity, the only right
which is transferred is the surface rights, there wouldn't be any
subsurface rights attached.
MR. ELLIOTT went on to note if property was acquired under
municipal entitlement, the state reserves the mineral estate rights
also. Under the other two categories, there could be possible
mineral interests attached. The federal government typically
conveys all rights to property unless they've determined that the
land is valuable and they would reserve these interests.
Conceivably, there could be situations where land is transferred
with subsurface rights as well. After discussing these scenarios
with the Department of Law, they agreed that a stipulation in the
quit claim deed should be included to reserve the mineral estate if
any, to the state. This would take care of this problem. Mr.
Elliot said that this could be accomplished through a standard
provision in the deed.
Number 600
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE noted for the record that it was his
intent that this subsurface provision should made part of the
standard deed even though it wouldn't be made a part of this
legislation as a precautionary step. He then made a motion to move
CSHB 391 (CRA) from the House Judiciary Committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal note. Hearing no objections,
it was so moved.
HB 386 - CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Number 720
REPRESENTATIVE BEN GRUSSENDORF next came forward to testify in
regards to HB 386, an act related to the cruelty of animals as
sponsor. He stated that this issue had been called to his
attention for the last eight years and finally he felt it was time
for him to address an issue which could not be handled through the
budget. Representative Grussendorf noted that there are shocking
things which happen, not only what we do to one another, but what
we inflict upon other living beings. He made reference to an
article in the Fairbanks newspaper regarding cruelty to dogs which
he brought to the hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF said that it was his goal through this
legislation to make it easier for the prosecution of cruelty to
animals, a simple language change regarding how someone would go
about getting a conviction. The boroughs interceded to gain
authorization as well, so the committee substitute now includes the
penalties related to the offenses, as well as empowering the
boroughs to address cruelty to animals independently.
Number 858
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF referred to the cruelty to animal
statutes and noted that any hunting or trapping activities would
not come under the jurisdiction of HB 386. He also noted that the
practices related to livestock and domestic farm animals would not
come under this legislation. Also in the existing statutes, as
long as an activity comes under veterinarian standards or related
acceptable practices, then these practices are allowed.
Representative Grussendorf talked to the state veterinarian, Burt
Dorr and Ed Kurns from the Division of Agriculture which confirmed
that such things as castration, de-horning, docking, etc. would
fall under acceptable veterinarian practices. This does not
necessarily mean that a vet needs to be present to perform these
activities dealing with livestock.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF noted the penalties portion of this
legislation. Previously, the standard related to cruelty of
animals was intentional and was a hard thing for a prosecutor to
prove. The standard in this legislation would change rather to
"knowingly," a standard that anyone should know if an animal was
not sheltered, fed, or watered, eventually it would die. The
present statute doesn't allow for intervention until the animal is
actually dead.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF stated it had been suggested that the
boroughs would like to have a broader definition as to "regulate."
He felt that this was an issue they could discuss with the voters
in their areas.
Number 1055
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY referred to a case in Palmer a few
years ago where a musher was culling his puppies by shooting them.
It was very emotional for everyone. She asked if this legislation
specifically addressed this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF stated that whatever is done to an
animal has to be done so humanely. He said he didn't necessarily
condone it, but in response to an additional question by
Representative Toohey, Representative Grussendorf said that putting
puppies in a sack and drowning them could be considered a
traditional way of culling a litter. He thought that the
legislation provided for a standard of care which a reasonable
person would do in a situation related to animal practices.
Number 1174
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if this legislation would interfere with
pest or rodent control.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF responded that he thought Representative
Bunde might be referring to another bill. He further stated that
this legislation addressed domestic animals. This legislation does
not negatively affect hunting or trapping either.
Number 1314
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY appreciated Representative Grussendorf's
compassion for animals, but stated that this bill was not limited
to domestic animals, it just refers to animals. Anyone would say
that trapping is a brutal way of collecting animals, as well as
hunting. He felt that if this legislation was enacted they would
be giving anti-trapping and hunting forces a statute for which they
could sue to stop people from participating in these activities.
Representative Vezey also noted his surprise that under existing
law that decompression chambers are an illegal manner of exposing
of animals, which has been the method that the Fairbanks, North
Star Borough has used for about a decade.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stressed that this legislation gives authority
to municipalities, but Fairbanks for example, already has this
authority. He also mentioned agriculture being affected by this
bill. It could give people a tool against someone who raises
animals commercially.
Number 1409
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF indicated to Representative Vezey that
all the points he just made regarding hunting and farming practices
are already covered by existing statute. This new legislation
would not give anyone an advantage. He again noted the language,
"anything that is necessary or incidental to lawful hunting and
trapping activities," was defensible. In regards to agriculture he
noted language in HB 386, "performed to accepted veterinarian
practices," as also being defensible.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY submitted that there are more ways to trap an
animal, some would be considered more humane than others, so this
could open up this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF stressed that it's illegal for a
resident of the state to possess a wild animal without a permit.
When wild animals are taken out of the equation, this legislation
addresses domestic animals only through it's exceptions to and in
defense of, in other words, someone may not legally possess a moose
calf, a bear, etc. The act of hunting and trapping are defensible
under another category. He also noted that this legislation has no
affect on fishing either.
Number 1572
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked why this legislation does
not allow first class boroughs to enact ordinances which are
stricter than this law.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF noted that this was out of concessions
to some groups which were concerned and it was suggested that the
boroughs would like to have a stricter definition of cruelty to
animals, rather than not being able to exceed the penalties
outlined by the state. He said he had an amendment drafted in lieu
of this concept if the committee so desired. There are some
boroughs which have a more strict definition of what is cruelty to
animals. He noted that this was fine, but these boroughs shouldn't
be able to impose a penalty greater than what the state allows for.
CHAIRMAN PORTER admitted that this clause had not caught his
attention. When Chairman Porter served on a municipal assembly he
was a little angry when the state legislature would tell the cities
what they could and couldn't do. He asked what the persuasive
thought about restricting the boroughs was.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF confirmed that it wasn't his intent to
allow the clause which addressed the boroughs in this legislation,
but a lot of boroughs and animal control officers had approached
him. He added that it made sense that these groups desired
intervention before the animal was dead. He did state though that
this clause was not part of the original version of this
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested that a standard treatment of
penalties be established for this legislation.
Number 1808
LARRY PETTY testified by teleconference from Fairbanks against HB
386. He stated that the local Farm Bureau had appointed him to be
a watchdog over HB 386 to try and get production agriculture
excluded from this bill. Farmers have tried and true, traditional
methods of housing, feeding and caring for livestock. They have
been castrating, docking, de-horning, branding and conducting their
own medical procedures without the aid of a veterinarian for over
200 years. If any bill was passed that would change this, it could
kill agriculture in Alaska. Mr. Petty felt as though these issues
should be addressed by the Department of Agriculture and warned
against local boroughs licensing, regulating, or telling farmers
how to do certain procedures, this could put these farmers in an
economic disadvantage compared to other farmers outside of a
borough's jurisdiction.
Number 2061
TIM ELLISON testified by teleconference from Fairbanks against HB
386. He stated that he earns his living directly through farming
and he is the Vice President of the local chapter of the Farm
Bureau. He felt as though the Bureau was concerned about the
interpretation regarding this proposed legislation. He noted New
Jersey as a state which lost almost all of their veal calf
production because of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (SPCA) and other animal rights groups and their
interpretation of language similar to that provided in HB 386.
There is no protection of the farmer in HB 386.
Number 2147
DIXIE JENNINGS testified by teleconference from Valdez against HB
386. She said was deeply concerned with this legislation,
especially in regards to the term criminal negligence. She also
noted the use of the word "animals" without specification of
domestic or wild.
Number 2253
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY referenced the article from the Fairbanks
newspaper which Representative Grussendorf had provided and asked
how many cases such as this takes place in Alaska. She noted that
it was probably rare.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF cited that it's not as rare as they'd
like to believe it is. He stated that he's received hundreds of
requests from people over the last few years who have asked that
something had to be done in this area. Again, he indicated that
this legislation attempts to intervene and a lot of local
governments or troopers who are aware of an abusive situation
cannot do so because the success of a prosecution is so slim under
the existing statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY accepted the fact that there are more cases
of this abuse than they'd like to see, but she felt as though they
need to protect the people who had just testified. If they're
concerned that the agriculture part of this animal bill might
impact them, then she can't support the bill, until there are
safeguards put in this legislation that are apparently missing.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUSSENDORF recounted that the agricultural issues
referred to in testimony are already covered by existing statutes.
He stressed that he was not adding anything new, other than
allowing boroughs to acquire jurisdiction and then tinkering with
the definition in order to facilitate prosecution.
Number 2378
LIEUTENANT CHRIS STOCKARD, Department of Public Safety provided
information about HB 386. He did not bring to the hearing
statistics regarding this issue. He noted that it wasn't a large
number, but probably the department gets about 200 reports of abuse
per year. Under the existing statute, relatively few of these
complaints result in prosecution because of the difficulty of
meeting the intentional standards outlined in the existing law.
This bill, with the exception of those sections dealing with
borough jurisdiction which the department hadn't considered,
changes only the standard of proof used to establish the existing
violations. This standard would change from "intentional" to
"knowingly" and from "recklessly" to "criminal negligence." It
doesn't affect whether an act is considered a misdemeanor or a
felony.
LT. CHRIS STOCKARD noted that these changes in standards would not
affect the practices of agriculture. This legislation would affect
extraordinary conduct involving animals, rather than routine
conduct.
TAPE 96-26, SIDE B
Number 121
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN moved that they delete section 3 and 6
from CSHB 386(RES). He stated that the municipalities in the state
would have quite a challenge on this, the Matsu Borough being the
best example where they have all sorts of unusual circumstances,
especially related to horse and dog neglect. These municipalities
need to be able to manage this particular problem and sometimes it
may require a stricter penalty than what this particular law
allows. There are different circumstances around the state and he
trusts that municipalities would not abuse this power. They've
actually had this power all along to enact more strict laws
regarding cruelty to animals.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that he was not uncomfortable with the
statute as it exists now.
Number 227
CHAIRMAN PORTER spoke in favor of the amendment. He stated that he
couldn't think of any other piece of legislation which restricted
the rights of a first class city or borough, not one. He felt as
though these entities could decide what's best for their districts.
Number 288
CHAIRMAN PORTER hearing no objection to the motion to delete
sections 3 and 6, moved this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS made a motion to move CSHB 386(RES)
from the House Judiciary Committee meeting with individual
recommendations, attached fiscal note and deleted sections as
reflected in the amendment. Hearing no objection it was so moved.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the House Judiciary Committee meeting at
3:16 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|