01/18/2008 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB267 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 267 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 18, 2008
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Bob Roses
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Co-Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 267
"An Act relating to authorizing the state to join with other
states entering into the Wildlife Violator Compact and
authorizing the compact to supersede existing statutes by
approving standards, rules, or other action under the terms of
the compact; and directing the initiation of civil actions to
revoke appropriate licenses in this state based on a resident
licensee's violation of or failure to comply with the terms of a
wildlife resource citation issued in another state that is a
party to the compact."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 267
SHORT TITLE: WILDLIFE VIOLATOR COMPACT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSON
01/04/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) RES, FIN
01/18/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JEANNE OSTNES, Staff
to Representative Craig Johnson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sponsor statement on behalf
of Representative Johnson for HB 267.
AL CAIN, Criminal Justice Planner
Statewide Law Enforcement Specialist
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 267 and provided a
presentation on the benefits the state of Alaska would receive
from joining the Wildlife Violator Compact.
BURKE WALDRON, Captain
Central Office
Division of Alaska Wildlife Troopers
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 267, answered questions, and
provided information regarding the bill.
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 267.
ROBERT FITHIAN, Executive Director
Alaska Professional Hunters Association (APHA)
Lower Tonsina, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 267.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR CRAIG JOHNSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:04:00 PM. Representatives
Johnson, Seaton, Roses, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Fairclough, and
Wilson were present at the call to order. Representative Edgmon
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 267-WILDLIFE VIOLATOR COMPACT
1:04:14 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 267, "An Act relating to authorizing the state
to join with other states entering into the Wildlife Violator
Compact and authorizing the compact to supersede existing
statutes by approving standards, rules, or other action under
the terms of the compact; and directing the initiation of civil
actions to revoke appropriate licenses in this state based on a
resident licensee's violation of or failure to comply with the
terms of a wildlife resource citation issued in another state
that is a party to the compact."
1:04:35 PM
JEANNE OSTNES, Staff to Representative Craig Johnson, Alaska
State Legislature, presented the sponsor statement for HB 267 on
behalf of Representative Johnson. She said HB 267 allows the
state of Alaska to partner with 26 other states in the Wildlife
Violator Compact. Ohio will become part of the compact later
this month. The compact is a reciprocal arrangement that allows
Alaska to work with all of the compact members. A violator who
loses his or her license in Alaska will also lose his or her
license in the 26 other states. For example, a person losing
his or her license in Missouri will not be able to hunt or fish
in Alaska. She directed attention to the map in the committee's
packets depicting the compact member states.
1:06:56 PM
AL CAIN, Criminal Justice Planner, Statewide Law Enforcement
Specialist, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G), stated that he had a 25-year career with the
Division of Alaska Wildlife Troopers, Department of Public
Safety (DPS), before joining ADF&G five years ago. "... I'm
very, very excited at this moment," he said. "I've been working
for about 10 years to arrive at this particular moment in
history, and this is quite an opportunity."
MR. CAIN related the history of the Wildlife Violator Compact
[slide 2 of his PowerPoint presentation]. The compact is
patterned after the driver's license compact which all other
states have entered into, he explained. If a person's driver's
license is revoked in one state in the United States, that
person cannot go to another state and get a driver's license.
The compact started in 1985 between Nevada and Colorado. In
1989, the three states of Nevada, Colorado, and Oregon passed
legislation and the program began in those states in 1991.
Immediately afterward, many states recognized that this would be
a very valuable tool to deter serious wildlife violators
everywhere in the nation.
1:08:58 PM
MR. CAIN reviewed several cases of poachers caught and convicted
of illegally killing game animals in Missouri, Wyoming, Idaho,
Colorado, Arizona, and Alaska [slides 3-9]. In the Alaska
example, a case on which he worked, a group of poachers from
Alabama killed 11 illegal caribou and entirely wasted the meat
of 9. The problem, he said, is that poachers like these can
immediately move to another state. For instance, despite being
jailed and fined in Alaska, the Alabama poachers were able to
return to their state and obtain licenses for the fall Alabama
hunting season. The biggest reason for the compact is to stop
the inter-state travel of serious poachers, he said. Had Alaska
been a member of the compact, the hunting licenses of these
caribou poachers would have been revoked in the 26 compact
member states instead of only in Alaska.
1:12:36 PM
MR. CAIN explained that the compact's foundation has tremendous
value for three reasons [slide 10]. First and foremost, it
prevents poachers revoked in one member state from hunting or
fishing, depending on which activity was violated, in any of the
other member states. Second, the compact provides for the
issuance of citations to nonresidents versus having to arrest
them. He said this is a big issue in Alaska and many other
states because in order to prevent a violator from fleeing
across state lines to avoid the consequences of the citation,
the wildlife authorities must stop their field patrol, place the
violator under arrest, and immediately take the violator before
a magistrate. Third, the compact provides a tremendous
deterrent for serious fish and wildlife crimes. People who know
that Alaska is a member of the compact would think twice before
coming up to illegally harvest game for selling the parts or
conducting other illegal activities, he said.
1:13:55 PM
MR. CAIN discussed the current provisions of the Wildlife
Violator Compact [slides 11-12]: 1) Anyone revoked in one
compact state can be revoked in all other compact states if the
conviction is a basis for revocation in that state. 2) Each
state will treat the conviction as if it occurred in their
state. 3) A violator of a compact state is treated as a
resident if he violates in any other compact state. 4) If a
violator fails to appear and take care of the citation, then the
state issuing the citation may notify the violator's home state.
5) The home state then notifies the violator that his or her
license will be suspended until the terms of the citation are
complied with.
1:16:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the first compact provision
and inquired who makes the determination as to whether the
violation that occurred in one state is bad enough to revoke the
license in Alaska.
MR. CAIN responded that language in the bill under the Compact
Administrator Procedures [page 7, line 29, to page 8, line 30],
provides for an administrator to be selected from the Department
of Public Safety (DPS). He assumed this administrator would be
someone of command level, probably a lieutenant or above. A DPS
clerk would receive downloads of the most recent revocation
information to give to the compact administrator. The
administrator would consult with the director's staff in the
Division of Alaska Wildlife Troopers to determine whether to
revoke an Alaska resident's license based on revocation issued
outside the state.
1:17:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that the administrative
procedure to determine revocation in Alaska, presuming the
revocation happened in another state, would be conducted by [the
DPS] administrator and not through the courts.
MR. CAIN answered correct. Based on the authority in the
compact, he explained, when someone is revoked in another state,
Alaska can simply administratively adopt and accept that
revocation based on the screening of the compact administrator.
For example, if an Alaska resident committed a violation in
Wyoming for which he or she was convicted after returning to
Alaska, Wyoming would send that conviction information to Alaska
and Alaska would then notify the violator and that is when a
court hearing would be involved. So, the court hearing is in
the violator's home state, he said. In further response to
Representative Seaton, Mr. Cain confirmed that if a violation by
an Alaska resident occurs in another compact state, the judicial
procedure for license revocation would occur in Alaska because
it is the violator's home state.
1:19:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether the part of HB 267 that
is currently being discussed is the portion in the title on page
1, line 2, that authorizes the compact to supersede existing
statutes.
MR. CAIN replied that the authorization for due process and
court proceedings in the home state is located in Section 2 of
the bill, page 10, line 19, where the penalty provisions in
Title 16 are amended, thus giving Alaska, as the home state, the
authority to revoke a license based on a conviction in another
state. The person must actually be convicted in another state
of something revocable, he said. Then that state would notify
Alaska and Alaska could take action as the home state. Section
1 of the Wildlife Violator Compact itself gives Alaska the
authority to adopt the revocation of a Nevada resident who is
convicted of a violation and revoked in Nevada.
1:21:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested further explanation of the bill
title language [page 1, line 2,] which reads, "authorizing the
compact to supersede existing statutes...." He wanted to know
how far the bill goes in putting this compact above existing
State of Alaska statutes.
MR. CAIN directed attention to page 3, line 23, subsection (e)
of the bill which reads: "Allow the home state to recognize and
treat convictions recorded for its residents which occurred in
another party state as if they had occurred in the home state."
Mr. Cain understood that the only superseding that HB 267
provides is when someone is convicted in another state it gives
Alaska the authority to adopt that revocation. Then, according
to Section 2 of the bill, if an Alaska resident is convicted in
another compact state, then Alaska could act upon that
conviction as if it happened in Alaska and revoke the license.
Screening by the 26 other compact states would subsequently pick
up that revocation.
1:23:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood, then, that the superseding
being talked about is basically the extension of the
jurisdictional boundary.
MR. CAIN responded yes, a jurisdiction increase is a good way of
putting it. It allows for Alaska to adopt convictions and
impose revocations based on violations in any of the compact
states.
1:24:19 PM
MR. CAIN continued his discussion of the compact provisions
[slides 11-12]: 6) If the violator refuses to comply with the
terms of the citation, the revocation information is entered
into Utah's database. 7) Each compact state receives
information downloads at a minimum of once a month. Each state
enters and controls its own information, he said, and each state
can access the information on all of the revokees in the
database and sort by violation if the state so wishes. 8) A
state can view only those violations that are revocable in that
state. In other words, he clarified, revocations in a state
that has lower standards than Alaska for the triggering of a
revocation could be screened out and only those violations that
fit Alaska's criteria for revocation would be seen.
1:25:36 PM
MR. CAIN outlined the technical aspects of the compact [slides
13-14]. All of the violator data is stored in a mainframe
computer hosted by the Utah Department of Public Safety, he
said. Access to that mainframe is granted to compact
administrators and the law enforcement personnel in member
states, which in Alaska would be the Department of Public Safety
(DPS). The administrators decide how often to receive those
downloads for information screening. Downloads of violator
information could be incorporated into drawing permits, he said.
For instance, ADF&G could receive the lists just prior to
finalizing drawing hunt information or registration hunt
information to prevent revokees from receiving a license.
MR. CAIN noted that as of 2004 approximately 4,000 names were on
the compact database [slide 15]. Nearly 10,000 individuals have
been revoked through the compact as of June 2005, he said, and
about 50 percent are revoked due to big game violations. Ohio
just joined the compact, bringing the number of compact states
to 26. He said it takes an average of three minutes to do a
data entry.
1:27:47 PM
MR. CAIN relayed that in 2003 there was a high of 1,873 people
added to the database [slide 16]. The number added in 2004 went
down a little [to 1,724]. He hopes this is an indicator that
people are paying attention to the compact and making it more
effective. He quickly displayed slide 17 depicting a graph of
the total number of revocations in the compact states from 1994-
2004 [over 500 in 1999, over 4,000 in 2004]. He noted that
slide 18 depicts a pie chart of the percent of revocations
between the member states in 2004 [Colorado had the most at 21
percent].
MR. CAIN pointed out that big game violations [slide 19] are by
far the most common type of violation [46 percent], with fish
transportation and possession the second most common type [16
percent]. He noted that slide 20 depicts the number of
violators by age group for the year 2003 [ages 19-22 had the
highest number of violators, ages 57 and over had the fewest
number of violators].
1:29:12 PM
MR. CAIN said there is an annual compact meeting that each
member state's administrator is expected to attend and that it
is an excellent information-sharing platform [slide 21].
Criminal activity is seriously curtailed when law enforcement
agencies begin to communicate effectively, he emphasized.
Reaching beyond state lines is a very effective way to keep
violators on their toes because the violators are very mobile
and move around.
MR. CAIN noted that slides 22 and 23 are out of date. He named
some of the member states: Florida, Illinois, Kansas,
Mississippi, New York, Ohio who will be joining next month, and
Tennessee. [The other member states are: Arizona, California,
Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.] He said
Ms. Ostnes has provided a map to the committee which depicts the
15 states in the process of joining the compact. Three of those
15 states have already passed legislation, he said, and 12
states, including Alaska, are in the process of passing
legislation. There are 26 states that are currently members of
the compact and 9 have said no to joining.
1:31:09 PM
MR. CAIN recapped the reasons why Alaska should join the
Wildlife Violator Compact [slide 24]. The compact would greatly
increase deterrence of serious fish and wildlife crimes in
Alaska by individuals who hunt [or fish] in other states. It
increases the compliance of nonresidents who would choose to
leave the state and not take care of citations that had been
received because the violator could be revoked until he or she
took care of it. The overall goal is to protect the valuable
fish and game resources throughout the entire United States.
1:31:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the pie chart depicting the
types of violations [slide 19] and noted that 5 percent of
license suspensions came from trespassing violations. He
understood that trespassing is a category that in Alaska would
not generally result in revocation of a license.
MR. CAIN responded that the state of Alaska does not, at this
time, have the ability to revoke a hunting or fishing license
for criminal trespass, a Title 11 criminal jurisdiction, unless
the person committed a game or fisheries violation while he or
she was in the act of trespassing. That would be screened out
and not be a revocable offense in the state of Alaska, he said.
1:33:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether someone having a right-
of-way violation from crossing Native land could have his or her
hunting or fishing license revoked in another state.
MR. CAIN said his understanding of the compact language is that
unless it is revocable in Alaska, it would not be considered
revocable by other states. Alaska would not report violations
that are nonrevocable in this state.
1:34:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised that if violations are tapering
off in the compact states, Alaska is probably seeing more
violations because it is not in the compact and violators are
smart enough to go to a noncompact state.
MR. CAIN replied that he does not have with him the statistics
for the conviction pattern for the Department of Public Safety.
He said he feels very strongly that serious wildlife poachers
know exactly which states belong to this compact and which ones
do not. Right now those poachers would feel very free to come
to Alaska, he opined, because today if a violator's license is
revoked in Alaska it will have no bearing in any of the other
compact states. That information is well known in poaching
circles, he said, and this would be a tremendous deterrent.
1:35:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON assumed that the fiscal note is zero
because the annual compact meeting is held in conjunction with
another meeting that the Alaska administrator would have been
going to anyway.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON responded correct.
BURKE WALDRON, Captain, Central Office, Division of Alaska
Wildlife Troopers, Department of Public Safety, stated that the
annual compact meeting is part of a conference to which Alaska
usually sends a representative, thus there is no fiscal note.
1:37:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES surmised from the zero fiscal note that
there is no cost to download the data from the Utah system.
MS. OSTNES replied no [cost].
CAPTAIN WALDRON answered correct, no cost.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked whether the data will be maintained
for free and the information provided to Alaska for free for as
many times as Alaska requests it.
CAPTAIN WALDRON said that is correct at this time.
1:37:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that he is supportive of the
concept, but that he hopes it does not give the impression that
this stops poachers. People violating laws as flagrantly as the
poachers shown in the presentation are not going to buy a
license in the first place. This only stops those that buy
licenses or the people caught in the act of doing something
illegal.
CAPTAIN WALDRON said that is correct, but that the compact is a
multi-faceted tool. While it will be a marginal deterrent on
the hardest core violators that do not buy licenses, the compact
would provide Alaska a tool on how the violators that are caught
are treated.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON remarked that if laws could be written that
everyone obeyed "we could be out of a job very quickly."
1:39:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired how the compact would work with
commercial fishing violations that have very high fines versus
sport fishing violations.
MR. CAIN responded that the compact rarely deals with commercial
fishing, but that it can be used as a tool in this regard. For
example, he said, if a person was convicted of very serious
commercial fishing offenses in Alaska and his or her entry
permit was revoked or suspended, that would be listed on the
compact's website, and the other states would pick that up. If
that person were to appear in Florida or California, he or she
would be disallowed from purchasing a commercial fishing license
of a similar type. He said that in his discussions with
administrators from other states this is not done very often.
Alaska has a very small number of revocations in the commercial
fishing industry because the very, very high fines for
commercial fishing violations are used as the primary deterrent.
Occasionally fishing privileges are revoked and thus the compact
could encompass that, but it deals much more often with hunting
and sport fishing, he said.
1:42:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2 in HB 267, [line 19,
subsection] (g), which provides that a person who is cited for a
wildlife violation in a state other than the person's home state
must post a collateral or a bond or could be arrested. He then
referred to page 3 of the bill, line 16, [subsection (c)] which
provides that the compact would allow a violator to accept a
wildlife citation and then proceed on the person's way. He
asked whether this restricts the Department of Public Safety's
ability to make a high dollar fine or to arrest or detain the
violator.
MR. CAIN understood the wildlife troopers would still have the
option in very high gravity situations to arrest the person and
require the posting of a bond or bail in order to be released.
He said he does not view this as tying the troopers' hands and
requiring the release of violators.
KEVIN SAXBY, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Natural
Resources Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of
Law, stated that he has been working with the Alaska Board of
Game for about 16 years. He specified:
If folks look ... under the procedures for the issuing
state under part A ... it says the wildlife officer
may not require the person to post collateral to
secure that person's appearance subject to the
exceptions set forth ... down there in B if the
officer receives the person's personal recognizance
that the person will comply with the terms of the
citation. And then B just sets forth two criteria ...
that must be met in order for personal recognizance to
be allowed. So, I think that it probably is the case
that in most cases we could not require a person to
post a bond if they are a ... resident of a party
state.
1:45:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON supported the compact idea, but said he
would like to look into this in more detail because commercial
fishing violations could be problematic if the posting of a bond
cannot be required.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON agreed with Representative Seaton's concern
about being forced to let someone go. He said the House Finance
Committee will look at this as well.
MR. CAIN addressed Representative Seaton's concern. He said
that, normally, in serious commercial fishing cases the
Department of Public Safety releases the skipper, but the
vessel, all the fishing gear, and the catch are placed under
seizure and this is usually what compels the skipper to take
care of the citation. In the few occasions where the skipper
was arrested, it was for other criminal violations other than
just the fishing violation.
1:47:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether Mr. Saxby was
involved in the drafting of HB 267.
MR. SAXBY answered he was not.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said it concerns him that the language
of the compact appears to be boilerplate and does not conform to
Alaska's drafting procedures, and that Alaska's statutes may not
have definitions for some of the terms that are used. He said
he supports what is being done, but that it needs to be
tightened to be consistent with statute.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON reported that HB 267 was drafted by Legislative
Legal and Research Services.
MS. OSTNES explained it is boilerplate because all the states
have the same language, minus Section 2 which deals with state
procedure for Alaska. Once it becomes statute, those
definitions become the definition for Alaska's statutes.
1:50:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG responded that this does not explain
it and raises more questions for him.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said her understanding of agreements
across borders is that the home state that originally initiated
this has contractual language that is offered to other states.
Alaska accepts the language and has its recourse in Section 2
that says it will be measured against Alaska law before someone
is actually prohibited from hunting in the state. She
understood that Alaska must accept the language of the compact
itself and that Alaska does not have to define it because Alaska
goes into the definitions in its own judicial process as each
violator is taken to task under Alaska's regime.
1:52:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that problems with the due process
clause have come up with regard to a bill that is currently
being worked on that deals with convictions in other states and
whether people convicted in other states can receive a Permanent
Fund Dividend. He asked Mr. Saxby to address how the compact
changes this situation with due process.
MR. SAXBY stated that Representative Fairclough is correct.
Section 2 of the bill [page 10, line 19,] requires that a
hearing with full due process be held before any revocation can
occur in Alaska based on revocations in other states.
1:53:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether there should be a
fiscal note.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON replied that it is not this committee's duty to
prepare fiscal notes and that every department has been asked to
respond but no responses have been received. There is a House
Finance Committee referral in which that can be dealt with.
1:53:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether the database is
available to states that are not admitted into the compact.
MS. OSTNES answered no.
CAPTAIN WALDRON stated that the database is not available to
Alaska at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether there is a way without
joining another compact that Alaska could just administratively
revoke a person who is a wildlife violator in another state.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said it would be an option if Alaska had that
information.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked if there was any other way to get
that information outside of this wildlife compact.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON replied not without a fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said that according to this bill a
fiscal note is not needed.
1:55:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON related an incident where a fish tender
from Seattle hired people from her district and then did not pay
them. The tender went back to Seattle, changed to a different
limited liability corporation (LLC), and then came back to
Alaska under a different name and there was nothing that could
be done. Would this compact work in an instance like that, she
inquired.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON answered that the compact would have applied
had the tender violated a game law for which it was cited, but
the compact would have no relation to a labor law violation.
MR. CAIN agreed with Co-Chair Johnson.
1:58:00 PM
CAPTAIN WALDRON stated that the Department of Public Safety and
the Division of Alaska Wildlife Troopers fully support HB 267.
It will be an outstanding tool to put in the toolboxes of all of
the state's wildlife enforcement troopers, he said. The bill
would have been helpful this past year when a serious multi-
state poacher from Oregon, a compact state, took two illegal
Dall sheep, a caribou, and possibly a moose. Alaska had a
$10,000 arrest warrant for this individual, he said, but there
were no teeth to Alaska's laws to enforce that.
CAPTAIN WALDRON told about a nonresident assistant guide who was
committing serious violations under the tutelage of a resident
big game guide. Because that assistant guide was from Georgia,
troopers were forced to arrest him before he fled the state and
there would be no means to prosecute him in the future if he
chose not to return to Alaska. However, this man's boss did not
get arrested because there was no flight risk.
CAPTAIN WALDRON explained that arresting someone in the field is
a huge, time consuming ordeal for wildlife troopers. It
typically involves flying the violator from the field to a local
magistrate. This is often on weekends or late at night and
requires calling the magistrate at their home to schedule an
emergency hearing for arraignment. Many of these cases involve
honest citizens who have made an honest mistake and they suffer
more serious consequences than a resident counterpart would.
With this compact, wildlife troopers could instead issue a
summons to appear in court in Alaska in the future and the
violator could return home. If the violator chose not to return
in the future, then his or her license could be revoked in 26
states through a due process hearing. This is a huge deterrent
for most people, he said.
2:01:36 PM
CAPTAIN WALDRON responded to Representative Seaton's earlier
question as to whether Alaska's arrest authority would be
diminished or taken away. He directed attention to the
compact's Administrator's Manual located under the sixth tab in
the committee packet. He cited Section III Procedural Matters,
II. Release on Personal Recognizance, B. Types of Violations Not
Covered, item 4, which states, "Any violation that the issuing
officer deems serious enough to arrest a resident violator."
CAPTAIN WALDRON referred to Representative Wilson's comment
about the number of violators going down because of poachers
knowing where they can and cannot go. He said he has personally
received calls from out-of-state people asking whether Alaska is
a member of the Wildlife Violator Compact.
2:03:54 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON requested Captain Waldron to relay the story
about a person in Wasilla.
CAPTAIN WALDRON noted that this was the person responsible for
the two Dall sheep, a caribou, and possibly a moose that he had
mentioned earlier. This violator fled to Washington, he said,
and the investigative unit of the Alaska Wildlife Troopers flew
to the violator's out-of-state residence to serve a search
warrant to gain the evidence to convict him in Alaska. During
that search warrant, drugs, a stolen automobile, and other
felonious activity were discovered, resulting in the violator
being arrested by the state of Washington on drug and wildlife
charges. This individual was bailed out of Washington and then
came to Alaska where he figured he would be in less trouble
than he was in his home state of Washington. This person was
just arrested a few weeks ago in Alaska, said Captain Waldron,
but this person was still eligible to get an Alaska hunting
license if he had so chosen. If Alaska had been a member of the
compact, this individual would have been revoked because of
failing to appear.
2:06:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether wildlife violations
would be available online through the Alaska Public Safety
Information Network (APSIN).
CAPTAIN WALDRON replied that this information would not be
available through APSIN. Sometimes wildlife troopers check out
over 100 people a day in the field, he said. The name of each
person would have to be written down and then troopers would
have to contact the licensing agency in each individual person's
home state to determine whether that person was eligible for a
license in that state. In further response to Representative
Kawasaki, Captain Waldron explained that under current law in
Alaska, a person who is not eligible for a license in another
state is not eligible in Alaska. In some ways that is a small
part of the compact, he said, but the data is not readily
available to Alaska in the manner being asked about, troopers
would have to follow up with a telephone call to each person's
state.
2:07:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether there is any screening
process when a nonresident applies for a hunting license. In
response to Co-Chair Johnson, Representative Kawasaki said he
provided his driver's license and social security numbers when
he applied for a hunting license.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he thought the answer is no.
CAPTAIN WALDRON responded that the answer is no, there is no
national database that keeps track of sportfishing and hunting
licenses other than the Wildlife Violator Compact.
2:07:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether officials in other states
can be contacted on weekends.
CAPTAIN WALDRON answered no. Additionally, troopers must deal
with the large difference in time zones and officials are not
available after regular hours in those time zones.
2:08:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it seems that under the provisions of
the bill a nonresident person could only be detained if his or
her violation is of a magnitude that would be considered an
arrestable offense for a resident. He inquired whether it is
the bill that is being passed or the guidelines that are being
passed because the bill would allow a violator to accept a
citation and go on his or her way without delay.
CAPTAIN WALDRON clarified that there is a difference between
detaining and arresting. Arresting is taking someone to jail
and bringing that person before a court officer. Detaining can
be as simple as talking to a person long enough to obtain the
information to fill out a citation. Under the compact, he
explained, residents and nonresidents are treated the same -
troopers can arrest a resident or nonresident if he or she
refuses to agree to the terms of the citation or if the
violation is severe enough to warrant arrest. Additionally, he
said, the compact differentiates between posting collateral as
provided on page 2 of the bill, [lines 19-25]....
2:13:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned to the standpoint of fisheries
violations. He said it is very unclear to him regarding the
provision that Alaska could detain or require the posting of
bond or confiscate the catch of a nonresident when the bill
provides that the violator may continue immediately on his or
her way if he or she agrees to comply with the terms of the
citation. Our state is unique with the commercial fisheries and
the way those laws are enforced, he stated, and this must be
clarified in the bill.
MR. SAXBY explained that when he was previously talking about
the collateral or the bond requirement, he was not intending to
suggest in any way that the power to arrest had been affected by
this. Those are two different things, he said. If the troopers
decide not to arrest someone, then that is when this language
kicks in about not being able to require the person to post
collateral. In his opinion, he said, the troopers would still
have all the powers to arrest that they would have had without
this compact.
2:15:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether the following language
would be enough clarification to get beyond the commercial
fishing problem that has been identified: on page 3 of the
bill, subsection (c), after line 19, insert, "however nothing in
this paragraph prevents the state from requiring bonds,
confiscation of equipment, or similar restraints as deemed
necessary in commercial fishing cases."
MR. SAXBY pointed out that when a vessel is seized, or the
contents of a vessel are seized, the action is brought against
the vessel itself. The vessel is actually treated like a person
as the complaint is essentially filed against the vessel or the
catch. It is not necessarily a worry that the vessel could not
be reached, he said, because that is not the same as requiring a
person to post collateral in order for the person to leave the
state. But, he said, some clarifying language like that might
be worth looking into.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON stated that there is one cleanup amendment that
will need to be done and that he has no problem with also making
Representative Seaton's clarification.
2:16:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether it is Co-Chair Johnson's
intent to move HB 267 out today.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said it is his intent.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked why the hurry.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said it is a 90 day session and he wants to
move the bill quickly. But, he continued, he would not force it
on the committee if something comes up that cannot be fixed
today.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that it is a good bill he will
probably support along the way, but that he would like to learn
more because the questions being asked about the implications
have not been answered.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he would like to get the bill to the House
Finance Committee before that committee gets even busier with
the budget issue.
2:18:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI shared Representative Edgmon's concerns.
He expressed his surprise at seeing no referral to the House
Judiciary Standing Committee since most of the questions have
been legal in nature, yet there is a House Finance Committee
referral with two zero fiscal notes.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said his concern about the bill going to the
House Judiciary Standing Committee is picking up that fiscal
note and having to go through a third committee. He said he
will not force the bill on the committee and will entertain
suggestions from committee members.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON opened the hearing to public testimony.
2:19:54 PM
ROBERT FITHIAN, Executive Director, Alaska Professional Hunters
Association (APHA), supported HB 267, and the continued
formation of this compact group. He said the Alaska
Professional Hunters Association has a similar policy regarding
its membership. Every applicant for membership as a
professional guide must sign a statement that says he or she has
no pending hunting or guiding charges or convictions in Alaska,
any other state, or any other country. He noted that his
organization has had difficulty finding historical data to
support membership statements by applicants. He requested that
two concerns be addressed, one relating to the protection of
innocent parties and one relating to federal law. He provided
an example of an innocent party where the hunter's bullet
travels through one animal and strikes a second animal. In
Alaska, if that hunter follows the letter of the law and turns
the second animal in, that is considered an act of guilt and
more times than not the hunter is cited. Once the hunter leaves
the state, he said, it is much easier to plead guilty and pay
the fine than to come back to Alaska and prove innocence. He
explained that a federal issue that continuously pops up within
the professional guide industry is that federal hunting,
fishing, and guiding violations do not always show up in the
state records. Oftentimes in Alaska, people with federal
convictions are able to get their professional guide license
because the information was not intercepted through the
application process.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he shares these same concerns. After
ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, he left the
public testimony open to allow additional testimony at a later
time or date. He returned to further committee discussion of
the bill.
2:24:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved Conceptual Amendment 1 as follows:
Page 3, line 19 insert:
"However, nothing in this paragraph prevents the
state from requiring bonds, confiscation of equipment
or similar restraints as determined necessary in
commercial fishing cases."
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected for purposes of discussion.
2:25:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what happens if the committee
amends the compact and it is inconsistent with the larger issue
of the compact.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON responded that it is not the compact that is
being amended. He said he agrees with the conceptual amendment
as clarifying language, but it is unnecessary because the state
is not giving up the right to do this in the first place.
MR. CAIN said this same concept also applies to very serious
hunting violations. More research is needed for clarification
on how other states apply this and how the manual applies, he
advised. He assumed the troopers would still have the authority
to seize a four-wheeler or other equipment used in a serious
wanton waste case.
2:26:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON inquired whether "in Alaska" needs to be
put at the end of the statement.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said his intent is that it is for
violations in the state of Alaska and Legislative Legal and
Research Services would put that in there if it is necessary.
He said he does not oppose expanding this to the hunting arena.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said the comment was from ADF&G so he is unsure
what Legislative Legal and Research Services would have to say
about it.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that Legislative Legal and
Research Services is saying that Alaska cannot force someone to
post collateral unless it is the type of situation in which a
resident would be arrested. If it is a nonresident commercial
fisherman, he said he has some disagreement with treating the
vessel as a person because the catch is owned by the permit
holder not the vessel.
2:29:42 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said that is discussion for another bill at
another time and that he thinks this amendment solves the
immediate problem for this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment
1. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was
passed.
2:30:06 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved Amendment 2 as follows:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "resident"
Page 10, line 22:
Delete "who is a resident"
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES objected.
2:30:40 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON explained that the residency requirement for a
fish and game license is 12 months. Thus, there is a limbo
period for a resident that could be a potential problem and this
is why the word resident needs to be removed from the language.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH removed her objection.
2:32:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he had interpreted page 1, line 5,
differently, and thought it was referring to when a person
applied for a resident's license in another state, not in the
state of Alaska.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON responded that a person may not be an Alaska
resident because he or she has not lived here 12 months and this
leaves a window where the person may have a nonresident license
but is planning on staying in Alaska. By taking out the word
resident, it makes it be a violator from any place.
2:33:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that someone with a revocation
in another state cannot get a resident or a nonresident license
in Alaska.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said that if HB 267 is enacted, a person would
not be allowed to do that. Amendment 2 is for resolving that 12
month time period during which someone who has moved to Alaska
is still considered a nonresident for purposes of purchasing a
hunting and fishing license. He said that if the person
violates during this time period and the word resident is left
in here, there is a potential loophole because the person was
not a resident and Alaska might not be able to revoke his or her
license in the other states. This is at the request of the
Department of Law, he said.
2:34:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH again removed her objection to
Amendment 2.
[The objections of Representatives Edgmon and Roses were
considered as being removed]. There being no further
objections, Amendment 2 was passed.
2:34:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH noted that this is similar to an LLC
in that Alaska does not have the ability to change the compact
language. There is an existing system that Alaska can become a
member of that could help increase the protection of wildlife in
Alaska, and wildlife is defined inside the compact and inside
Alaska state statute. The committee is passing a bill that
brings Alaska into a partnership that the compact has already
outlined, she explained. Alaska is protected inside of that
compact outline inside of the statute. She pointed out that
Article IX, page 9, line 31, of the bill provides that every
compact member must agree to any change, thus the compact cannot
be changed without Alaska's agreement. Representative
Fairclough said she believes the reason why the bill is not
going to the House Judiciary Standing Committee is because this
is like joining an already existing LLC. This is saying that
Alaska accepts the rules, but is retaining its own sovereignty
as a state. In every case, a violator would be judged inside of
Alaska's court system and judicial law. She said she is ready
to advance the bill forward but, like the chair, does not want
others to feel uncomfortable.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he is not opposed to moving the bill
forward because the questions can be answered, but that he will
not force it.
2:37:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recognized the load on the House Finance
Committee with the 90 day session and suggested that the best
place for making changes is in the House Resources Standing
Committee.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON agreed. He said he will not move the bill
today, but that he would like to advance it at the committee's
next meeting. He reiterated Mr. Cain's statement of having
waited 10 years for this to be done and related that it is
supported by the Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries and
other user groups.
2:39:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said it would be helpful to her to
hear of the actual experiences from other states in the compact.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he will make some phone calls.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said he would also like to hear from
other states about their experiences.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he is open to suggestion as to which state
he should contact.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES supported the concept of the bill, but said
he had concern over the legal aspects and states rights.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he will line up the appropriate people to
testify and answer questions. He requested committee members to
get their questions to him as soon as possible.
2:42:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH requested that the protection of
innocent parties be addressed. She said she thought it would be
difficult to address the concern about the federal level since
this is not something already merged within the compact and she
did not know if there is a centralized spot at a federal level
that could be brought into the compact.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he did not know if the state could assist
the Alaska Professional Hunters Association in dealing with its
trouble regarding federal offenses, but chances are that those
violators would have state records that could be discovered
through compact membership.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said she wanted it known that the
person's concern had been heard, but that she did not know how
it could be addressed inside the law when it would take a
federal move to be able to get it incorporated.
2:43:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired what the process would be for
violations of state regulations on federal lands.
CAPTAIN WALDRON explained that federal lands are joint state and
federal jurisdiction, so it depends on which agency prosecutes
the violator as to whether it is a state violation or federal
violation or both. The federal government is less anxious to
join the compact, he said, because when the federal government
revokes a license it is revoked in all 50 states regardless of
whether there is or is not a compact. The issue is getting that
data to the 50 states - it is not entered into any state
database, such as APSIN, and it is not entered into the National
Crime Information Center (NCIC). The convictions and license
revocations may be there on a federal level but that information
is not known by the Division of Wildlife Troopers.
2:46:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether there is a federal
hunting or fishing license since it is the state hunting license
that would be revoked.
CAPTAIN WALDRON said that is correct. The federal government
does not issue any kind of hunting or fishing or commercial
fishing licenses in Alaska.
2:46:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that maybe the issue is academic
regarding a guiding license as far as this bill is concerned.
He surmised that military personnel need a state license to hunt
or fish on military reservations.
CAPTAIN WALDRON responded that people would be hunting or
fishing on state licenses. He said most, but not all, of the
Department of Defense wildlife enforcement officers have limited
state commissions to enforce state laws on the military bases.
2:47:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether HB 267 deals with both the
suspension and revocation of licenses.
CAPTAIN WALDRON replied that the bill only addresses
revocations.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired what the proportionality is
between the numbers of state licenses that are suspended versus
revoked.
CAPTAIN WALDRON answered that in every case in which he has been
involved and in every case he is aware of, a person's hunting
privileges have never been suspended, they have always been
revoked.
[HB 267 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:48 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|