Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
01/29/2018 01:30 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB129 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 129-FISH & GAME: OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES
1:34:07 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 129, "An Act relating to sport fishing, hunting,
or trapping licenses, tags, or permits; relating to penalties
for certain sport fishing, hunting, and trapping license
violations; relating to restrictions on the issuance of sport
fishing, hunting, and trapping licenses; creating violations and
amending fines and restitution for certain fish and game
offenses; creating an exemption from payment of restitution for
certain unlawful takings of big game animals; relating to
commercial fishing violations; allowing lost federal matching
funds from the Pittman - Robertson, Dingell - Johnson/Wallop -
Breaux programs to be included in an order of restitution;
adding a definition of 'electronic form'; and providing for an
effective date."
1:34:46 PM
MAJOR BERNARD CHASTAIN, Deputy Director, Division of Alaska
Wildlife Troopers, Department of Public Safety, turned to
Section 1 of the sectional analysis, and explained that the
primary focus of HB 129 is four main points: First, it allows
the person who receives a citation for not having the
appropriate sport fishing, hunting, or trapping license in their
immediate possession to present those licenses to the Department
of Public Safety (DPS) because it could be a correctable
citation. Second, it becomes unlawful for a person to obtain a
sport fishing, hunting, or trapping license if the person's
rights to engage in those activities had been revoked or
suspended in Alaska. Third, it increases the restitution
amounts for unlawfully taken big game animals, and it increases
strict liability commercial fishing fines for first, second, and
third offenses. Fourth, it creates the option of charging for a
violation or misdemeanor offense for most statutes contained
under AS 16.05 and 10.10. He explained that this clarifies the
proper documentation a person must have on their person when
engaging in certain activities, and it reorders the activities
of trapping and fur dealings to exclude the latter from being a
correctable citation. This legislation, he advised, "reorders
some of these so that the first three are sport activities, and
4 and 5 are considered commercial activities." This is
important, and it is contained in Section 3 of the bill, he
pointed out.
1:37:07 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN advised that Section 2 is amended, and it
actually includes the words "this or another state." In the
event a person is revoked or suspended from hunting, fishing, or
trapping in Alaska, the person is revoked or suspended to hunt,
fish, or trap in another state, territory, or country and vice
versa. However, it does not include "this or another state."
He explained, "So, actually including Alaska as one of those
options, so if you're suspended in Alaska, you are also
prohibited from purchasing a license here in Alaska."
1:37:38 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN explained that Section 3 creates a correctable
violation. He explained [AS 16.05.330(f)] to mean that if a
person is charged with violating this section for failure to
have a license in their actual possession. The person will not
be convicted if they produce in the office of the arresting or
citing agency no later than 30-days after the issuance of a
citation, a license previously issued to the person that was
valid at the time of the offense. He related that this is
similar to correctable citations for vehicle insurance and other
types of situations.
MAJOR CHASTAIN explained that [AS 16.05.330(g)] read that a
license in actual possession may be in paper or electronic form
because the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (DF&G) desires to
create a situation where electronic licenses are allowed, and it
will develop that process and put it forward.
MAJOR CHASTAIN explained that [AS 16.05.330(h)] specifically
states any peace officer presented with an electronic device
under (g) of this section shall be immune from any liability
resulting from damage to the device.
1:39:44 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN explained that Sections 4-5 are the first
sections that reorder and align penalties in Title 16. He
advised that, "Throughout this bill, I'm going to talk about
what that means. And, whenever I talk about reordering and
aligning the penalties, it means this same thing." He advised
that under Title 16, there are a variety of different types of
misdemeanor offenses and this bill attempts to align those
offenses with AS 12.55 as a class A misdemeanor. In the event
AS 12.55 changes, or the legislatures chooses to change the
penalties associated with a class A misdemeanor, those will also
change according to whatever changes take place under AS 12.55.
MAJOR CHASTAIN offered that this bill allows prosecutors to
charge offenses as a violation in the event that is more
appropriate. It creates two separate categories of crimes under
5 AAC and Title 16, a misdemeanor or a violation offense
depending upon the seriousness of the offense, which offers more
tools to prosecutors when determining the appropriate charge.
1:41:32 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN advised that Section 6 raises the strict
liability commercial fishing offense fines from the amounts
established in 1988. These fines are given to a convicted
defendant, and these are the maximum fines allowed under that
penalty for that offense. Under current law, he pointed out,
there is a maximum of $3,000 for a first offense; a maximum of
$6,000 for a second offense; and a maximum of $9,000 for third
or subsequent convictions. These fines are increased
accordingly, he explained, and they primarily represent
inflation changes from 1988 dollars to 2016 dollars. Strict
liability commercial fishing violations are not criminal
offenses, and they are considered violations with a higher
dollar amount, he said.
1:42:43 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN advised that Section 7 amends AS 16.05.722 by
adding a new subsection requiring a court system to transmit
notice of all of the convictions under this section to the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC). Similar to
driver's licenses, commercial fishermen are applied points to
their licenses. When a person is convicted of certain
commercial fishing offenses it is important that those points
are applied to that license, and that the commercial fishing
convictions are conveyed to the agency responsible for keeping
track of the total points applied to an individual, he said.
1:43:16 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN advised that Sections 8-16 align the offenses
within Title 16. Sections 8-16 remove unclassified and
different types of misdemeanors, aligns them all with class A
misdemeanors, and creates a separate section for violations to
be charged under those sections.
MAJOR CHASTAIN advised that Section 17(b) provides for
restitution amounts; these amounts are put in place when a
person is convicted by a court of law for illegally taking an
animal. In the event the animal is taken illegally, the court
may impose restitution in addition to the fines or penalties
associated by the court. He explained that in 1984, these were
put in place primarily because the animals and fish belong to
Alaskans collectively, and when someone takes an animal or fish
illegally, the victim is the state. The restitution amounts
listed attempt to make the state whole for the value of the
resource taken illegally, and some animals reflect an increase
in fines due to the inflationary rate from the 1984 dollars to
today's dollars, or they reflect changes made in previous
committees, he explained.
1:45:19 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN advised that Section 18 adds a new subsection and
he paraphrased as follows: "a defendant may not be ordered to
pay restitution under (b) of this section if the defendant
voluntarily turns themselves in to law enforcement." He advised
that several hundred people each year turn themselves in because
they killed an animal that they believed was legal at the time
yet turned out to be illegal. Under this section and in that
circumstances, he said, if all of the meat is salvaged, and they
turned themselves into the state troopers and are charged with a
violation offense, the court may not impose restitution.
Thereby, he related, it offers an incentive for the person to
actually turn themselves in rather than leaving an animal in the
field to waste.
1:46:13 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN advised that Section 19 defines the "electronic
form" as it pertains to Section 3 under AS 16.05.330(g), wherein
the electronic form provides for a display of images on an
electronic device, such as a mobile telephone, tablet, or
computer.
MAJOR CHASTAIN advised that Sections 21-26 change the penalties
associated in Title 16, and it aligns those penalties
accordingly.
MAJOR CHASTAIN advised that Section 27 is amended by adding a
new subsection, and it aligns penalties under AS 16.10.130.
Sections 28-29 are amended by adding a new section for the
applicability and the effective date of the act.
1:47:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to electronic licenses and asked
whether the process would be that folks take a picture of their
license and keep it on their phones, or whether the person would
receive an electronic license from the Department of Fish &
Game.
MAJOR CHASTAIN said that whatever format the Department of Fish
& Game (ADF&G) decides is appropriate for licensing will also
work for the enforcement side. He noted that there are pieces
of licensing that requires recording items on licenses, such as
a king salmon tag or the harvest tickets on the back of the
license itself. There must be a process in place to make sure
those are represented in an electronic format. There have been
recent discussions with the Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) as
to how that might look, but it requires ADF&G to develop the
process first, "before that is something that is acceptable," he
said.
1:48:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT noted that currently, subsequent to
receiving her king salmon tag she is required to write where the
king salmon was harvested and the date. She asked whether there
would be an electronic submission for that information or would
it still be on the honor system as to the location she lands her
king salmon, noting that that is why the picture would seem to
be more accurate.
MAJOR CHASTAIN reiterated that he could only answer as to
enforcement purposes, and his division will enforce whatever is
the appropriate license type the Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G) says is "okay to present."
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT commented that perhaps that could be a
friendly amendment to include at some point.
1:49:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Section 17, noting two
zero fiscal notes, and questioned that with the increases in
restitution it would seem that this bill would have a positive
fiscal note.
MAJOR CHASTAIN advised that this money would be an increase to
the state and go into the general fund, there is no fiscal note
to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) as it will not receive
any money from the increases in restitution.
1:50:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Major Chastain what the
projected increase from restitutions to the general fund is
expected to be and offered that he could provide that answer at
a later date. The percentage increases in restitution amounts
for the different game animals vary so it is not a straight
inflationary adjustment, he pointed out. He then asked Major
Chastain to speak to the rationale as why restitution for a
moose more than doubles, whereas a black bear increases 33
percent. Relatedly, he asked whether DPS would have objections
to language that may automatically inflation adjust these
restitution amounts going into the future.
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that as far as the restitution amounts
go from an enforcement standpoint, if the troopers are doing a
good job at enforcement, and part of that is education, the
state will have less animals taken illegally over time. It is
difficult to put a number on what the DPS thinks the increase of
restitution dollars would be because it varies from year-to-
year. He pointed out that it is the view of DPS that if it is
doing its job, it is preventing some of these violations from
occurring. As to the increase in restitution amounts, he said,
in the House Resources Standing Committee and the Senate
Resources Standing Committee there was a lot of discussion
about, "what is the value of these animals to the citizens of
the state." He noted that different legislators offered
different values depending upon the area the legislator
represents, the food source value to their community, and what
they believe the value would be for that animal in the area they
represent. He reiterated that the value itself changed for some
of those animals due to the amendments passed in the committees.
As to inflation proofing, he opined that inflation proofing
would be appropriate because the fines have not changed for
quite some time and putting some sort of inflation in there
keeps some sort of a standard in place.
1:53:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the information regarding restitution
dollars the state had received over the last ten years was
available, and whether those figures could be available for the
next hearing.
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that he was unsure how those
restitution dollars are organized, but he would perform research
and if the information was available, he would provide it to the
committee.
1:53:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Section 18 and described a
scenario where the DPS made contact with an individual who
advised that they were reporting the kill voluntarily. He asked
whether there is an assumption that because the hunter "did not
do it on their own" before the department contacted them that
they are guilty, or whether it is more the idea that "they said
they did it voluntarily, so we'll just take them at their word."
MAJOR CHASTAIN answered that the DPS deals with a wide variety
of those types of scenarios each year. The general belief is
that it requires a lot of fortitude on the part of the person
making the phone call when turning themselves into the state
troopers. That, he offered, is a tough call to make because
oftentimes people are ashamed of their mistake in having
committed that violation, but they want to do what is right for
that situation, and the DPS treats them accordingly. On the
other side, he commented, the DPS also deals with those people
who have no intention of turning themselves in until the DPS
catches them in the field with an illegal animal. Those people
then say, "I'm so glad you're here, I was just about to turn
myself in." The DPS investigates that situation as it would any
other crime, and if it has every reason to believe the person
was going to turn themselves in, the person would be treated
accordingly.
1:55:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Sections 10, 13, 14, 16, 21,
23, 25, and 27, noting that those sections stipulate that the
violations are strict liability, and asked that in the event
someone accidentally violated, why the state would still hold
them fully accountable.
MAJOR CHASTAIN noted that there is a lengthy answer to that
question and summarized that fish & game violations are unlike
many other violations because his division must be able to catch
people committing these violations, and many times no culpable
mental state is required. Certainly, under 5 AAC and a lot of
other regulations the Board of Fish and the Board of Game
create, the culpable mental state is simply negligence that the
person violated, similar to a speeding ticket. Therefore, under
Title 16, this would allow a prosecutor to decide whether it was
more appropriate to charge someone with a maximum of $500 fine
violation versus charging them with a misdemeanor offense. It
aligns that decision accordingly in statute with the penalties
under AS 12.55. He explained that it is defined as a violation
under AS 12.55, it is also defined as a class A misdemeanor as
defined under AS 12.55, as well.
1:57:46 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that to a large extent, the strict
liability nature of certain fish & game offenses is not a change
in the current law, it is the law today.
MAJOR CHASTAIN commented that Chair Claman was correct, in that
almost all fish & game violations under 5 AAC that are created
by the Board of Fish and the Board of Game, the standard is
strict liability.
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that this is not a bill in which there
would be a change in the standard, it is just changing some of
the penalties related to those violations.
MAJOR CHASTAIN clarified that HB 129 creates two different
categories of charging, wherein it creates an additional
charging scheme of strict liability in statute which does not
currently exist.
1:58:24 PM
AARON PETERSON, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special
Prosecutions, Criminal Division, Department of Law, responded
that all of the sections Representative Eastman referenced
create the ability to reduce offenses to violations that
currently, can only be charged as misdemeanors, (audio
difficulties) uniform throughout the bill. Currently, if the
Department of Law (DOL) receives a case that can only be charged
as a misdemeanor, which under Title 16 means there is a mental
state involved, the state has to prove that the mental state is
negligence as the major (audio difficulties). Sometimes, he
noted, the state troopers or DOL might believe it is
appropriate, given the circumstances, to reduce it to a strict
liability violation. Under Title 16, currently, several of the
offenses cannot be reduced, so this bill would remedy that
requirement and give the prosecutor the discretion to reduce the
offense to the lesser offense.
1:59:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN requested the rationale for creating the
strict liability component and the value of having strict
liability.
MR. PETERSON reiterated that it is dependent upon any
circumstance and whether it may be appropriate to have a lower
level charge. He pointed out that this is not necessarily a
proof problem to be remedied here, it is an attempt through the
legislature to give the DOL and the DPS the ability to have a
lower level charge for someone who may have made an honest
mistake but was still negligent. Yet, given the totality of the
circumstances, the appropriate resolution might be a strict
liability violation. This legislation, he explained, would give
prosecutors and the DPS the ability to either make that the
initial charging decision or the ultimate resolution of a case,
which is on a case-by-case basis, so it would just be another
tool.
2:01:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the fiscal notes, noting that
the increase in dollars for fines goes into the general fund so
the department does not have a fiscal note. She asked what
would happen if the amount of dollars for fines decreased and
less money went to the general fund, and whether there would
still be no fiscal notes. She further asked whether there is a
way of knowing when something goes into the general fund,
whether it will cost the state or benefit the state.
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that DPS is unique in this situation in
that it is squarely in the middle of the line here because it
does not receive any funding or any benefits from the increased
fines.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed that that was not a criticism of
DPS, she was simply trying to determine whether there was any
way this committee could know whether something would benefit
the state in terms of revenue or the opposite.
2:03:49 PM
BRUCE DALE, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation,
Department of Fish & Game, advised that he was unaware why that
would be a zero fiscal note and he would get back to the
committee with an answer.
2:04:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to Section 2 and asked about the
communications between states, and how they know whether
someone's license had been suspended or revoked.
MAJOR CHASTAIN advised that Alaska is part of the Inter-State
Wildlife Violators Compact, with approximately 38-39-member
states currently. There is reciprocity with all of those states
for suspended licenses, just like a driver's license, except not
all states belong to the compact. He offered that Alaska is one
of the few states with this statute on its books that discusses
suspension of licenses. Many other states do not have this
statute and they rely on the Inter-State Wildlife Violators
Compact as part of the reciprocity to determine whether a
license had been suspended or revoked. In the event someone is
suspended in one of the other member states, he advised that
that member state enters the license into the compact database,
and all of the states belonging to the compact have access to
that database.
2:05:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT offered a scenario where someone obtains
a resident fish & game license, but they also have one in
another state, and asked whether DPS has that same database.
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that the DPS has access to other
states, mainly through law enforcement, but it is not a database
similar to the Alaska Public Safety Information Network (APSIN)
or National Crime Information Center (NCIC) to determine that
information. The DPS does have access to Alaska's own database
to determine licensing through the Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G). Many times, he offered, investigating a residency
situation involves a law enforcement officer contacting that
other agency to ask them to run the person for licenses in that
state. The DPS will then receive certified documents from those
states regarding the person's licensing and then conducts its
investigation, he said.
2:06:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Section 2, and noted that existing law
is, "you are already looking for other states and this allows us
to look at Alaska, as well." He said he found it interesting
that the legislature was not doing that for purposes of Alaska
licenses.
2:06:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested asking the Department of
Revenue (DOR) to provide a fiscal note on HB 129.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that he had addressed that issue
earlier when he asked Major Chastain to obtain the figures on
the restitution the state has received over the last 10 years,
and that he hoped the figures would be available for the next
meeting.
2:07:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether it is a prima facia offense if
a person is caught in possession of more fish is allowable or is
in possession of an out-of-season animal. He asked whether it
is necessary to establish mental state because it is possession
alone as a prima facia offense.
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that the answer is "yes and no." Many
times, he said, there are other issues allowing someone to
possess that animal or fish, such as a proxy. There are also
"seasons that are out there" that are outside of normal seasons
or permits that allow people to sometimes possess game. He
explained that the DPS still has to establish whether the season
is, in fact, open or closed, and whether they have a legal
reason to have that animal. But, he remarked, if that is all
true, there is a regulation dealing with legal possession and
transportation, which deals primarily with the person simply
possessing the animal.
2:08:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP surmised that there is due process even on
prima facia offenses, and there could be justification in the
law that a person would otherwise be guilty "but for" a number
of things that can make it justified.
MAJOR CHASTAIN said that Representative Kopp was correct.
2:08:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to Section 8, dealing with taking
brown bears at landfills. He asked whether there was a
particular issue wherein the criminal negligence mental state
was removed. He pointed out that "is the one where if a person
is within 1/2 mile of a landfill," and "now we're just saying"
if you take a brown or grizzly bear period, the person is guilty
of the offense. He asked whether there was a surge in brown
bear taking near these solid waste disposal sites.
MAJOR CHASTAIN related that that section basically creates two
separate categories to charge: either under a class A
misdemeanor or a violation, the same as the other sections. He
noted that when that statute was put in place, it had to do with
brown bears being attracted to solid waste disposal sites.
Obviously, he said, when bears are attracted to a site they are
much easier to kill so people were hanging out at the dump
shooting brown bears, and the legislature at the time did not
want that happening.
2:10:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to Section 14, adding a new
subsection regarding a person "without any culpable mental
state," and noted that the section begins with "Intentionally,
but we're not removing that." He referred to AS 16.05.790 and
asked that Major Chastain talk the committee through that
involved section and subsections.
MAJOR CHASTAIN explained that AS 16.05.790 was put in place in
1991, and it primarily relates to obstructing someone's ability
to take or view game. He referred to Section 14, AS
16.05.790(g), which read as follows:
(g) A person who, without any culpable mental
state, violates this section is guilty of a violation
punishable as provided in AS 12.55.
MAJOR CHASTAIN explained that that is the same as what is being
done in other sections. Since, he commented, it already
includes that DPS could charge a person with a misdemeanor if it
was a serious violation, this creates a section in which the DPS
could charge the offense as a violation if it was determined to
not be as serious as a misdemeanor offense. This section is a
complicated requirement, he acknowledged, and certain things
have to be in place before the DPS can charge someone with that
offense. It says that it does not have to do with normal
competitive practices, such as two people going after the same
moose, and that certain things have to be in place in order to
be charged with this offense, he explained.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that there appears to be several
mental states in that same section, and it is a bit complicated.
He surmised that Major Chastain was saying that this gives an
option for the lowest level of violation to be charged if it
appears that a mental state is an issue that may not be able to
be established.
MAJOR CHASTAIN answered in the affirmative.
2:12:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN returned to Section 8, noting that the
bill creates two separate categories where a person could be
found guilty. He asked whether the strict liability option
being created distinguishes between the group using brown bears
as target practice close to a dump versus someone trying to
defend themselves from a bear attack. He asked whether that
strict liability still leaves open making that distinction or
whether it closes that off.
MAJOR CHASTAIN answered that there is a separate regulation
regarding defense of life and property, a person is legally
justified in defending themselves, another person, or their
property. In that situation, he advised, under the regulation
and the guidelines in that regulation, it is not prosecutable,
and the person is legally justified in defending themselves.
2:13:59 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Section 6 and the fines for the
commercial fishing violations. He pointed out that under AS
16.05.722(a)(1) and (2), the fines are double, except under AS
16.05.722(a)(3) the maximum fine was not double the prior
amount. He said that in his mind, third or subsequent
convictions would be more culpable than paragraphs (1) and (2)
offenders and asked why the paragraph (3) fine was not double.
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that paragraph (3) was added later than
the original statute. Wherein, he explained, the fine
associated with paragraph (3), $15,000 fine represents the 50
percent increase over the original statute that was put in
place. He noted that paragraphs (1) and (2) were first into
statute, and paragraph (3) was added sometime later.
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that the inflation adjustment calculated
that $15,000 was the inflation adjustment for when $9,000 became
the maximum.
MAJOR CHASTAIN answered in the affirmative.
2:15:24 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 129.
2:15:48 PM
NICK STEEN advised he was testifying on his own behalf because
he would like to see the permanent revocation of hunting and
fishing privileges for any individual convicted of a (audio
difficulties), and particularly, commercial operators making a
living off of the public's resources. He related that an
individual was convicted of fishing in closed waters, 25 miles
from the nearest open area, and asked why that person should
ever be allowed to commercially fish in Alaska again. He then
related the following incidents regarding hunting game: a game
guide was convicted of harvesting three brown bears in an area
in which he had a permit for just one bear; another guide buried
a harvested brown bear so his clients could harvest a larger
animal; and a guide was convicted of conducting hunts for non-
residents in an area closed to non-residential hunting. And
yet, "we as a state" are not opposed to removing a CDL license
for traffic violations or removing a medical license from
doctors who mis-prescribe barbiturates, and so forth. He asked
why the state does not remove these licenses (audio
difficulties) livelihood while flagrant violators (audio
difficulties) whether hunting or fishing, they are stealing
(audio difficulties.)
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Steen to send his
written comments to the committee due to audio difficulties.
MR. STEEN advised that he will forward his testimony to the
committee.
2:18:44 PM
MARK RICHARDS, Executive Director, Resident Hunters of Alaska,
related that the Resident Hunters of Alaska fully supports HB
129, and he thanked Governor Walker for introducing these
changes as the Resident Hunters of Alaska fully supports the
higher fees. He referred to Section 3, [AS 16.05.330(h), page
2, lines 25-26] regarding providing a license in an electronic
form and noted that it is similar to Representative Sadler's
recently introduced HB 260. Currently, he commented, a person
can apply on line for a hunting (audio difficulties) license,
pay online, receive a PDF file, and print their licenses at
home, which is "pretty much" available in an electronic form.
It was his belief that the department would not be able to
duplicate duck or salmon stamps, so the Resident Hunters of
Alaska view it "more as a redundant license" because the person
already has their duck and salmon stamps on their paper
licenses. Also, he added, a person will always have to carry a
harvest ticket in paper form because they have to cut out the
dates and months of the harvest immediately after harvesting.
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 129.
[HB 129 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB129 ver D 1.29.18.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB129 Transmittal Letter 1.29.18.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB129 ver D Sectional Analysis 1.29.18.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB129 Fiscal Note DPS-AWT 1.29.18.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/5/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB129 Fiscal Note DFG-CO 1.29.18.pdf |
HJUD 1/29/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 1/31/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 129 |