Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/29/2017 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): | |
| HB155 | |
| HB129 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 129-FISH & GAME: OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES
5:11:44 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the last 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."
5:12:50 PM
MAJOR BERNARD CHASTAIN, deputy director, Division of Alaska
Wildlife Troopers (AWT), Department of Public Safety, introduced
HB 129 [on behalf of Governor Walker]. Major Chastain said HB
129 accomplishes four primary goals. First, he explained, the
bill would allow for issuing a correctable citation to a person
who does not have the appropriate sport fishing, hunting, or
trapping license in his or her actual possession. This is
similar to [citations issued for] correctable headlights or
correctable vehicle insurance. Second, he said, the bill would
make it unlawful for a person to obtain a sport fishing,
hunting, or trapping license if that person has had his or her
rights to engage in those activities revoked or suspended in any
other state, and including Alaska. Third, he continued, the
bill would increase restitution amounts for unlawfully taking
big game animals and would increase strict liability commercial
fishing fines for first, second, and third offenses. Fourth, he
stated, the majority of the bill would standardize penalties
within Title 16 and would create an option for charging as a
class A misdemeanor, which most are already but this would also
give troopers an option for charging as a violation offense.
5:14:22 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN explained that section 1 of HB 129 would amend AS
16.05.330(a) to include the word "permit" in addition to
"license" and "tag" for purposes of clarifying the proper types
of documentation a person must have in his or her actual
possession. Thus, a person would have to have a permit,
license, and tag in his or her actual possession. Additionally,
section 1 would renumber [the activities listed in] 1 through 5.
They are renumbered, he said, because 1 and 2 are sport offenses
and 3, 4, and 5 are considered commercial activities.
MAJOR CHASTAIN stated that section 2 would amend AS 16.05.330(d)
to make it unlawful for a person to purchase a sport fishing,
hunting, or trapping license if his or her rights to engage in
those activities have been revoked or suspended in "this or"
another state. Current statute directs that a person who
applies for a sport fishing, hunting, or trapping license or
other permit or tag issued under this section, shall sign a
statement that his or her right to obtain or exercise a
privilege is not revoked or suspended in another state.
Surprisingly, he pointed out, this statute does not include
Alaska; adding the words "this or" makes the statute include
Alaska.
5:15:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE directed attention to the bill on page
2, line 7 which read:
(5) control of nuisance wild birds and nuisance wild
small mammals for compensation.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE said in villages, and sometimes in
Kotzebue, there are bird strikes with planes and he asked
whether this provision would make it illegal for a person to
scare off nuisance birds when someone else buys the shells for
this purpose, but does not compensate the person for scaring off
the birds.
MAJOR CHASTAIN replied the requirement states that a license or
permit is required in order to do that activity. While troopers
do not encounter this very often, there are folks who do that
around the state for compensation. There are businesses that do
this, he continued, and they must have that permit from the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG).
MAJOR CHASTAIN resumed his sectional analysis. He said section
3 would amend AS 16.05.330 by adding three subsections. The
first proposed new subsection would make it a correctable
offense by providing that a person charged with failing to have
the appropriate sport fishing, hunting, or trapping license in
his or her actual possession may not be convicted if no later
than 30 days after the issuance of the citation the person
produces a license previously issued to that individual that was
valid at the time of the offense. The official correctable
citation would be brought in to any office of the Division of
Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, within the
state, it would be signed off within 30 days, and it would not
go on the record. It would basically be considered a warning to
the person for not having a license [in actual possession], he
said. Licenses are sometimes forgotten at home or in a vehicle
and currently if an individual does not have a license on his or
her person troopers must decide whether the person actually does
have a license since people don't always tell the truth. A
correctable citation would make it much easier for the person
who does have a license and this person doesn't have to pay
anything.
5:18:30 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN explained that the second proposed new subsection
in section 3 would allow for actual possession to include
electronic form. At some point in the future, he related, ADFG
desires to have a system of electronic licensing and this
provision would allow a hunter, fisher, or trapper to decide
whether to carry his or her license electronically instead of in
paper format.
MAJOR CHASTAIN stated that the third proposed new subsection in
section 3 would hold the peace officer inspecting an electronic
license in the field immune from liability if damage occurs to
the device in the process of inspection. Hunting, fishing, and
trapping licenses are often inspected in adverse conditions
aboard boats in violent seas or while hands are contaminated
with fish or game parts in remote locations. If something
happens to the device in the short time that the peace officer
is inspecting the license, this subsection would hold the agency
immune, he continued. If this subsection is implemented, these
resource users will have the ability to carry their licenses in
either paper or electronic format.
MAJOR CHASTAIN related that section 4 would remove under AS
16.05.430, fish and game penalties, the specific fine of $1,000
and penalties associated with an unclassified misdemeanor, and
would replace it with a class A misdemeanor.
MAJOR CHASTAIN noted that onward from section 4 he is going to
lump together a number of sections because they all follow the
same pattern. Over the years within Title 16, he explained, a
series of penalties have been added by the legislature somewhat
piecemeal. Some of those penalties are less than a class A
misdemeanor, and some are more. The bill would align the
penalties to class A misdemeanors and point to Title 12, which
defines a misdemeanor. For lesser offenses, he said, the bill
would allow troopers to charge a violation offense, which is a
maximum [fine] of $500. In all the regulations created by the
Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries that govern hunting and
fishing, he continued, troopers are allowed to reduce crimes to
a violation offense. Troopers can decide through the district
attorney's office whether the violation is not as serious as a
misdemeanor, and instead charge it as a violation offense, which
is a reduced offense. In fact, a violation is not considered a
criminal offense and does not go on a person's criminal record,
he explained. It is basically a ticket that is paid like a
traffic ticket. Thus, the bill would align penalties as class A
misdemeanors, and create sections for violations to be charged.
5:21:15 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN noted section 5 relates to section 4. He said
section 5 would [amend AS 16.05.430 by adding two subsections]
and would create the ability to charge some of the offenses as
violations, as well as misdemeanors.
MAJOR CHASTAIN said section 6 [would amend AS 16.05.722(a) in
relation to fines for] strict liability commercial fishing
violations. Strict liability, he explained, means a person is
strictly liable for his or her offense regardless of the
culpable mental state. He posed an example involving a road
traffic situation: If a person is going 75 miles per hour in a
55 mile per hour zone, the police officer does not have to show
that the driver knew the speed limit was 55, and does not have
to show the driver knew his or her speed was 75. The police
officer only needs to show the driver was doing 75 miles per
hour. The driver is strictly liable for that offense and no
culpable mental state is required to prove that. The two types
of violations in commercial fishing, he stated, are strict
liability commercial fishing violations, which are not criminal
offenses, and class A misdemeanors.
MAJOR CHASTAIN said the [increased] fine amounts proposed in
section 6 for first-, second-, and third-time strict liability
commercial fishing offenses within a 10-year period are the
maximum amounts the court could impose if the commercial fisher
is found guilty. The current fine amounts were established in
1988 when the Alaska State Legislature enacted this section, he
pointed out. While the proposed amounts look like the fines
have gone up, it is actually an adjustment for inflation to 2016
dollars. The fines for first- and second-time offenses would go
up by 50 percent and the third-time offense, which was enacted
after 1988, would go up [less than 50 percent].
MAJOR CHASTAIN explained section 7 would amend [AS 16.05.722] by
adding a new subsection that would require the court to transmit
notice of all convictions under this section to the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC), which is the
keeper of commercial fishing points. Like with a driver's
license, he continued, a commercial fisher can get points on his
or her commercial licenses and if a certain amount of points are
accumulated on the license over a 10-year period of time, the
CFEC can revoke or suspend that person's commercial fishing
license. The points would be transferred with the conviction
and CFEC would then apply those points.
MAJOR CHASTAIN stated that sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, and 16 are all adjustments to class A misdemeanors and
violations; penalties within each section are adjusted and a
[subsection] for violations to be charged is created with each
section.
5:24:31 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON related that for a couple years he did Title
16 and Title 5 under [Alaska] Administrative Code prosecutions.
He said it seemed like there was frequently an opportunity to
charge something as a Title 5 violation instead of a Title 16
misdemeanor. He asked what the change is for offenses such as
failure to salvage and wanton waste.
MAJOR CHASTAIN requested confirmation that the aforementioned
question is about when [a trooper] decides that a violation is
appropriate or that a misdemeanor is appropriate.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON replied yes, and further asked whether that
discretion hasn't already been available where a trooper could
either charge as a criminal offense or as an infraction.
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that currently within the [Alaska
Administrative Code (AAC)], within the regulations the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game create, [troopers] do have the
ability to reduce to a violation. However, he explained,
[troopers] do not currently have that ability in Title 16 and,
if passed, HB 129 would provide that ability and would give
[troopers] two different charging options in Title 16.
MAJOR CHASTAIN returned to his sectional analysis. He said
section 17 proposes to amend [AS 16.05.925], penalty for
violations, to provide consistency in the penalties as provided
under AS 12.55. Drawing attention to the dollar figures for big
game animals included within this section, he noted that the
court could impose these restitution values when someone is
convicted and the case warrants applying restitution. These
animals belong to the state's citizens collectively, he said, so
when a big game animal is unlawfully taken it defrauds the state
and its citizens of the value of the animal. The values vary
greatly, he continued, depending on the species of the animal,
the location of the take, the social value of the animal, the
economic value of the animal, and the food source value to the
people of the state. In most cases it does not make the state
whole for the loss of the animal, he noted, but it helps repay
the state for the illegal take.
MAJOR CHASTAIN pointed out that the current restitution amounts
were enacted by the legislature in 1984 and have gone untouched
since then. He explained that a previous version of HB 129
submitted to the legislature in 2016 would have increased
restitution amounts by 50 percent from the base amounts in
statute. In that version, some of the restitution amounts were
changed in House and Senate committees and HB 129 reflects those
changes. Because the previous version died in the House last
year, the bill is being resubmitted this year [as HB 129]. Some
of the amounts have gone up more than 50 percent, he continued,
and represent the equivalent to 2016 dollars. [The restitution
amount for] moose, for instance, has gone from $1,000 to $2,500.
These are maximum amounts imposed at the discretion of a judge,
and in addition to any fines or penalties.
5:27:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked how the restitution valuations
were derived.
MAJOR CHASTAIN answered that the original determination was just
for inflation, which is about 50 percent more than the 1984
numbers, and those were the numbers originally submitted.
However, he continued, during the committee process in 2016,
amendments [were adopted] that changed those numbers to be
higher than what was originally submitted.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE observed that the bison restitution
figure in section 17 was inflated more than any of the others.
5:28:34 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN resumed his sectional analysis. He said section
18 would add a new subsection [to AS 16.05.925] that relates to
[AS 16.05.925(b)]. The new subsection, he explained, would
establish that a defendant may not be ordered to pay restitution
if the defendant takes an animal, realizes the animal is not
legal, and then voluntarily and immediately reports the unlawful
take of the animal to a state law enforcement officer or ADFG
and surrenders all salvaged portions of the animal, including
its horns, antlers, hide, and skull, as applicable. The person
would be charged with a violation of fact, would get a ticket
[costing] a couple hundred dollars, and would not be charged
with a misdemeanor, would not lose his or her hunting rifle, and
would not lose his or her hunting license or the equipment that
was used.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE observed that the bill on page 5, line
28, uses the word "may" rather than "will". He asked whether
this wording is used because it will be up to the purview of the
judge.
MAJOR CHASTAIN said the word "may" is directive to the court, so
the court may not [order a defendant to pay restitution under
(b) of this section].
5:30:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH posed a scenario in which an out-of-state
hunter unlawfully kills a bear without having bothered to get a
permit. He questioned whether this hunter could only be charged
with violations if he or she surrenders the salvaged portions of
the bear.
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that that is not entirely true; this is
only in the situation where the hunter has "immediately
notified" and doesn't have to do with permitting or licensing or
any of the rest of that. It is basically that if a person takes
a game animal that is not legal for that scenario. [In
Representative Parish's scenario] there would be additional
violations, such as no locking tag, no permit, no hunting
license, and none of the other things that are associated with
what the hunter must have. Plus, to take a brown bear a
nonresident hunter must also have a guide or be accompanied by
someone with a second degree of kindred [to the hunter].
5:31:46 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that this proposed
provision is just a way to mitigate the restitution portion.
MAJOR CHASTAIN answered correct and noted that Senator Coghill
added this provision last year. [The Alaska Wildlife Troopers
(AWT)] fully supports this provision, he said, and operates
under it to begin with. However, there is inconsistency within
the court system, he explained. [AWT] seeks to create a
situation where people turn themselves in and AWT doesn't want
to punish people for calling when they've made a mistake. This
section would allow AWT to deal with the situation of people
turning themselves in and then not having to worry about what
other penalties may come down the road from the court with
restitution.
5:32:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether calculations have been done
to determine the amount of restitution it would take to make the
state whole for the big game animals [listed in section 17].
MAJOR CHASTAIN replied that each big game animal means something
different to different people. For example, there is a dramatic
difference between what a moose means to someone relying on that
animal for subsistence, compared to what a moose means to
someone paying to come to Alaska to take the animal. Therefore,
he said, he does not have an answer.
5:33:28 PM
MAJOR CHASTAIN returned to his sectional analysis and addressed
section 19, which would [amend AS 16.05.940] by adding a
definition of "electronic form" as it pertains to section 3 of
the bill. Electronic form would mean the display of license
images on an electronic device such as a mobile telephone,
tablet, or computer that will satisfy the display of fishing and
hunting licenses. He reiterated that ADFG is working toward the
idea of being able to display things on a telephone or tablet.
However, he noted, there are still going to be times when the
actual paper form will still be necessary; for example, to
validate an actual tag, to record a king salmon on the back of a
license, and a number of other things that must be recorded.
MAJOR CHASTAIN stated that sections 20-27 would align penalties
for a class A misdemeanor and would provide that AST be able to
charge for violations for these types of offenses.
MAJOR CHASTAIN said section 28 would amend the uncodified law of
Alaska to make it clear that the Act applies to offenses
committed on or after the effective date of the Act.
MAJOR CHASTAIN concluded by relating that section 29 would
provide for an effective date of July 1, 2017.
5:34:59 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR, regarding the penalties provided in [sections 20-
27], asked why the language is more specific in making them
class A misdemeanors. She further asked whether the removal of
language related to imprisonment is because class A misdemeanors
cannot have jailtime associated with them.
MAJOR CHASTAIN recalled Senate Bill 91 [passed in the Twenty-
Ninth Alaska State Legislature] and the alignment of those
penalties. Continuing, he explained that Title 12 is the
definition of a misdemeanor, and therefore the language in the
aforementioned sections points everything to Title 12 as the
definition of a misdemeanor. Under Senate Bill 91, he said, a
class A misdemeanor went up to $25,000 and jailtime is
associated with it possibly. A whole bunch of things could
happen as a misdemeanor, but because these were separated out
and piecemealed, this language points it to Title 12 and says
this is what a misdemeanor is. As well, it allows for AST to
charge for violations.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked whether the previously mentioned
restitution issue that failed in the legislature was House Bill
137.
UNKNOWN SPEAKER replied no.
5:36:06 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR, in regard to the proposed restitution amounts,
inquired as to how frequently these types of infractions are
occurring. She further inquired whether there are other actions
that committee members should consider as a means to try to
limit how frequently these types of infractions occur.
MAJOR CHASTAIN replied that strict liability commercial fishing
violations are "the bread and butter for commercial fishing
violations around the state." The majority of these happen in
Bristol Bay, but they do happen all over the state. This is the
easiest way for the state to deal with a somewhat minor
infraction that happens in commercial fishing; but, if it is
thought to be a more serious offense, AWT has the ability to
charge a class A misdemeanor. Regarding how often, he said a
couple hundred per year occur in Bristol Bay and his guess for
statewide is around 500 commercial fishing violations a year.
About 150-200 self-reported violations are turned in each year
to AWT. A variety of other things are also enforced by AWT.
So, AWT does deal with this fairly frequently.
CO-CHAIR TARR, in regard to self-reporting of violations, asked
whether it is usually a mistaken estimation of the animal's size
that is realized after the animal has been shot.
MAJOR CHASTAIN confirmed the aforementioned is exactly right for
the majority of these violations. For example, the regulation
is 50 inches for moose antlers, but upon shooting the animal it
is found to be 45 inches, or the hunter may think the moose has
a certain number of brow tines or that it is a full-curl sheep,
but it is not. Also, he continued, AWT gets a fair number of
reports from hunters who thought it was a bull moose, but it was
actually a cow. [AWT] tries to handle these consistently, he
explained further, and offers appreciation to the hunters who
self-report because it takes a lot of intestinal fortitude to
call the troopers and say they made a mistake. [AWT] wants to
make sure these people are treated appropriately instead of
letting the meat go to waste in the field.
CO-CHAIR TARR inquired whether the fines associated with the
aforementioned are high enough to discourage that kind of
behavior. She surmised that having to turn over the salvaged
meat would be somewhat of a deterrent. She further inquired
whether any issues are seen in the guided-hunting community.
MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that taking apart a moose is a
substantial process and he thinks that the penalty is pretty
good of having to take the moose apart to salvage the meat,
taking the meat out of the field, keeping it clean, and bringing
it in to turn yourself in. The fines through the court are
typically around $300 for this offense, he said, which he thinks
is appropriate for this type of offense. Over the years AWT has
refined this process and people know they will get a citation,
they cannot keep the meat, the meat will go to a charity, and
that they cannot shoot another moose in the same year.
5:41:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH directed attention to the bill on page 6,
lines 1-2, which read:
(2) surrendered to the department all salvaged
portions of the animal, including its horns, antlers,
hide, and skull, as applicable.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether this language suggests that
failing to surrender portions of the animal that were not
salvaged is not a disqualifying characteristic.
MAJOR CHASTAIN understood Representative Parish to be asking
whether failure to bring out all those items would be a
disqualifier.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH surmised that under a very strict and
narrow reading of the aforementioned language, if a person
failed to salvage the meat they wouldn't be in trouble.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON stated that this may need an amendment and
will be looked at in further detail.
5:43:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO offered his understanding that when a
person makes a big mistake under section 18, that person could
still be charged with a violation, and will have to pay a small
penalty; it is just the restitution that the person wouldn't be
charged with. He opined there should be no free pass when an
animal is taken. Representative Talerico stated that he is a
hunter and "when you make that mistake you have to pay for it
because that will make you more careful the next time you put
your finger on the trigger."
MAJOR CHASTAIN confirmed the violation would remain in place and
that it is the restitution from the court that would be
prohibited.
[HB 129 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 129 02.14.17 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB 129 Sectional.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB0129 Fiscal Note DFG 2.15.17.PDF |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB0129A.PDF |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| Frederick (Fritz) Johnson_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| John Jensen 2016_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| Reed Morisky 2016_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| ASA Support - Jensen Morisky Johnson.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| Bristol Bay Borough Support - Johnson.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| CDFU Support - Jensen.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| Icicle Support - Jensen Johnson.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| KRSA Support - Jensen Morisky Johnson.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| ATA Support - Jensen.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| KPFA Support - Jensen Morisky Johnson.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| Unalaska Mayor Support - Jensen Morisky Johnson.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| USAG Support - Jensen.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
Board of Fish |
| HB0129 Fiscal Note DPS-AWT 3.29.17.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB155 Supporting Document-AFA Response to SEACC.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB155 Supporting Document - SWood 3.29.17.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB155 Supporting Document-AFA Response to SEACC 3.29.17.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB155 Opposing Document Testimony -- Larry Edwards for 29 March hearing on HB155 3.29.17.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB155 Supporting Document - Comment - CWood 3.29.17.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB155 Opposition Document - Letter of Comment-SEACC 3.29.17.pdf |
HRES 3/29/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |